Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis (drug)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Msnicki (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 21 February 2014 (→Requested move to "Marijuana": mr outcome was overturn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleCannabis (drug) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 29, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 7, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Requested move to "Marijuana"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME. Requested move discussions are not a vote; we instead base our decisions solely on the strength of the arguments to naming policy and guidelines. Arguments in favor, in order of their being proposed:

  1. WP:COMMONNAME - based on a significant edge in scholarly and other reliable sources
    1. Challenged based on it only being the common name in the Americas
      1. This challenge is not true (see evidence link #1). (Additionally, it is perhaps not even relevant, since the article is in American English (link #2) and therefore probably would use American English for the title as per WP:ARTCON (though this was not stated in the discussion and therefore has no bearing on this decision)). Msnicki's pithy statement, "We've certainly heard your claim that cannabis is the common name in English internationally. What we haven't seen is any evidence to support that claim" quite aptly sums up this argument's resolution. The argument that "in Britain at least cannabis is the normal term" was made more than once, but never once supported--one wonders if this is because it is simply untrue. An argument that pubmed prefers cannabis as the general term for the drug itself also had no basis in reality. The claim that it is a recent Americanism has no sources that support it.
  2. Natural disambiguation
    1. Went unchallenged - which is a good sign for figuring out the move result, because it's a policy and we like following those.

Arguments in opposition:

  1. "Marijuana" is a variant of "Marihuana".
    1. Challenged because: the sources do not bear that out.
      1. While there is a not-insignificant minority of sources that prefer the "h" spelling, "Marijuana" is still predominant. See sources.
  2. The proposed title is an Americanism
    1. Challenged because: the sources do not bear that out.
      1. That ngram I posted sums up the various sources on British usage very, very well. Of course, this is not a British encyclopedia either, so it'd be profitable to see international usage as well--see evidence link #3. It was not explicitly mentioned (though implied by the appeal to COMMONNAME), but we do not have an automatic preference for British English terms versus American English terms, and the profound preference in American English for "marijuana" (link 4) is far stronger than any preference British English has for cannabis (link 1).
  3. It's a (regional?) slang term or a vulgarism
    1. Challenged because: the sources do not bear that out. Also, our policies do not reject slang, only vulgar speech (when not strictly necessary)
      1. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly rejects vulgar titles, which is why you find sexual intercourse where you do. No evidence has been shown for "Marijuana" being a vulgar title. Slang is not rejected; only "vulgar or pedantic" titles. There is also no source saying that "marijuana" is a slang term. To reiterate: you cannot simply say "it's a regional slang term" and expect people to believe you. Not when the sources are so profoundly against this position.

In summary, nothing raised here in opposition of the move overrides our strong pre-existing consensus at the policy page WP:COMMONNAME, to say nothing of WP:NATURAL, which is also policy and ultimately even more compelling. Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME, the page is moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence in move close:

  1. [1]
  2. - do a search for "ised" vs. "ized" to see
  3. [2]
  4. [3]

