Wikipedia

Talk:Cannabis/Archive 5

< Talk:Cannabis
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Simonapro in topic NPOV dispute: Species
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

NPOV and factual accuracy dispute: Species

Latest comment: 18 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

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:
  • "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 andUniversity 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.
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))

Proposed revision of first disputed statement

Article currently says

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].

I propose the following replacement

Four general types of Cannabis have been described (Small 1975) and variously classified as species, subspecies, or varieties:

  1. plants cultivated for drug uses, described as "high-intoxicant" or drug types
  2. wild or escaped forms of these plants
  3. plants cultivated for fiber and seed, described as "low intoxicant" or fiber types
  4. wild or escaped forms of these plants

Chondrite 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The content you dispute and the discussion for this is at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Failed_Verification . Since it has been verfied with using very many references using wikipedia cite style WP:CITE I don't see how you have a mandate to change it. (Simonapro 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

As noted in that section, content is not verified. Regardless of the style used, the sources cited say nothing like what the article says. The article misrepresents the sources. Chondrite 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Failed_Verification for quotes and citations which match the article statement. You have not refuted any of it there. In fact the last citation simple contradicted your unsourced POV. So it is verfied by process of multiple consistent citations. 4 in fact if not 5 citations refute you. (Simonapro 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Cited sources do not support the statement, which remains an unsourced and dubious claim. I plan to remove the statement from the article. Chondrite 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revision of second disputed statement

Article currently says

"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]"

I propose the following replacement

Breeders, seed companies, and cultivators of drug type Cannabis often describe the ancestry or gross phenotypic characteristics of cultivars by categorizing them as pure indica, mostly indica, indica/sativa, mostly sativa, or pure sativa.

Chondrite 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Drug type? The only cannabis that is not a drug type is the man made hemp version by Warmke who engineered it. It doesn't exist in the wild unless introduced through warmke's line or a very rare member of a population that didn't produce psychoactive cannabinoids. There are also genotypic reasons for these plants being classed as such by breeders and researches into such groups. However the change still somewhat matches the sources cited so I guess the change can be made if the citation is kept.(Simonapro 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Cannabis has been cultivated since the dawn of agriculture. Outside of India this has primarily been for non-drug uses (aka, hemp), until the 20th century. Non-drug varieties do produce psychoactive cannabinoids but at low concentrations and are generally regarded as "low intoxicant" types. This was the distinction that Lamarck was making when he recognized C. indica as a separate species: the specific epithet refers to India. Janischewsky's ruderalis is explicity a low intoxicant wild variety (see Ruderal). The so-called "feral hemp" that is very widespread in North America is a wild form of low intoxicant hemp, that is also ruderal ("ditch weed") and considered an invasive. Vavilov's kafiristanica is a high intoxicant wild variety. See also Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years. These distinctions are central to the debate that we are attempting to describe. Chondrite 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can WP:CITE that outside of India only non-drug cannabis was used. Also directly citing for non-drug varieties would be important. Regardless of the intoxicating effects, if it produces any intoxicating effects that it is not a non-drug variety. Sometimes they are some populations that produce a rare plant that has no intoxicating effects but the documentation for this is poor. To my knowledge Warmke was the first to develop a stable non-drug strain in the 20th century. Before that time, non-drug varities of cannabis did not exist. They are man made. (Simonapro 19:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC))


