Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannabis (drug)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Cannabis (drug)
(discussion ends by 18 April to allow feature – if passed – on Main Page on 20 April)Precedent set at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union
Sort of a self-nom, but not really, since I just fixed the formatting and refs, got sources, etc. It's an informative article on a controversial subject, and I think it's done a good job of being NPOV, citing sources, etc, which is hard for articles like this, and is ready to be an FA. --Rory096 04:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The Cannabis (drug)#Decriminalization section could still use more work to give it summary style of the topic, rather than direct cut and paste of a few lines from the main subarticle. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I rewrote that section. It was left over from when Marijuana Decriminalization was its own article- and that's basically all the article was, so there wasn't much to summarize. I think it's better now. --
Rory09606:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I rewrote that section. It was left over from when Marijuana Decriminalization was its own article- and that's basically all the article was, so there wasn't much to summarize. I think it's better now. --
- Comment: needs to be more closely referenced; lacks important points; needs a copy-edit. Tony 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Which important points do you mean? As for a copyedit, I've had a couple people from #wikipedia going through it, making minor edits. As for references, I've been finding many, but some things are, as WP:OR puts it "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge," but as they are taken for granted by specialists, very few sources mention them at all, except for maybe amateur pro-cannabis bloggers. --
Rory09606:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Which important points do you mean? As for a copyedit, I've had a couple people from #wikipedia going through it, making minor edits. As for references, I've been finding many, but some things are, as WP:OR puts it "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge," but as they are taken for granted by specialists, very few sources mention them at all, except for maybe amateur pro-cannabis bloggers. --
- Comment: It is not ready yet. Its interfaces to other articles needs work. The prohibition intro doesn't even mention Nixon, Reagan or Bush. The images need work. The health effects intro grossly misstates the schizophrenic correlation. Health issues and the effects of cannabis is much closer to being ready, but there is a bit of work there too. Also, before being FA, some work should be done on closely-linked articles as well. -SM 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Why would the prohibition intro mention those presidents? They're just presidents of one country in which the drug is consumed- and none were even president when prohibition began. What's wrong with the images? The health effects intro cites sources for every claim it makes- can you cite sources refuting them? --
Rory09619:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)- The War on Drugs was created by Nixon. His anti-commie, anti-hippie, anti-gay and anti-semetic rationale for overriding the Shafer Commission and banning cannabis in the strictest terms are on the Watergate Tapes [1]. Reagan/Bush added the additional rationale of Just say no, DARE, and workplace drug testing. Bush-43 has extended this to the War on Terrorism, drug testing in schools, and a hard line on Medical marijuana. At each of these points, cannabis prohibition was in decline.
- I am very familiar with the well-referenced, Health issues and the effects of cannabis, I helped write parts of it, but there is a bit of work to do there still, particularly a study on developing adolescents (unpublished?), cancer (unpublished?) and another published study I still need to read. Also, I want to revisit the issue of breaking out a Cannabis (pharmacology) section. -SM 02:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that would fall under the scope of Medical marijuana. As for putting in those presidents, that would better work under War on Drugs. --
Rory09621:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that would fall under the scope of Medical marijuana. As for putting in those presidents, that would better work under War on Drugs. --
- Actually, no. Medical marijuana is more about MMJ as a political/legal phenomenon. A compendium of theraputic claims, medical protocols, etc. with the extent of corroboration would be fantastic. The eventual structure would be Cannabis (therapeutic) which would complement Cannabis (health) a rename of Health issues and the effects of cannabis I've considered proposing in ths connection. However, Cannabis (pharmacology) would be specifically pharmacology and the main article into THC, Cannabidiol, HU-210, Cannabinoids, Cannabinoid receptor, SR-141716A, etc. The papers I mentioned are germane to HIATEOC. The Presidents I mentioned are essential to the brief history intro in Cannabis (drug). Yes, I should just sofixit. -SM 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to make this connection explicitly: it is the United States (with the UK) who have globalized cannabis prohibition and continue to reinforce it through diplomatic pressures. This is why these Presidents matter in a article on cannabis as a global phenomenon. -SM 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Why would the prohibition intro mention those presidents? They're just presidents of one country in which the drug is consumed- and none were even president when prohibition began. What's wrong with the images? The health effects intro cites sources for every claim it makes- can you cite sources refuting them? --
- Object -- There's too much of US specific information. The article must be on the drug and not delve into details of one country only. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: You should split up the article differently. First, is the basic info, such as the geography and cultivating techniques (also include early history here). Then effects of human consumption. Following that, the recent history up until now. Osbus 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Great...change my vote to support. -Osbus 22:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Support -- Very well written and comprehensive. --Phenz 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support -Manages to shy away from bias and POV, which is the best thing we can hope for in articles like this. -Mask
20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm no expert on cannabis, but neither the History nor the Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity sections seem comprehensive. I'm still wondering why exactly Cannabis has the effect is does physiologically. Moreover, given that this is an illegal drug, far more information needs to be contained under Legality. Furthermore, there seems to be serious structural problems with the article: the layout is confusing and jumps rather incongruously from topic from topic. (why go from "History" to "Wild cannabis" for example?). Lastly, several sections are completely unreferenced (e.g. "Ancient history", "New breeding and cultivation techniques", "Spiritual use" and "Immediate effects of human consumption"). Mikker (...) 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I'm going to have to agree with Mikker. The information contained in this article seems to be fairly comprehensive, but it's not well-organized, and there are some claring holes citation-wise. A bit of tidying and dealing with these issues, though, and I'll reconsider. The Disco King 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose Whilst the article itself is great, it is about a technical subject and thus should also deal with state of the art information. However the article as extensive as it may be in terms of history, and use and whatever hardly has any state of the art information how it works etc..
Other than that it would have my blessing. Slicky 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
any1 with more wikixperience; feel free to edit my two cents. It is NOT legal for any farmer in Holland to grow marijuana. The goverment says it is "gedoogd" which means it IS illegal and considered bad BUT there is no active policy to punish such behaviour. Possesion of marijuana, growing it, smoking it; it is all illegal here. If you posses less than 5 grams of weed you will not be fined because Dutch police has better things to do. Coffeeshops that sell marijuana are also 'gedoogd' instead of legal. When a coffeeshop buys its marijuana that is an illegal transaction. As a user you are ment to smoke marijuana either at home or in certain designated places (coffeeshops). If you light a spliff, joint, stick or whatever you like to call it outside those places you are potentially in trouble. —This unsigned comment was added by 213.10.25.60 (talk • contribs) .
- Yeah, sorry about that, I was reformatting that sentence and left out the word where they had a "plan" to try to get it legalized. --
Rory09604:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak objection -- building off Mikker's objection, could we get more global scope for the legality section (and the subarticle)? Right now it appears to focus only on a few countries. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support well written. Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- much of this article takes a bias approach, assuming that despite the side effects, marijuana is good and/or should be legalized. Although I personally agree with the opinion, it should not be expressed in a wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.7.115 (talk • contribs) .