Cannabis (drug) → Marijuana – WP:COMMONNAME asks that the title of an article should be the most commonly used name for the topic and suggests using search engines to determine what is most common. Google searches consistently indicate that the common name is marijuana. Msnicki (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, as nominator. Our guidelines ask that the title of an article should be the most commonly used name for the topic, even if it perhaps seems less "official". From WP:COMMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." An example is given that this is why we have an article on Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton.
Further, our guidelines suggest how to determine the most common name using a search engine. "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia"."
I have done those searches using Google and listed the results below. "Marijuana" beats out "cannabis" in every search, across the board. The only categories where cannabis comes close are Google Scholar and here on Wikipedia, where the usage is about evenly split. (Before doing the searches, I expected cannabis to at least win on Scholar.) Most noteworthy is the ratio in news articles, nearly 300 to 1, representing the most topical sources.
Note I have been adding entries beginning with "google.co.uk web" in response to suggestions and as noted in the discussion that follows.
Type of search Marijuana Cannabis Ratio
Web 36,600,000 21,300,000 1.71
News 54,000,000 181,000 298.34
Books 3,020,000 1,440,000 2.09
Discussions 48,100,000 14,700,000 3.27
Blogs 14,100,000 4,590,000 3.07
Patents 67,700 18,000 3.76
Applications 103,000 42,800 2.41
Scholar 292,000 291,000 1.00
Wikipedia 31,700 31,500 1.01
google.co.uk web 38,800,000 19,200,00 2.02
google.co.uk news 173,000 176,000 0.98
google.co.nz web 38,700,000 20,600,000 1.88
google.co.nz news 214,000 187,000 1.14
google.com.au web 36,600,000 20,500,000 1.79
google.com.au news 198,000 183,000 1.08
pubmed 19,419 12,519 1.55
pubmed, review, <5yrs 525 417 1.26
I propose to do a page move to Marijuana, overwriting the present redirect, unless there is objection. Requesting discussion. Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I would strongly oppose this. Its essentially an American term for cannabis but we are an international encyclopedia and the international term is cannabis. There is no evidence of this term being widely used outside the Americas except in some instances as a slang term for herbal cannabis. Using statistics from an American search engine to justify your wish doesnt seem like other a weak argument. For instance if you want to catch news stories from google alerts in English marijuana will give North America stories and cannabis stories from everywhere else. Given this isnt an American theme article we dont want to use a term just cos its American. Please dont even think about moving without going through the proper RM process first so a wide debate can be generated. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of 298 to 1 re news items makes me extremely suspicious of your results objectivity. I notice you have used google.com in web as well as news to justify your results but that is a US centred google search engine (as all google nation based domains slant towards a particular language and or nation) so its no surprise your statistics support your proposition. Would you get identical results using google.co.uk? Because if that domain produced different results then these results are meaningless, ie we would expect a US slanted search engine (google.com) to produce results that slant towards the USA where unquestionably marijuana is the preferred term. I would also add that changing the name to the American name for this popular article would sent out entirely the wrong message to our international readers♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had an interesting question, asking what what would happen if I used google.co.uk instead. So I've added an entry for web searches on that engine. The ratio in support of the term marijuana is even higher there than in the US. I think this really is the common name among English speakers. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as you've suggested, I've added a requested move template, if you care to edit your remark as a !vote. Msnicki (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really are making this up as you go along. I dont believeeither that google is a reliable source for a common name (where did you get that idea) but also news for marijuana gets less items than news for cannabis so your claim that it is more like 300 times the results for marijuana is neither true nor helpful♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I'm doing just exactly the analysis that WP:COMMONNAME suggests, I'm hardly making this up as I go along. I am, however, willing to consider new evidence, including the searches you've suggested along with any others you think might provide illumination. But to your point about news sources in the UK, I've added a line for google.co.uk news. As for the truth, the numbers are what they are and I've given the links to verify them. I'm not the one trying to pass off a less than 2% difference in one search as significant. Msnicki (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why this article, and not the plant article? the plant is also "marijuana" -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outside of the Americas marijuana is a slang term for cannabis as a drug while in North America it has become more of an official term too so the police and judiciary describe cannabis as marijuana, perhaps botanists do too, but even so why go for an American term and ignore the rest of the world and the scientific name for the plant? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources or other evidence for your claims that cannabis is the more common term or that marijuana is considered a slang term outside North America? Further, even if we accept your claim that it's a slang term – which I do not, sans evidence – I find nothing in WP:COMMONNAME suggesting that would be a reason not to use the common name. (The guidelines do suggest not choosing ambiguous, inaccurate, vulgar or pedantic titles, but "marijuana" is none of those.) Msnicki (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a primary source. You havent addressed the issue that by changing the name you alienate readers from other countries who will then wrongly think wikipedia is an American encyclopedia, which is harmful to the project. Unless you can show that marijuana is internationally the used name, which you havent attempted to do, you have a weak case, IMO♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one doubts there are sources that prefer the term, cannabis. Google says there are millions of them – just more millions that use the term, marijuana, which is what WP:COMMONNAME asks we consider. What I asked is if you could present evidence showing cannabis is the common name internationally. So far as I can tell, it's not, I've offered evidence from google.co.uk in support and one link from you doesn't change that. Your new claim that changing the name would be "harmful" to Wikipedia is even more lacking of any evidence or guidelines support. Frankly, it's downright silly. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone is wondering why "marijuana" shows up so frequently in US news searches (over 54M times), it's because it really is in the news and that is the term. Washington and Colorado recently legalized it for recreational use and the laws in both states refer to it as marijuana, not cannabis. C.f., Washington's FAQ and text of the law or Colorado's retail licensing info and text of the law. For Americans, marijuana is not only the common name, it's also the official name. Msnicki (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we arent a US encyclopedia and the content of this article is strictly international and not American in nature♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've certainly heard your claim that cannabis is the common name in English internationally. What we haven't seen is any evidence to support that claim. Msnicki (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to google.co.uk. It runs even in UK news stories but marijuana is 2x as popular on UK web searches. And other searches, e.g., on scholar, aren't restricted to US sources and those also show marijuana as the more common name. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Marijuana is the common term which is by far most commonly used, and cannabis is the technical/scientific term used by far fewer people, and usually in technical settings, not on the street. Many a stoner won't recognize it, but they all know Mary Jane when they hear her name -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google.co.uk says nothing of the sort, as if they would know about British culture anyway, being an American search engine but they say nothing of the sort, you are (badly) interpreting search results and then claiming this means google state something. Please stop inventing♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who suggested we look at google.co.uk. Now you don't like it? What engine would you prefer? By now, you must know that if you've actually got one, I'm happy to add it to the list. Msnicki (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just added figures showing the results of searches in New Zealand and Australia, two other English-speaking countries. In both cases, marijuana is the more common term. Msnicki (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all the items using marijuana are US centred where the cannabis results are much mroe NZ centred so all you have proven with your original research is that marijuana is the common term in the USA but that is no reason to move the article. Please answer why you want to Americanize an internationaly themed article? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Searches on pubmed return 19,419 hits for marijuana, but only 12,519 hits for cannabis. I've added pubmed searches to my table above. Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all articles we look at but review articles from the last 5 years. And one term automatically redirects to the other most of the time and thus one needs to actually look at the titles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We look at review articles for sourcing per WP:MEDRS, not for titles. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Doc James. I restricted my search to review articles published within 5 years and marijuana still beats out cannabis, 525 to 417. I've added those results to the table as well. (Note that for custom searches at nih.gov, you have to log in and specify the filter by clicking on things. To recreate my results, you'll have to do that yourself. I can't give you a URL with the filter already in it.) Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Pubmed" argument is an illegitimate argument because Pubmed only publishes scientific sources, which are a miniscule subset of all the sources and uses on the whole subject. Cannabis is the scientific/botanical name known by all scientists and a minority of the public, while marijuana is the common name in the public domain, known by all groups. Marijuana covers the larger topic, with scientific terminlogy being a subset.
We need to determine if this is going to be a strictly limited and smaller scientific article about cannabis, or one about the general subject of marijuana, with links to the cannabis article. What do our naming conventions/rules say? Are we supposed to use the common name, or the scientific name for this type of article? Normally one would write about the whole subject using the common name, while indicating the actual scientific/botanical name, and possibly a "main" link to a subarticle which deals with the nitty gritty scientific details. For example, the article for reindeer (caribou) is not named rangifer tarandus, but uses the commmon name. It has a section for Reindeer#Subspecies, and further specific articles for several of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two policy links specific to the point:
  • Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Scientific_versus_common_names (this would favor cannabis)
  • Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Explicit_conventions (this says the above isn't the only consideration: "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.")
Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has so far been offered that marijuana is the common name outside the Americas, and nor will it be forthcoming as it is a slang term, mostly archaic, outside the Americas. We already use the common name internationally and thus this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to Americanize the article. What about Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias, this is also relevant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a whole table of evidence, SqueakBox, and I'm happy to look at more. You've offered zero evidence beyond a single UK news search that showed a less than 2% preference for cannabis. So far as I can see, your whole argument consists only of repeated assertion. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox, your claims need to be backed up by evidence, and you haven't produced anything. Wikipedia may be an international encyclopedia, but this happens to be the English language one, and therefore the dominant usage in English should be determinative here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote, Doc James, is made up. It does not appear in the article. What it actually says is, "Marijuana, hashish and hashish oil all derive from the cannabis plant." That's not the same thing. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many sources use cannabis and marijuana interchangeably. [5] Anyway cannabis is an equally common name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Regardless of what is the most common name, WP:NCDAB states that "natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". So until this topic becomes the primary topic of "Cannabis", the alternative name of "Marijuana" is equally clear, a term also commonly used, unambiguous, and thus a viable option. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about this until you and bd2412 brought it up, but you're right, it's a good argument. Our guidelines regarding natural disambiguation also favor the rename. Msnicki (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't force me to create an entire column of results for this spelling. Could you accept that 39,300,000 hits for marijuana versus 13,200,000 for marihuana tells us what to expect? Further, I note we have an article on Marijuana (word) but none, not even a redirect (at the moment, though you're free to create one) on Marihuana (word), suggesting we may already have a WP:CONSENSUS on the most common spelling. Msnicki (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need its proven very well here that "Cannabis" is universally used over either marijuana or marihuana when it comes to international usage. -- Moxy (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where do you see evidence – much less, proof! – of that claim anywhere on this page? If you have some actual evidence beyond just your personal opinion, please post it. I am not trying to cherry-pick the data. Msnicki (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the scholarly publications over just Google hits that include news paper articles etc.. The agreed international term is "cannabis", hence its use in global legal instruments such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs". The term Marijuana is new and historically cat be found... for more info on how the world looks at this please see the NCPIC web site that was just linked below. You can also look at the leading seller of "pot seeds" and note they also call it Cannabis because its the international term Green House Amsterdam. -Moxy (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one questions that sources exist that prefer the term, cannabis. I conceded in my nomination that it seemed like the more scholarly term and that I was surprised when it didn't win at least on that search. So of course I'm not surprised that international agreements exist which refer to marijuana as cannabis. But how many of us choose our words based on what appears in legal agreements between nations? How many of us even know what's in them? More to the point, even supposing these agreements add up to cannabis being any more "official" than just international "police speak", we have a clear guideline, WP:COMMONNAME, that asks that we prefer the most frequently used name over the official name. Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with a portion of what your saying.. but its an American POV from my pov here in Canada. I have a Medical marihuana card not a marijuana card. Even in your country its a Cannabis card. So in reality those familiar with the drug legally in north America dont see the word marijuana at all, thus the term cannabis in much more universal because it covers all the forms you can get it in (like hash - butter etc -- Moxy (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that the spelling isn't the real issue here, as the conflict is between cannabis or marijuana/marihuana. The card wording likely varies from state to state. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: that card, you're mistaken. (a) Look at the date. It expired in 2010. (b) It wasn't issued by the State of California but by rxcbc.org. If click on the Home link at the bottom of their page, you'll end up at patientidcenter.org, which describes itself as " a not-for-profit California cooperative supporting patients and caregivers who benefit from medical cannabis".
If instead you look at the State of California's FAQ, you'll see that the card is in fact called a "Medical Marijuana Identification Card (MMIC)". I believe most (if not all) states' medical marijuana laws prefer the term marijuana. As previously noted, the new Washington and Colorado recreational use laws that appear to be fueling that huge surge in US news coverage also use the term marijuana, not cannabis. Finally, I note that "medical marijuana", with 168,000,000 hits is far more popular than "medical cannabis" with only 44,400,000. If I restrict my search to those exact phrases on .gov sites as proxy for checking what's in our US laws, I get 59,700 hits for "medical marijuana" but only 5,580 for "medical cannabis". Msnicki (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably relevant: http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-or-marijuana Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent source. It increases my support for keeping the article at the name it is at. We are not an American Wikipedia we are a global one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key argument from that document (for me) is that marijuana "is a term used to describe only one of the cannabis products available and therefore is not inclusive of all products in the class". Our suite of articles cover all the derivative products and so we need the most inclusive term. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would tend to weigh in favor of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Scientific_versus_common_names, which would favor the current (scientific/botanical) title. That leaves us with this other consideration at Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Explicit_conventions, which is that the scientific name isn't always determinative: "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think if these articles were only about the dried plant stuff smoked in joints it would be fine to use the word "marijuana" for their titles. But they're not: they concern hash, hash oil, liquid for vaporizers, etc. Those other things aren't called marijuana are they? (they weren't in my student days anyway). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How different is this from an article on flour that starts right off by mentioning that it's used to make bread? We already have a separate article on hashish, so how much of a problem is this? Msnicki (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hashish or Hash oil or Kief is a form of cannabis where marijuana is used to refer to the dried bud. Most people use undried frozen cannabis to make bubblebag-hash thus its not always marijuana used to get a drug out of cannabis. -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are all products of the marijuana plant, scientifically/botanically known has cannabis. They are also known as products of cannabis. The overarching matter here is about which term to use, cannabis or marijuana, while the products have their own names. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We have separate articles for Hashish, Kief, and other dosage forms of the Cannabis plant. If we treat "marijuana" as a general term for all dosage forms of the Cannabis plant, then this article should be moved to Marijuana and should serve as a subarticle of Cannabis and as a parent article for Hashish, Kief, etc. If, on the other hand, we treat "marijuana" as a term for a specific dosage form of the Cannabis plant, then we should move this article to Dosage forms of Cannabis and create a new article called Marijuana to serve as a subarticle alongside the other articles about specific dosage forms. Neelix (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks like Neelix has the right of it here. Avoiding the parenthetical disambiguation should be a strong consideration here; if we can put the drug under an extremely common (to the point of being included in legislation) name and leave the scientific term to the botanical article, it will reduce confusion and make the article hierarchy much clearer. Powers T 02:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - These are (all of? some of) the titles of articles in the cannabis "suite". Which would change if this proposal is accepted?