I did not say "outside of India only non-drug cannabis was used." I did say "Outside of India this has primarily been for non-drug uses (aka, hemp), until the 20th century." There is a difference.
"Non-drug" refers to the potential uses of the plant. Hemp and ruderal varieties have concentrations of psychoactive cannabinoids are so low as to be of little use in drug production. Which is why they are widely referred to as non-drug varieties in the literature, including in sources cited in this article. Here are a few pertinent items that came up on the first page of a google search for non-drug cannabis that returned 74,000 hits:
  • "Hemp is a non-drug form of Cannabis, as we know. It is necessary for us to assist law enforcement officials to recognize that hemp does differ from drug forms." [1]. Interestingly, this quote is from an author whose work concluded that some Cannabis landraces are non-drug biotypes, which recults are misrepresented (using the WP:CITE style) in an attempt to support this article's misuse of the term landrace.
  • "Researchers generally agree that marijuana falls into two categories: (1) drug types and (2) non-drug types" [2]
  • "Not distinguishing between the drug and non-drug varieties leads to the same credibility problems that anti-marijuana advocates have who do the same thing (and you play into the hands of anti-marijuana advocates). " [3]
  • " Although some individuals elaborate resin glands, they apparently produce little if any of the primary psychoactive cannabinoid THC, and the local landrace cannot be considered a drug variety. There is no local tradition of its use as either medicine or inebriant." [4] - This is a description of non-drug landrace varieties of Sativa that have been cultivated for more than 1000 years. The attempt has also been made to misrepresent this source to support the article's incorrect use of the term landrace.
Nevertheless, if the expressions "drug types" and "non-drug types" are objectionable, then they can be replaced with "high-intoxicant" and "low-intoxicant" (which is how Small and others describe them). The distinction "...cultivators of drug type Cannabis often describe..." is intended to convey the information that hemp is not described in this way.
As a side note, the suggestion that hemp is a modern invention or artificially engineered plant type is bizarre. The Clarke paper describing 1000-year-old non-drug landrace varieties of Cannabis also states that "Hemp cultivation in China dates back more than 5,000 years...." For more information see Hemp and also Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years.
Chondrite 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaking Cannabis in general being sometimes called Hemp in some papers with Warmke's creation of a non-drug Hemp cultivar. Just because it is called Hemp does not mean it is not psychoactive. Although Cannabis has been cultivated for 5,000 years etc., Warmke was the first to engineer a non-drug stable strain of cannabis. It is man-made. A non-drug stable population of cannabis did not exist before Warmke invented it. Of course Hemp did exist before him. Another thing is that high-intoxicant and low-intoxicant are relative terms. Not only will you have to cite for each case but you must establish that the population is stable in its production of high or low intoxicants.
It appears that we have a revised version of the statement that will meet consensus. I will replace the statement in the article with the revised version, giving Green (2005) Breeder's Bible as the source. Chondrite 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed statements removed

The disputed statements have been removed from the article or replaced with a consensus version. If there are no further disputes over factual accuracy, then the totally disputed section tag can be removed from the species section.

The article remains POV by giving undue weight to the multi-species classification of cannabis. This can be corrected by:

  1. modifying the taxobox to indicate 'Cannabis sativa L' at the species level, possibly also listing the widely accepted subspecies.
  2. modifying the text of the species section to state that the Small and Cronquist classification is currently the most widely accepted, but that this is not universally accepted, and that this is a subject of current research.

Chondrite 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Cannabis_Speciation_Dispute has a lot of information regarding speciation in cannabis. The discussion and article go at great length to point out the importance of not creating a POV on the issue but giving the reader all of the facts. If the taxobox is going to be modified then a new table in the box should read putative species for Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis because it is disputed. The Small and Croquist POV should be avoided. Again the reasearch is on the page. I don't see any need to create a one-sided POV that says this view gets more Google hits than this view. It should not be a football match and there is good evidence for speciation at the level of researching strain genotypes. This isn't just new research. It is actually viable and has been now for a long time. In fact many other species of plants and animals are being treated this same way right now. (Simonapro 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC))


Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight carefully. What you are saying is that you find certain arguments in the debate compelling. That's fine, but it's also personal POV and has no place in the article. What we need to do is, to the best of our ability, describe the nature of the debate and describe the current consensus among experts in the field regarding that debate. All evidence so far suggests that the single-species classification is overwhelmingly supported. No evidence suggests that any multi-species model is widely accepted. ITIS,APNI,GRIN,Plants.
When I first posted them I explicitly said that the google search results weren't very meaningful. The Entrez Pubmed search was to determine whether a lot of recent papers have come out in support of multi-species model, which might suggest that consensus might be changing, or at least provide some sources to chase down. But it showed that the vast majority of the recent peer-reviewed literature addressing Cannabis is still talking in terms of the single-species model. The results are not authoritative and not the basis for a statement in the article, but they sure don't undermine Small and Cronquist.
You may not agree with Small's politics but he is still one of the recognized authorities on the subject, and the Small and Cronquist classification is still the most widely accepted.
This article, and many other Cannabis-related articles represent (in the taxoboxes or in the text) that there are multiple species as a matter of fact, as if it were widely accepted, rather than just the opinion of (what seems to be) a very small minority of experts in the field. That does not serve the readers well, and damages our credibility among readers who are knowledgeable on the subject.
--Chondrite 08:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a POV. Cite sources using WP:CITE. (Simonapro 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
That section was not about dispute over speciation. It was about sources cited in the article that failed verification. Chondrite 08:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think my solution was really good. The article is clear. Ultimately the material will always contain substantial ingrained biases reflecting the age of the sources. The section could be divided to reflect old and modern sources in some way. I will ask this... since the edits have been made nobody has said that they don't understand it. I believe you are saying that the article does not express something that it should but I think it does. I think the work everybody put into it so far is reasonable and good and rational. Changes on the scale originally proposed where vast and for little reason other than wordy things or a POV on something like how many biologists agree with model X to model Y on speciation. Frankly I don't care if the dispute tags stay up on the article. Let it be disputed and I think the arguements for and against are expressed extremely well by the article as is.

