Talk:Cannabis/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bad references removed

See WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

• Reference #1 Self-published source. Their site contains thousands of unencyclopedic terms. See space negro.
• Reference #2 That source, while reliable, says nothing of the veracity of the term. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang.
• Reference #3 At the top, it says the article was written by "by DJ Short, creator of the Blueberry and Flo strains."
• Reference #4 Obviously self-published.
• Reference #5 It is a blog, which again is self-published material.
• Reference #6 A fork of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia can't use itself as a reference. Zenwhat (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From your actions it seems you have not even opened some of the deleted pages. This is the only explanation I find for cutting out the sixth reference (Answers.com do have entries from Wiki, but not exclusively, and this one is another case). Also, source no. 2 is clearly confirming what it was used to - existence of "Chocolate Thai" in drug slang. Pundit|utter 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - Cannabis Culture is a printed magazine. The fact that the author uses stage name should not make the source completely unreliable. The magazine seems to have wide distribution and in the field of cannabis does not seem to be disreputable or non-neutral - I would even expect them to be particularly careful about what they write (it is, after all, a specialized magazine).

Pundit|utter 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at each one. Please Assume Good Faith. Source #2 confirms that it's a slang term. That's all. It doesn't confirm that there actually is a strain of marijuana called "Chocolate Thai." Cannabis Culture may be a printed magazine, but considering that it's geared towards pot-smokers and the articles' author refers to himself as "DJ Short" it is clearly a questionable source. You are right about the Answers page, though that source isn't a strong enough source for this article, by itself. Again, all it confirms is that there is a slang term. Zenwhat (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument was about the sixth. Questionable sources are these, that have ...a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Surprisingly, in the case of marijuana, I would assume a printed and internationally distributed magazine is not that questionable (unless you claim they do have poor reputation for fact checking or rely or rumors - but funnily enough, they seem to have some rigor in their tests and reviews). The article describes a social phenomenon and it doesn't have to refer only to the existence or non-existence of particular strain - you are right that the dictionary reference confirms only the existence of the term in some subculture. Pundit|utter 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They are extremist, it is promotional, and it is an opinion. The magazine promotes the legalization of and recreational use of marijuana, both of which are widely considered extreme. They are promotional. The magazine and their website rely heavily on advertising marijuana periphernalia. A search for "DJ Short" reveals that he sells marijuana seeds for a living. Both groups benefit from encouraging misinformation about legendary strains of marijuana. Since he doesn't cite any sources for his article and there's no evidence he has any legitimate credentials, the article may be nothing more than his opinion. This is bolstered by his informal, unscholarly tone. "There is something special about a good island herb." Zenwhat (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How can it be promotional if the author describes currently non-existent drugs? Legalization of marijuana is a topic of mainstream debate in many countries and I don't think this is that extremist (no more than magazines of National Rifle Association - and keep in mind that in most countries of the world possessing firearms without a good reason and a permit is illegal). I think the article is indeed informal and humorous and surely is not scholarly in any way - it is just a heavy marijuana smoker describing his experiences with different strains in a popular (and renown) marijuana magazine . Thanks for pointing to my mistake - somehow I put a wrong link in the references (which obviously was not very visible in the "preview"). Pundit|utter 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, he makes a misleading if not outright false claim at one point: "The Buddhists have a saying: 'May all beings be happy.' They also have a hash to back it up with: black finger rubbings from high in the Himalayas. This was some of my all-time favorite."

Aside from being offensive, this is patently false. Drug-use is extremely taboo for Buddhists. They do not produce hash or smoke it. Suspecting the magazine would invoke Buddhism often, I just looked and found some other stuff by "Cannabis Culture" magazine I know to be patent nonsense. In this article, they cite a number of "Zen hemp haikus" which appear to be outright fabricated. If you'd like, I could contact some Zen monks I know who can confirm this. Zenwhat (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is meant to be offensive - to me it clearly is an example of humor and satiric statement, although indeed not particularly funny (and I agree with you that such jejune antics should be avoided). I don't think the discussion here is about Zen monks smoking or not smoking marijuana. For some hippie-like kids buddhism and zen are almost synonymous with New Age and recreational drugs. Such, or such, or such, or such information may be well wrong, but barely helps, and there is a popular misconception, not only in the magazine, that some Buddhists may be using drugs (of which I myself, being an active member of Zen sangha in Warsaw for some time, am certain that is most likely not true). Pundit|utter 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Cannabis culture as a source

Is Cannabis culture a reliable source?

Is there are works consulted and references, absolutely. --Niyant (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, no. And I think that's all that really needs to be said about the matter. Zenwhat (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My definition of RfC was such:

section=RfC: credibility of a niche marijuana magazine !! reason=A dispute on credibility of sources in an unusual topic (drugs), uncertainty whether a niche marijuana magazine (although popular), which has been proved to be inaccurate about haiku versing, can be used as a credible source of information on strains of cannabis used in the 60ties and 70ties.

but Zenwhat assumes it to be not adhering to the NPOV. As we simultaneously tried to put RfC here, and his was first, I naturally respect his definition, and only correct the technicalities. Pundit|utter 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing - I think the whole discussion is about this diff. The main question is, as I see it, whether in topics far from mainstream and non-academic, sources such as Cannabis Culture should be considered at all.

The reasons for their inclusion are:

1. nobody else really cares about varieties of marijuana strains and it is unlikely there are scholarly publications about "Chocolate Thai", while the phenomenon itself is notable (and went into the teenage culture to the extent that has been chosen as a stage name of an artist),
2. the magazine itself is pretty established (12 years of publishing the printed magazine and distributing it widely),
3. the author seems to be an important figure in this subculture, and the magazine itself cares about the accuracy (which is clear also from their responses to Zentalk).

The reasons for exclusion are:

1. obvious doubts about the general accuracy of their information,
2. inaccuracies in other fields (obvious misunderstanding about haiku versing proved by Zentalk and already admitted by the publisher),
3. unambiguity about referring to articles written by people under nicknames, possibly recognizable in subculture, but still lessening the informational value of the article,
4. potential bias (resulting from the magazine's focus) - not important in case of Chocolate Thai entry, but definitely an issue of somebody wanted to describe the effects of cannabis on health by referring to them. Pundit|utter 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask a question? The info sourced by the citation remains relatively unchanged (except for the attribution to the DJ). Is the info in the second version undisputed? If so, why is the citation needed? Phyesalis (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're trying to establish the general verifiability of this cannabis strain - we both (I think) are unfamiliar with the subtleties so even more we need some sources. Pundit|utter 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the extra info. The phrase seems to be decently documented:

[1] but mostly it seems to be documented as just a type of marijuana or slang for marijuana. I'm thinking since there is no mainstream academic discourse on marijuana culture, CC is a reliable source (yes, they seem to have made a mistake at some point in time, but they've admitted it? Even great newspapers make mistakes and have to retract statements.) The point about it not being a reliable source for health effects is a good point, but does not apply to the article as it is about the strain and not the health effects of marijuana. The nickname objection doesn't seem reasonable given the somewhat "fringe-y" nature of the topic and the long publication history of the mag. Marijuana is illegal in many Western countries, those who contribute do so anonymously for this reason (I'm guessing). I'd say it seems pretty reasonable to use the source. Does this comment help? Is there anything either editor feels has gone unaddressed? Phyesalis (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phyesalis, in this area I would say that the magazine can be a good source for information about strains of Marijuana...although I also think that you may be able to find accademic sources that cover plants and different strains, which begs the question what is the scientific name of the strain of the plant? that may help you find things out about it.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This article was merged with Cannabis. I'm adding the talk page to it's archives. -Phyesalis (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10