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is this proposal to change all of them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proposal to change all of them. It seems reasonable to expect that if there's a consensus to make this change, that it may ripple through to some number of other pages, but not all. For example, I think there could be a good case for renaming Medical cannabis in the United States as Medical marijuana in the United States but a possibly weaker case for renaming Cannabis cultivation as Marijuana cultivation. (Note that both of these are presently redirects.) I expect we will debate each requested move on its merits, exactly as we're doing with this one. Msnicki (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don't like the sound of "may ripple through" (aka "someone else can do it"). Wikipedia needs consistent terminology here and with this very problematic suite of article the last thing we want is them getting even worse with a half-baked renaming done, leaving other editors with yet more work to do. I really want to see a fully-thought-out proposal for naming across the suite so that the result at least give us something consistent; inconsistent titling is one of the few problems we actually don't have right now. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I appreciate that it's always nice when life is simple but unfortunately, it just isn't always and pretending that it is doesn't make it so. I think we should do what's right, not what's simple. (b) The perfect can always be the enemy of the good. (c) What is wrong with considering each proposed requested move on its merits and what makes you think there's a consistency requirement that we should only change one if we agree to change all? I think many of these pages could present unique considerations. For example, WP:COMMONNAME suggests we consider the sources used in an article. For List of British politicians who admit to cannabis use, most of those sources do say cannabis, not marijuana. For List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use, most of the sources say marijuana. And for all those articles on various strains, e.g., Skunk (Cannabis), is the "(Cannabis)" disambiguation a reference to the genus Cannabis or to Cannabis (drug) and does anyone care? Msnicki (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Complexity is the very thing I'm trying to draw attention to. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA lists consistency as a point we need to consider. It would be a backwards step to have our articles on the usage and effects of the drug named differently to the drug itself. In my view, if there was a well-considered proposal for the naming of all affected articles linked from TEMPLATE:cannabis (and the template itself is something that needs consideration too), then it could be well worth adopting − although with the deep problems these article have, personally I'd rather see the effort going into content reform rather than this comparatively trivial naming issue. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see, there you go. You've just helped simplify things. That Template:Cannabis page makes clear that the "(Cannabis)" disambiguation for all those strains refers to the genus Cannabis. So none of those need to change. That wiped out over 1/4 of the list right there. What remains is not an impossibly long list. We'll manage. Msnicki (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You both are onto something. We need some consistency, but in some cases we'll just have to treat cannabis and marijuana as synonyms, and follow the sources in each article, because that is what will determine the title of that article. Even if the titles don't consistently use the same word, that's not an insurmountable problem. They are still under the same umbrella. So let's try for consistency where it's easy to do, and not let some exceptions get in the way of progress. There is an exception to every rule, and the sources and purpose of the article in question will determine what is the right thing to do. So let's not make this RfC about all the articles. Let's start with getting the overarching umbrella term for this main article decided. Yes, there will be some ripple, but it should not be forced. Use some wisdom in each instance. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above suggests otherwise; see, for example, the google.co.uk hits. Neelix (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent"? Is this also a term that's understood differently outside the US? According to our own article on Marijuana (word), citing the OED, "The word entered into English usage in the late 19th century." It appears in the title of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and, according to our article, "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marijuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world." I appreciate that you hate what Americans have done to the language. But I think the damage is done. Msnicki (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WP:TITLECHANGES, yes, this is a legitimate guidelines consideration. It appears in WP:Article titles, the same guidelines article that also contains the previously cited WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL sections asking that that we prefer common names and natural disambiguation. But you'll notice that WP:COMMONNAME is at the top, WP:NATURAL is in the middle, and WP:TITLECHANGES is dead last. And all WP:TITLECHANGES really says is that possibly controversial title changes should be advertised at WP:Requested moves. And that was done. Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point that Marijuana is just one form of the Cannabis drugs seems to be lost here. Simon Wills (2005). Drugs of Abuse. Pharmaceutical Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-85369-582-0. -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. What's getting lost is that marijuana and cannabis are exact synonyms for the plant. When one keeps that in mind, confusion ceases. Marijuana is the common name for the whole plant, and cannabis is the scientific/botanical(genus) name for the whole plant:
Many products from the marijuana (genus cannabis) plant are made, consumed, and used. One can accurately claim that each one is made from the marijuana plant or the cannabis plant. Same difference. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(arbitrary break)
There's no redirect from Wheels to Automobile to suggest an existing consensus that the terms are used interchangeably. And no one believes the more common name for an automobile is "wheels". But aside from that, yes, the situations are exactly equivalent. Almost identical. Msnicki (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe hes demonstrating that a regional slag term is not the way to go for the main title of the article like Pot (disambiguation) or Weed (disambiguation). I agree that marijuana is very common but its just the common English slag term. To be specific marijuana is the slang term for cannabis that is dried it does not cover the other forms like cannabis resin that is not dried. Best we don't confuses our on this point. David T Brown (2003). Cannabis: The Genus Cannabis. CRC Press - University of Portsmouth. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-203-30422-8. -- Moxy (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of citing a source that disagrees with you? The author clearly does not believe that the term marijuana is slang. Here's what he actually says: "Preparation[sic] of the leaves and flowering tops are generally referred to in English speaking countries as cannabis, Indian hemp or very often marijuana (sometimes rendered marihuana). ... Common slang terms in the West include grass, pot, dope, weed, Mary Jane, hash and less often, shit, bush, tea, Texas tea, locoweed, griefo, hay, hemp, jive, mor-a-griefa, rope, boo, wacky backy, or black". (Emphasis added.) Msnicki (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is just another source that says its called cannabis as the primary term with marijuana as a secondary term from what I see... that one even goes on to explain the different types of cannabis drugs. let me try to explain why there is a difference with a copy and paste quote form The Australian Drug Foundation
-"Cannabis is usually smoked or eaten and comes in 3 different forms:
  • Marijuana − the dried plant that is smoked in a joint or a bong. This is the most common form.
  • Hashish – the dried plant resin that is usually mixed with tobacco and smoked or added to foods and baked; such as cookies and brownies.
  • Hash oil – liquid that is usually added to the tip of a cigarette and smoked.
  • Medicinal cannabis – can be marijuana, tablets or a mouth spray. It is used to treat chronic diseases and conditions."
This is also the distinction made in basic non academic books like Judy Mackie (2004). Drugs - A Parent's Guide. Need2Know. p. 32 paragraph 2. ISBN 978-1-86144-043-3.. So what I am trying to say is Marijuana is a specific term over cannabis. Saying Marijuana a street term covers all the types of cannabis drug products is a misconception no matter how prolific. Hash resin does not come from the flowers or leaves it comes from the stems (stock) of the cannabis plant. What could be done is an article called Marijuana with this as the parent article would be the best move. -- Moxy (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, I think you need to be careful not to put too much weight on single sources. Each author and country will have certain preferences, and in reality will not be contradicting each other, but only demonstrating personal or local preferences.
Per my comment above, marijuana and cannabis are exact synonyms for the whole plant, one being the common name and the other being the botanical (genus) name. If you will keep that in mind, all confusion ceases. They are essentially both a car/automobile, but are not identical in terminology with the parts made from them. Marijuana/cannabis is not hash, but hash is made from the marijuana/cannabis plant. A car is not a steering wheel, but a steering wheel is part of a car. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion here is about the title of the meta article. Which of the two synonyms should be the title? The content would still be very similar. We would not have a Marijuana (plant) article, and a separate Cannabis (plant) article. They would be the same article, and the lead would start something like this:

Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me its pretty clear - We have source from different parts of the world all showing a distinction between the term marijuana and cannabis vs Google hits numbers. Cambridge University sources same the same information as cited above....Wayne Hall; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula (2003). Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-521-80024-2. The most common cannabis preparations are marijuana, hashish and hash oil. At this point not much more can be said people will see the sources vs Google hit numbers and make a decision on what is more valid and/or/vs more common. -- Moxy (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the reasoning behind the Google hits numbers is not sound, since we cannot know if the term "marijuana" is being used as a substitute for the term "cannabis"; it may simply be that it is the most popular derived form (likely, I'd say). By the method here one could show that "wheels" (174m hits) beats "automobile" (98m hits) as a choice of term. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wheels and automobile is a poor choice. Try comparing automobile and car. That's a much closer comparison. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One good reason is because our guidelines ask that we not do that. From WP:COMMONNAME: "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." The exception is we can still have an article on any particular vulgarity and call it what it is, which is why we can and do have an article on fuck. But it's only an article about the word, not the topic.
More relevant to the debate here is that no one believes marijuana is vulgar or pedantic. Nor should there really be any question whether there's a consensus that cannabis (drug) and marijuana are used pretty much interchangeably else how do we explain the lede sentence in our article, "Cannabis, also known as marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana), and by numerous other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." This is a highly contentious article. We should assume there's a consensus behind every word (else there'd be a fight going on) and that cannabis and marijuana really are understood to be basically interchangeable terms.
This proposal is about reversing the order of cannabis and marijuana in that opening sentence and retitling the article in accordance with our guidelines requirements that we prefer the most frequently used name and that we prefer natural disambiguation. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia we go with what the reliable sources say not the number of Google hits (Wikipedia:Verifiability vs Wikipedia:Search engine test) ...So let look at even more sources that say marihuana refers to only a part of the plant that produces a drug product. This article cover all forms of drugs produced by the plant. -- Moxy (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that you disagree with the lede statement as it is presently written and which indicates that cannabis and marijuana are synonyms because you think marijuana doesn't include hash and cannabis does, I think you should take that up as separate content issue.
No one doubts that you could find 6 or 600 or 6000 sources out of the millions available claiming almost anything about marijuana. Our guidelines ask that we write with an WP:NPOV, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." I don't think most people who use the term marijuana mean to exclude hash. If a doctor asked, "Do you use marijuana?", I can't imagine anyone thinking they should answer no if they only use hash.
But also, a lot of this argument seems to be about editors outside the US insisting that marijuana is only an American slang term but that when Americans use it, it's with surgical precision, and never used to include hash or "marijuana-infused" products (as Washington State calls hash, edibles and other products under our recreational marijuana law). And if that weren't true, they'd be the first to know.
From my experience living in Seattle, right in the heart of the marijuana legalization trend that's generating those 54,000,000 news articles, I beg to differ. Ever since the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, I think Americans have understood the word marijuana to include hash. Msnicki (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We try not to write articles based on assumptions or from one countries point of view. I agree there are millions of sources that say the words are integrable,,,, but we have sources that are much more specific and is why people seek information for an ecyclopidia over a website. All we do here is regurgitate what the most comprehensive reliable sources say and in the manner they are said. So far we have sources saying cannabis is used to cover a range of products derived from the cannabis plant and what are those products common names marijuana, hash and oil. Do you disagree with these facts so far as cited above and presented in the article here? As for editors outside the USA there points of views and the sources they provide as just as valid as any Americas POV or sources. In fact international norms is what we are looking for in parent articles (This is English Wiki not United States Wiki). The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 is American then we have international use of the term (that explains your right about the USA). I would have no problem calling all the American POV articles marijuana but not the parent articles that deal (or should deal) with world wide views and recognized international usage. -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Countitis