Note: I changed the title of the dispute stuff to Cannabis Speciation Dispute in the discussion. I think it might warrent more attention that way. I hope I got all the links to it on this talk page. If there is a problem let me know but I think it is importat to highlight it a bit better because it is such an early and important topic. You can find it here at [5]. (Simonapro 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

There is a problem and I am letting you know. The section has nothing to do with a dispute over cannabis speciation. The section that you renamed is about how sources used in the article failed verification. Please change it back right away. Chondrite 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay fine. Thanks for your non-coperation on this one. I guess we will just have to get on with it the hard way. Why not just accept that there is no mandate to re-write the article based on the NPOV that cannabis has not speciation. Since we have speciation and the heading is species I don't think there is any room outside of altering the taxobox. Since you have not changed it I take it that you see there are many other wikipedia article that contradict your merger idea. Note below that there are already complaints that the article is no longer aimed at the layman. (Simonapro 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

NPOV dispute: Species

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

The species section of the article has been tagged for NPOV dispute, for the following reasons:

1. Only represents one side of the debate

2. Presents Hillig's conclusions as fact

3. Gives the opinion of Hillig undue weight

4. Does not accurately represent Hillig's work

5. Taxobox lists 3 species, but this classification is not widely accepted.


1. Only represents one side of the debate Article currently states:

"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.[4][5][6][7]"
The only discussion of the single-species side of the debate consists of the following sentence: "E.Small & Cronquist is generally given as a safe model because it only deals with one species of Cannabis however more recent genetic discoveries propose that Cannabis has speciated. " This sentence is not cited and appears to be entirely OR. In a single sentence it presents multiple POVs that Small and Cronquist model is oversimplified, outmoded, and/or discredited.
The discussion of the single-spceies side of the debate consists of the following sentence: "All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type called (Cannabis sativa L.)[2] ."
The remainder of the section discusses multi-species proposals by Schultes and Anderson, and Hillig. This needs to be balanced by accurately representing the single-species side of the debate. Some additional history of the debate would also be useful as the first statement says that the debate goes back more than 200 years, but only describes the past 40 years.

2. Presents Hillig's conclusions as fact

The paragraph on Hillig's research is cut and pasted from the abstract. The way the paragraph is worded makes it appear that Wikipedia is making certain statements of fact, rather than reporting on the work of a researcher in the field. It needs to be reworded to "Hillig reports", "Hillig concludes", etc., in order to avoid adopting and endorsing Hillig's POV.

3. Gives the opinion of Hillig undue weight

Article presents the recent work of Hillig as if he were a recognized authority in the field, and presents Hillig's conclusions as if they were the last word in the debate, widely accepted by experts in the field. In fact at the time of publication of the cited source, Hillig was a postgraduate student, and although his results have been discussed by others in the peer-reiviewed literature, they do not seems to have been widely accepted yet. Appropriate weight needs to be given.

4. Does not accurately represent Hillig's work

The article takes a strong POV stance that does not accurately represent Hillig, who stated in his dissertation that his research up until that time had supported recognition of two species (but not three), and that further research was needed to sustantiate his proposed taxonomic treatment.

5. Taxobox lists 3 species, but this classification is not widely accepted.

This is not part of the species section but it is closely related. The taxobox lists 3 species, implying that this classification is widely accepted. This is undue weight because the monotypic classification is more widely accepted.

I attempted to correct these problems in this edit [6], but it was reverted. So I am placing the NPOV dispute tag in the section until the issues can be resolved.

Chondrite 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Blah Blah really. You have been refuted above countless times. For example:
I did not remove the dispute tag. An admin did. So there are two users removing the dispute tag against your endevour.
  1. Your statement is an NPOV violation. Cite sources. There are 4 sources there that refute you.
  2. Hillig is cited. Tough luck unless you can cite sources that refute Hillig.
  3. THIS IS END GAME HERE. An opinion is subjective and not objective. Thus you are in error to consider Hillig’s paper a subjective paper, i.e his opinion. That is another NPOV violation. Hillig cites sources and uses objective data to verfify speciation in cannabis.
  4. The articles QUOTES Hillig’s paper verbatim with ZERO input from the contributor so you are WRONG again to suggest that the direct quote does not accurately represent Hillig's work
Finally you have never given a paper that used genotype research to refute Hillig’s paper. In short you are called to refute Hillig with a citation, which you have never done.(Simonapro 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi, regarding the dispute tag, I removed it [7], and obviously I'm not an admin.

  • 1) When Chondrite says "needs to be balanced by accurately representing the single-species side of the debate" this obviously isn't a violation of WP:NPOV.
  • 2) Chondrite is suggesting this could be rephrased, not removed entirely.
  • 3) Not sure you understand the concept of undue weight, Chondrite is suggesting Hillig should be mentioned, but less prominently.
  • 4) Clearly verbatim quotes can be taken selectively.

Addhoc 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
1. Requested references were provided in the edit[8] that was reverted. Material currently cited in the article or talk page does not indicate that Hillig is widely accepted by experts in the field.
2. At the very least, the Hillig material currently included verbatim in the article needs to be block-quoted to make it clear that they are Hillig's words, not Wikipedia's. At present it is not even within quotation marks. It would be much better to provide an accurate synopsis, but that is a matter of style and not of NPOV.
3. As the article at Species explains, "no consensus on the definition of the word has yet been reached." and "Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement." So which of the several definitions of species to apply is itself a matter of opinion. Hillig is obviously using a phylogenetic concept, and within the phylogenetic concept of species, there is no hard and fast rule about how much genetic divergence must occur before the diverging populations are considered separate species, so this too is a matter of opinion.
4. Current reporting of Hillig's work is inaccurate by omission. The first sentence of the abstract of Hillig's dissertation states: "Botanists disagree whether Cannabis (Cannabaceae) is a monotypic or polytypic genus." The last sentence states: "However, additional studies of putative wild populations are needed to further substantiate the proposed taxonomic treatment." These important qualifiers are Hillig's own words and failing to include them leaves Wikipedia in the position of being more ardently supportive of the proposed classification than it's leading champion.
It is certainly true that genetic analyses providing evidence of divergence have become very prominent in recent taxonomic debates and have often resulted in widely accepted reclassifications (and it is entirely appropriate to mention this in the article, with suitable references). However, wide acceptance does not appear to have happened (yet) in the case of Hillig's work with Cannabis; certainly no evidence of such wide acceptance has been presented here (after two months), and I am unable to find many papers in the peer-reviewed literature that cite Hillig. It is recent work and in time may come to be widely accepted by experts in the field, but that does not seem to have happened yet. In order to be accurate and unbiased, Wikipedia needs to reflect this.
-- Chondrite 06:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok so addhoc isn’t an admin. I though you where, sorry. Maybe an RfC would be good btw. Anyway let me explain. When addhoc removed the dispute tag addhoc did not receive this warning from Chondrite [9]. As you can see I have. Apart from the confusion of what Chondrite wants, what you have proposed to him which wasn't done and the lack of consistency I think two things need to take place. First would be reading what people are writing. Second would be direct responses to all questions that are often left hanging and then rehashed again. Most of what is argued is already debated above.
First I will ask my question before answering all of yours, which I feel I have done several times already. So here is my question. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. So if you can not support your view using WP:CITE from a prominent representative of the view then you are violating WP:NOR. Without WP:CITE you have no arguement. No arguement means that the use of dispute tags was done in error and should be immediately removed.
Now to answer your questions.
  1. When I say this is an NPOV violation this is simple to follow. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR POSITION THEN THE POSITION IS A POV, SUBJECTIVE AND WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIVE VIABILITY. Since the cite has been given Chondrite is disputing it by saying that Material currently cited in the article or talk page does not indicate that Hillig is widely accepted by experts in the field. If that was included in the article, that statement, it would be instantly deleted on the bases that it violates WP:NOR. And it does. It short, it is rubbish and asbolutely catagorically meaningless to anything and everything wikipedia stands for unless you can show where it says that opinions meet wikipedia guidelines for WP:V. Simply put there is no such rubbish as opinions validating the need for dispute tags. Back up that statement with FACTS. No facts… then it is just an opinion and the dispute tag iswithout good cause. So until facts can be brought to the table that statement is just Chondrite's opinion. It like me sticking a dispute on the reproduction section and saying I don't like it because I don't like cannabis. This is the very essense of what wikipedia stands for and more importantly THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY who would simply quash opinions and subjective statements with objective verifiable data, as Hillig clearly does with his published genotype research. Show genotype papers that say Hillig is wrong or conclude a single species cannabis classification after genotype analysis.. Can it be done? Probably not given that Hillig's work would be subjective to extensive rigorous tests and verifiability. Remember the single species papers are +20 years old and older. The new model is based on genetic research. The old one on observation. In short... HAHAHAHA if you think observation of phenotypes reveal more about speciation than DNA analysis. It is absurd to even be debating this issue let alone having a dispute tag about it.
  2. Again an opinion. If there is some problem with wikistyle on presenting that quote then bring it up. Again dispute tags over style? I don’t think there is any policy for that. Anyway I see you have already changed that so there is no need for a dispute tag in this instance.
  3. Again cite your sources and remember, support your claims with FACTS and not conjecture. We can all say anything. Where is the objective scientific data to support your opinion? As a reminder the affiliation is the Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA and was published in Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, Volume 52, Number 2, March 2005, pp. 161-180(20), an International science journal.
  4. Cite where you got the quote ‘’However, additional studies of putative wild populations are needed to further substantiate the proposed taxonomic treatment’’ from.
One last point before I go on. Addhoc sometimes you are saying that Chondrite means this or he means that. I think anyone who reads what he says can understand that he can speak for himself but it requires reading what is being written and given the amount of unanswered questions above being rehashed again here I think some people just don't want to co-operate. [10] I suggest that an RfC is an option.(Simonapro 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC))