Doing search for numbers of article with specific terms is not accurate. With respect to pubmed one actually need to manually count the terms. It is easy to see that this generates differing numbers. Additionally those who prefer the term cannabis (often also state marijuana as they are better quality sources). Those who just use the term marijuana are less high quality sources as it is slang. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to count them manually not just type into pubmed.
Try it. Search for review articles for Cannabis from the last 5 years. Set the display to 200. Search for cannabis and you pick you 73+79+11=163, type in Marijuana you pick up 13+8+1=22.
Next search Marijuana review articles from the last 5 years. Set the display to 200. Cannabis in the title is 58+64+38=155. Marijuana in the title is 18+15+7=40.
So what we find is that cannabis is used 4-7 times more frequently in the title of review articles from the last 5 years than marijuana.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis in any reliable sources that "marijuana" is slang. See the long, long litany of very serious, high-quality reliable sources that use the term. You have cited, as far as I see, nothing whatsoever that classifies that term as "slang". I have a very high level of respect for your expertise in medicine, but this seems like a matter of the English language to me. Dismissing sources that use marijuana as lower-quality because they use "marijuana" is circular reasoning. Red Slash 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have back it up with pubmed evidence of what the current (last 5 years) prefered term is. I guess it would not be slang but rather less technically prefered term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia literally has a policy that talks about that exact dilemma--what to do when the commonly used term and the technically preferred term differ. That policy is Wikipedia:Article titles, and the shortcut to the exact text is WP:COMMONNAME. Red Slash 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the OED say? Cannabis "2. (Orig. ellipt. for Cannabis sativa or (esp.) indica.) Any of various preparations of different parts of the hemp-plant which are smoked, chewed, or drunk for their intoxicating or hallucinogenic properties and were formerly used medicinally; bhang (marijuana), ganja, and charas (hashish) are different forms of these preparations and there are many other names." Marijuana "a. (A preparation of) the plant, used as an intoxicating and hallucinogenic drug; esp. a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant in a form for smoking.The currency of the word increased greatly in the United States in the 1930s in the context of the debate over the use of the drug, the term being preferred as a more exotic alternative to the familiar words hemp and cannabis." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WTF?! What is this "non-admin close" with a arrogantly-worded supposed review of the arguments, which doesn't even mention (in my view) the most pertinent one: that marijuana is a different topic to cannabis. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely false. Marijuana refers to Cannabis, full stop. Where did you hear otherwise? petrarchan47tc 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana refers to a preparation of Cannabis; Cannabis (drug) is an umbrella term that covers other preparations too. See many comments above. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Counting google hits is deemed accurate but not the positions of those who are involved with writing and research this topic area? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No raw google hits were considered in the move, only the results of queries about usage of the two terms in scholarly papers and other books. And the most common term for the drug is, quite clearly, "marijuana". Many scholars did in fact use "cannabis" as the name for the drug, but less of them did. Please do not think we only consider usage by medical scholars when determining article titles, as marijuana has an impact on essentially every field of modern life--sports, law, politics, the arts... And we go by the common name. The OED that you just cited certainly is not against the move--it calls marijuana "a preparation of the plant, used as a ... drug." (Regardless, that wasn't cited in the discussion so I could hardly put it into the closing.) That's the scope of this article, which has been at the title "Cannabis (drug)". User:Alexbrn, I'm curious as to what your problem is. The article on the plant is still at cannabis and the article on the drug is not. Red Slash 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the issue of the controversial close here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI is the wrong venue. To question the outcome of a WP:Requested move debate, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the table is such an important part of the decision and I have refuted the pubmed aspects of it. I am wondering if the closing admin checked the numbers? Google books appears to be wrong

  • Cannabis 1.4M [6]
  • Marijuana 0.65M [7]

Which is more than two fold in favor of cannabis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with patents C 90,600 M 64,700. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at WP:GOOGLEHITS for why that's inaccurate for such large numbers. Instead, we use ngrams for move requests, in general. Red Slash 22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what were you using to determine which was more popular? I agree that the hits are not accurate. That is my point. We have added google.co.uk to supposedly reflect British though. Look at the first website to come up here [8]. The San Francisco Chronicle. About a NY Governor. Neither one from what I remember is in the UK. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."
What is your point? Jmh649 provided Google Books numbers. —Götz (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right ngrams are interesting. What we see is that M is primarily American while Cannabis is used by the rest of the world.

  • C>M in British English [9]
  • M>C in American [10]

Cannabis is a way older term in both with M becoming popular in the 70s.

With respect to UK data a search of the London Times is more accurate. M 1811 [14] C 3852 [15]. C is more than twice as used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarize: Google books, Google scholar and recent high quality sources from pubmed use Cannabis either more or much more frequently. So do other languages other than English and thus likely those who speak English as a second language in those countries. American use Marijuana more and so does Google news. So back to WP:COMMONNAME. More English speakers speak British English than American English. And more people speak English as a second language. Thus the common name is cannabis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on multiple counts. First off, we explicitly do not prefer one variety of English to another on this encyclopedia; see curb (not "kerb"), labour (not "labor"), elevator (not "lift (machine)"), trousers (not "pants"), and many, many other examples. Secondly, the article is in American English anyway (see WP:RETAIN). Thirdly, there is not even a significant preference in British English for "cannabis". Take off the smoothing and you'll see. Fourth, it does no good now to raise data that was not mentioned during the move request. Fifth, we don't follow just one newspaper's decision--doubtlessly there are a few newspapers with a house style that prefers "cannabis", but there are probably more who are using "marijuana". Sixth, you'll note that our Wikipedia is in English and the names for this drug in other languages is as irrelevant to this discussion as the names for "cat" in the other languages has to do with the location of our article cat. Seventh, "cannabis" being older is irrelevant; we go by what is commonly used. You clearly feel very strongly about this and I respect that, but we go by common names here at Wikipedia with a very strong preference for natural disambiguation (avoiding parenthesis). Those two policies and the evidence presented demanded this verdict. Red Slash 02:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not closed by a neutral party, as Red Slate's arguments here make very clear, he is arguing in favor of marijuana and should clearly have recused himself for that reason. This is completely unacceptable as well as damaging to the project as a whole. In each one of his defences Red Slash seems to have been won over by the marijuana arguments which he know vigorously defends. What he should have done is voted and let a genuinely neutral person close, he could still do that if he has any honour. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran across this. This article is meant for the whole planet, and no other country uses "marijuana" to refer to reefer. If the word is seen more often than "cannabis" in medical literature, it is only because of the US' dominance over cannabis research. petrarchan47tc 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Al Jazeera: "So why does the term “marijuana” dominate the discourse in the United Sates, while most people in Europe and large swaths of Latin America refer to the drug as cannabis, the botanical name for the plant?" (the article goes on to say that term arises from a fear of immigrants.) This change is incredibly US-centered and short-sighted. Some may even say racist. petrarchan47tc 03:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF comes in handy; so does reading before you type. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure my mistake was a bright spot in your day. petrarchan47tc 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people apologize when their broken AGF-ometers are revealed (as yours has been throughout all of the cannabis discussions). YMMV, but I find its usually a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw this at AN/I, where it doesn't belong (yet). No good reason to move the article to marijuana. Poor attempted close. Please don't move this article, pending a proper consensus to do so. --John (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was an especially inappropriate close given that 8 people opposed the move and 7 supported it. I would be happy to see this RM re-opened and an attempt to get a great deal more ppl involved as this is one of wikipedia's most viewed article. Red Slate's argument on AN/I is that okay more people oppose than support the move but as he knows best he is going to close as support anyway. Truly terrible closure following a truly terrible proposal, all damaging to the project and the only solution is to re-open the RM although IMO an unbiased editor would have closed as either as non consensus or as RM opposede. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As someone who supports the move to "marijuana" but vehemently opposes the supervote closure, I second the proposal that this discussion be reopened, and closed by an uninvolved admin after a predetermined amount of time. I'm considering boldly undoing the close myself, but with the open move-review discussion, I'm unsure of protocol. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug). From WP:Move review, "Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines." Any editor is welcome to comment or WP:!VOTE in the discussion.
A !vote to endorse means you agree with the debate being closed as move to Marijuana. If the consensus at the move review is to endorse the close, this article will be renamed. A !vote to overturn means you disagree with it being closed that way. Msnicki (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table of more numbers

Type of search Marijuana Cannabis Ratio
Pubmed, review, <5 years* 62 318 5.1 fold favoring C
London Times 1812 3852 2.1 fold favoring C
Google scholar, 2000-2014 76,400 96,400 1.3 fold favoring C
Wikipedians 7 8 1.1 fold favoring C
  • Number of times cannabis or marijuana used in the title when searching for both

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned that people actually think that WP:COMMONNAME is more important then our 3 core policies on Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. Is this a problem in other sections of the project? Why are editors ignoring the sources in cases like this? -- Moxy (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I remarked at the review at the time, when The Times reported on marijuana, all the stories were international. The first 5 stories were about news in the US. The next one was about Uruguay. When they reported on cannabis, 3 of the first 5 stories were about events in the US, where the both the participants and the local news coverage overwhelmingly use the term marijuana. The Times is rewriting foreign events in their own preferred vocabulary, exactly as they also did when they reported on story about an American meat producer's plan to turn animal fat into fuel for "lorries". Americans simply do not call trucks lorries and they don't call marijuana cannabis, not even in the official language of the new US laws.
Further, you've merely cherry-picked one newspaper that suits your purposes if you don't look too closely. See below for my results looking at the top 10 English language newspapers worldwide. All of those top 10 papers are much larger than The Times and the list includes eminently reliable publications such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, all of which clearly favor marijuana. Msnicki (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Without majority support this request move should have been closed no consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