  • In response to your question, which is not really a question but a set of statements, I point out that all material that was included in the article in this edit[11] was properly sourced.
  • Blockquoting the Hillig abstract makes it NPOV, and if that is acceptable then point 2 of the NPOV dispute is resolved. I am not sure whether including the entire abstract verbatim presents WP:CP issues, but that can be discussed elsewhere.
  • Regarding your other comments, they do not directly address the points of dispute, and mostly ask for references that have already been provided. It appears that you do not understand what is being disputed or why. It also appears that you do not have a complete understanding of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, or Scientific consensus. It is clear that you hold a strong opinion, and it appears that you are attempting to establish your personal POV as the only credible POV by excluding properly sourced material that is relevant to the section.
  • I agree that we are not making much progress in this discussion, and that an RfC is in order. I will add one now.
--Chondrite 19:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? You don’t think they are questions? Did I just type all that for no reason or something? How about you buy a pair of glasses? What is this then?... -> "Cite where you got the quote However, additional studies of putative wild populations are needed to further substantiate the proposed taxonomic treatment from?" That is called a QUESTION. Please if you don’t even know what a question is, then we can have a helper call to your discussion page to explain what it is to you. Do you need help? If you are going to avoid answering them, as you have just done with the several questions that have been asked of you, especially that question mentioned above, which you haven’t answered, along with others, suggests that YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, NO FACTS, NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE OPINION TO REFUTE THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SET OUT BEFORE YOU USING WP:CITE. Please don’t try and uncivilly blow these questions off by just shrugging your shoulders, pretending they never happened and then going about trying to front an edit that doesn’t even touch on the modern topics presented in that article as opposed to the 20+ year old dated stuff that is just part of the historical record and certainly not in modern use among modern science papers with genetic research capability that has established speciation refuting a single species mode. Since you haven’t answered the questions that challange your opinions, I would make a motion to have the dispute tag removed because of your POV without SOURCES, violating WP:NOR. (Simonapro 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC))


  • Disregarding difficulties of vision, grammar, and punctuation, what all of this boils down to is that you are emphatically re-asserting your point of view, and again requesting references that have already been provided.
  • I do not intend to provide any references showing the Hillig (et al) have been "refuted" because I am not aware of any, and I am not suggesting that discussion of Hillig be removed from the article.
  • As additional evidence that the debate is not yet settled: "Modern taxonomists have variously characterized Cannabis. All taxonomists recognize the species Cannabis sativa. Small and Cronquist subdivide C. sativa into two subspecies each with two varieties. Schultes et al. divide Cannabis into three species; C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis. Several other researchers do not preserve C. ruderalis, but recognize both C. sativa and C. indica. The present authors consider C. sativa to circumscribe all wild, hemp, and drug Cannabis races with the possible exception of the races used for hashish production in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These morphologically and chemically distinct races may deserve the separate specific name of C. afghanica following the variety name for C. indica determined by Vavilov. Validation of this theory awaits further chemotaxonomic and genetic research." Clarke, RC and DP Watson (2002) in Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology,and Therapeutic Potential (Grotenhermen and Russo, eds), The Haworth Integrative Healing Press, Binghamton, NY ISBN 0-7890-1507-2, p10.
  • Also, "Debates among 'splitters' and 'lumpers' over the correct classification of Cannabis rumbled on for much of the last century, although the lumpers seem to have won the majority vote. One commonly expressed opinion is that indica, ruderalis, and other so-called species should be regarded as no more than sub-species or even variants of C sativa." Watts G (2006) "Cannabis confusions" BMJ 332(7534):175-6.
  • Please also review the comments of Salix alba here [12].
--Chondrite 07:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me. If you have a WP:NOR violation that you would like me to address, then quote the statement and give the citation if one was used. I am not psychic.
  1. Since you have established that Hillig can not be refuted and have yourself concluded that I do not intend to provide any references showing the Hillig (et al) have been "refuted" because I am not aware of any, and I am not suggesting that discussion of Hillig be removed from the article you can’t refute it so you have no argument for causing edit wars or putting up dispute tags here. SYNOPSIS Cannabis speciation and older discussions about cannabis speciation conclude speciation in cannabis has been authoritatively established and verified using a currently irrefutable citation by Hillg no reason for dispute tag, again.
  2. The, Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology,and Therapeutic Potential, quote is practically a static of what the article currently reflects but the article has given sources and directly quotes, where as this redundant quote doesn’t even cover the sources we did. SYNOPISIS The proposed citation adds absolutely nothing new. Vavilov is in the article already as the cited cannabis species model no reason for dispute tag, again.
  3. Your last two points rehash the above and are redundant. The article reflects this. SYNOPSIS This is already covered in the above two points.
CONCLUSION SINCE YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE citing where you got the quote – However, additional studies of putative wild populations are needed to further substantiate the proposed taxonomic treatment - from and since you are leaving questions just open, I take it that your reason for the dispute tag is limited to just not liking one sentence… “E.Small & Cronquist is generally given as a safe model because it only deals with one species of Cannabis -citation needed-” … well that is fine, I actually don’t care about that line much. You where complaining that the researchers didn’t get enough coverage for their single species model so I included that line because it is cited below but obviously I don’t care nor should I, so it is gone and the dispute tag is gone. SYNOPSIS There is no longer any need for the dispute tag because the line in question is deleted from article. (Simonapro 08:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
This is really going nowhere. Could you explain this revert? [13] Chondrite 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is going somewhere. To answer your question, even though you don't bother to answer mine, When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. WP:NPOV which is policy related to WP:NPOV WP:NOR. So if you can not support your view using WP:CITE from a prominent representative of the view then you are violating WP:NOR. Without WP:CITE you have no arguement. No arguement means that the use of dispute tags was done in error and should be immediately removed. (Simonapro 11:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
Could you please discuss specifically which aspects of the reverted edits are objectionable, and why? A better alternative might be for you to mark up User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis/Species using inline tags as precisely as possible to show exactly where the problems are. Thannks Chondrite 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to any and all reverts you make while a dispute tag you have not explained or validated remains on that article section. Kindly remove the dispute tag unless you can cite any objective papers to support opinions such your subjective POV for including the dispute tag. (Simonapro 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
Can I clarify that the revert in question [14] was performed by you? Can I additionally clarify that the references that you have been requesting were in fact provided in the material that was reverted, and are present in the version for discussion at User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis/Species. Can I also clarify that User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis/Species is a draft of a proposed revision that is intended to resolve NPOV issues in the current version of the section? Can I suggest that marking up the User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis/Species using inline tags as precisely as possible to show exactly where the problems are would be Wikipedia:Negotiation? -- Chondrite 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)a
Can I further clarify that the disputed issues are identified and explained at the top of this section? -- Chondrite 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with the current version with a dispute tag that you can't explain. Are you disputing that your new article should replace the current one because in your opinion it is better? Sorry I disagree you have no mandate to change the old one and more importantly no reason to have a dispute tag on the section in question. You have failed to substantiate the tag. (Simonapro 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Request for comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved

This is a request for commment on the WP:NPOV dispute regarding Cannabis#species. Reasons for dispute are discussed in Talk:Cannabis#NPOV dispute: Species.

At issue is whether the article section conforms to WP:NPOV by accurately representing all major POV with appropriate weight, and whether the section gives WP:NPOV#Undue weight to one particular POV. Please comment. Chondrite 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis/Archive_5&oldid=787038752"