RfC:Google hits vs reliable sources

Should the article be moved from Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana based on Google hit count and American laws or stay at Cannabis (drug) based on the sources below and international use of the term? -- Moxy (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Keep as it the agreed international term -- Moxy (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change one word in this title. Cannabis is the scientific/genus name for the plant (thus international) irregardless of use. Marijuana is Spanish and English synonym (and this is the English Wikipedia), but is also used for plant parts when used as a drug. Various preparations of the cannabis/marijuana plant have their own names, such as hash, hash oil, etc.. So "Cannabis" would be the basic plant article which describes hemp, sativa, indica, etc., and "Marijuana (drug)" would be the drug use article. That (this) article would simply start like this: "Marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana), and by numerous other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." -- Brangifer (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is moved to Marijuana, there is no need to disambiguate. No one is proposing nor is there any good rationale to rename the article on the genus Cannabis. Msnicki (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the move review is about the close of the move request not about the topic its self. Its clear the move close has been overtured so lets move on to the topic at hand. This is a request for comments to see what others think and is the norm when we are at an impasse of this nature...we get more involved. --Moxy (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The move close has not been overturned. The review has not been closed and it seems quite possible that the original move request will simply be relisted. You should wait and find out. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Msnicki (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Cannabis as is the preferred scientific name and more international in scope. It is also the older term. Google hits are not terribly accurate especially when followed blindly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yours aren't accurate, but that's because you've been trying to cherry-pick the results and I've caught you at it each time. Msnicki (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are accurate and others can repeat them. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally cannabidiol is the INN name for one of the 85 cannabinoids found in cannabis [[16]. They call it a cannabinoid receptor. Are we going to begin suggesting that we should change Cannabinoid receptor type 1 to marijuana receptor type 1? This whole scientific area of study is packed full of terms beginning with cannab. Why? Because that is the scientifically preferred term. We should use this term as it makes the whole area of study easier to understand for our readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is one of the greatest weaknesses of your argument. You continually point only to the sources and wordings which favor the scientific/genus terminology (cannabis), but we don't let that dominate Common name. We use the common name, which is overwhelmingly marijuana. Since they are generally synonymous terms for the whole plant, but can have slightly different uses when discussing various preparations, we have room for articles using cannabis and marijuana as the title. Marijuana should not be relegated to a redirect. Cannabis can be the the article for the plant, where discussion about drug use is not the topic, and Marijuana (drug) can be the article (this one) where drug use is the main topic. Both get their due, and within each article we can still use both terms if the source uses the term. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current name. The current title is not problematic: it is accurate and in line with RS. The suggested new title is problematic since "Marijuana" tends to apply specifically to just one preparation of Cannabis (dried plant), and that is not this article's topic. Why change a problem-free title for a problematic one? I see no convincing justification. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the claim that marijuana does not include hash is anything more than an minority view held mostly by people who don't use the word marijuana anyway. The majority of the sources Moxy has offered ostensibly in support of the claim do not support that claim and the rest simply aren't reliable as authorities on marijuana. The Australian document you suggested is easily the worst. It cites no sources, misrepresents the facts of the SCND and plagiarizes from Wikipedia. In addition, some sources make the same distinction between cannabis and hash. Justification for the move includes the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Msnicki (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's evidence alright, but you discount it in favour of the evidence which supports your wished-for move. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my shredding (below) of your own document or of any of Moxy's sources was unfair, you're welcome to explain your reasons. I don't think you have any. The said, with millions of documents to choose from, I don't doubt that you should be able to find a few that say anything you like. If you keep looking, I expect you'll even find some reliable sources that say what you want. But you don't have any so far. Msnicki (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Shredding" ? "your own document" ? "What you want"? Gosh - sounds like an epic WP:BATTLEGROUND. Look, there are arguments on both sides - it's not cut and dried (unlike marijuana - ha!). The OED definition aligns with what many editors and sources also say, that marijuana is a term that especially applies to one preparation of Cannabis. There are others that say otherwise, fine. But so long as this first problematic other meaning exists, renaming the article just makes things worse than they currently are. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Especially" does not mean exclusively. The OED does indeed align with what many editors and sources also say, just not with what you and Moxy have been saying. The OED does not support your claim that marijuana does not include hash. Like I said, if this is the best of your reasons for thinking my rejection of your sources is unfair, you don't have any. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head? What I said was: "'Marijuana' tends to apply specifically to just one preparation of Cannabis" (emphasis for clarity). I don't think you're being "unfair" (though you are being rather confrontational) - I simply think you're wrong. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that bud is the most common form of marijuana. It's also the most common form of cannabis in places where that term is preferred. There's just a lot more bud than hash being consumed. In both cases, when someone specifically means hash, they usually say hash. You have not established a serious objection to considering marijuana and cannabis as interchangeable terms or to the move. Msnicki (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is to characterize the point rather than address it: the point is that a chief meaning of "marijuana" is the dried preparation of Cannnabis. That is not the topic of this article, so there would be some degree of category error in moving to it. With our current headword ("Cannabis (drug)") there is no degree of category error, since there is no conflicting meaning. Granted, it may be that some sources prefer the term "marijuana" as a generic term, but that is irrelevant in the light of the larger consideration of making sure the article title is not misaligned with the article content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we should present things in the article...We should explain things in the proper terms.... BC Mental Health and Addiction Services Cannabis is commonly called marijuana, a slang word that originated in Mexico and refers only to the leaves and flowers of the hemp plant - Cannabis is consumed in several forms, including:

  • Dried flowers or ‘buds’ (marijuana)
  • Pressed ‘resin’ from flowers and leaves (hashish or hash)
  • Loose ‘resin’ (kief)
Good for you. With 36 million web pages to choose from, you've finally cherry-picked one that supports you. I've said all along that with that many pages to choose from, of course you should be able to find a few that support you. But their claim that marijuana is slang should instantly raise eyebrows since quite obviously, it's not slang in US, where the term is most popular. Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear you think its best we don't explain things in the manner above from the sources instead move the article to the most common American term right? This is despite the fact that even American sources separate the terms for stats in a book titled Marijuana - Mahmoud A. ElSohly (2007). Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. Springer. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-59259-947-9. cannabis preparations confiscated in the United States between 1980 and 1997 (59), ElSohly et al. reported that the average concentrations for THC were 3.1% in marijuana (herbal cannabis), 5.2% in hashish (cannabis resin), 15.0% in hash oil (liquid cannabis)... yes the term marijuana is used more in the book, but the fact its says "marijuana (herbal cannabis)" tells us that most see a difference when looking at the overall topic of cannabis. We should explain this as we do and have the article at the parent term...not the new American term that for many is just one form of the drug. (Side note: we should move this conversation down to the proper section) -- Moxy (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under our policy of WP:NPOV, we do not decide controversies, we simply report them proportionally. If you'd like to add a sentence acknowledging the controversy, something like, "Some sources define both cannabis and marijuana as not including hash.", I've already acknowledged there's probably enough evidence for that. Anything more is your personal agenda. Should you wish to pursue this, the proper section would be one that proposes the specific content change you seek, if only you would identify what that is. Msnicki (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not sure about what we are taking about at this point. The article already stats the position of the sources above. So lets quote the article so your sure about what we are talking about. "The terms cannabis or marijuana generally refer to the dried flowers and subtending leaves and stems of the female cannabis plant"???? I think we may need to reword this section so its clear to the average layman....as its clear to me but its seems not all understand the point of the statement. How can we dumb this down a bit so its clear to all? -- Moxy (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on my talk page when you asked, the article states in the lede that marijuana and cannabis are basically interchangeable terms. You've been arguing they're different as a reason why the page cannot be renamed. If you think the article content is fine as is, your whole argument just vaporized. You cannot have it both ways. They're either different or the same. I've suggested that if you believe the article content is wrong and that the terms are not interchangeable, you should propose a specific content change and see if you can get a consensus. I don't think you can. I think the most you can get is a sentence acknowledging that some sources define both cannabis and marijuana as not including hash. I suspect you do, too. But that doesn't add up to a reason to block the move and that's why you haven't pursued it. Msnicki (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cant believe I have to explain this...we really need to make this more clear. In the lead we briefly say they are used interchange as we cant explain all in the lead. We then in the article expand on this premise of the word as most article do and explain that it is actually used most often to refer to a specific type of cannabis product. -- Moxy (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you can't seem to make up your mind whether the article content is okay or not. If you think it needs to be "more clear" then propose the change you think is needed and let's see if you can get consensus. I think it's perfectly clear as it is. And as it is, it does not support your claim that marijuana and cannabis are different. It says the terms are interchangeable. It says that in the lede and again in the section on Whole flower and leaf where it reports "The terms cannabis or marijuana generally refer to the dried flowers and subtending leaves and stems of the female cannabis plant." No difference.
What part of that do you want to revise and how? If it's okay as is, you've been wasting everyone's time with these silly arguments and weak, cherry-picked sources insisting they're different. Propose the actual language you want and let's see if you can get it. I think it's one thing for people to give lip service to an argument they know is lame, just to gain advantage in the debate and another to commit that kind of silly nonsense to the actual article. I think most people will draw the line. They'll argue strategically but they aren't going to screw up the article just to win. I'm asking you to put up or shut up. Msnicki (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if your pulling our leg at this point or you really dont understand whats going on here. Your the one asking for a change here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sure looks to me like a concession that the article content is correct as is, that marijuana and cannabis are interchangeable terms and that you do not intend to seek a change. Your argument just vaporized. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like holding editions hands - so will try one more time to explain the content we wrote in the article then let others war it out with you and your numbers. The words are used interchangeably as the source says and as you have been saying (we cant deny this). We then go on to expand on the term and explain in the article as we do in an encyclopedia (as we are here to inform our readers) that the term is used most often to refer to the dried product not hash or oil....as we have done here with many many sources . If this is not clear then we need to make it so (not a content change but a rewording of the same info) ...we can be more blunt i guess and explain that for stats etc..even in the USA does this distinction. We need to present all the facts as all we can do here is regurgitate the source in the manner they written in. -- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. The words are used interchangeably. Therefore, there cannot be a credible objection to renaming the article from Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana based on a claim that cannabis is a broader topic than marijuana. The words cannot be simultaneously interchangeable and mean different things. Put a fork in it. This argument is done. Msnicki (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just dont get it do you - embarrassing for you to say the lest. Could someone else try to explain as I cant keep trying to explain to someone that only see what they like in statements. -- Moxy (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."
It has been stable for over six (6) years [17].
  • "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."
—Götz (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what WP:TITLECHANGES asks of us. A controversial title is one that favors a position, e.g., Right to life debate or Pro-choice debate rather than simply Abortion debate. But neither "marijuana" nor "cannabis" are controversial words, only the choice between them. Msnicki (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Right to life debate and Pro-choice debate were redlinks when this was typed. Jmh649 has since created these pages as redirects to Abortion debate. Msnicki (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup agree Götz. Excellent point. Might be time to move on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - there is a WP:move review currently in progress on this topic, and I'm not sure what this RfC is supposed to achieve. Most comments above seem to be simply rehashing what was said in the move request. The move review will determine whether the RM should be relisted, endorsed or overturned, and in none of those three cases do I personally see a need for a separate RfC.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The move review has still not been decided after 2 weeks. Given that debate over substantially the same question has resumed here, I have changed my !vote at the review to Overturn to relist and asked that the review be closed, the original WP:RM be reopened, this new RfC be considered appended to it and that a new close be taken after a suitable relisting. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Cannabis - I cannot hope to make any clearer this discussion, but I must agree that Cannabis is preferable in being slightly more international. I would, however, be supportive in placing emphasis on the prominence of both names, and the clarification that "Marijuana" is an acceptable, and in many places a legal term, for Cannabis. Floatsam (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Cannabis - Cannabis is the centuries old botanical name for the plant. Marijuana was dubious little known Mexican slang chosen purposefully to make the plant illegal. --Thoric (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment by Moxy

So its clear the move has to be talked about again. There is basically 2 positions here one based on internet hits vs reliable sources. So lets layout the sources as hit numbers do not show what sources say. It was very concerning that the closer of the last discussion did not take into account parts of the debate and even ignored sources... so lets go over the sources. We have to keep in-mind that this is a parent article covering all Cannabis drugs not just the bud or leaves. Do we present a simply dictionary definition or an educational encyclopedic definition? In my opinion we need an article called marijuana/marihuana not rename this overview article that covers extracts aswell as the dried bud and flower as defined in the article already. We are here to regurgitate what reliable sources say not change titles because of Google the amount of Google hits.

  • What do sources say is the definition of marihuana and cannabis
  • International term used
The NCPIC web site - The agreed international term is ‘cannabis’, hence its use in global legal instruments such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
  • Legal prospective -
  • In many places only the dried bud/leaves (marijuana) are legal,,,,because not all forms of derivatives like oil and hash are legal::*How to Apply to Use Medicinal Cannabis Legally - page 3 - It allows you to possess, store and carry dried cannabis for a medical purpose. It does not apply to any derivatives of cannabis such as hashish or hash oil.

What we need to do is explain things in the article - like the fact some places use marijuana for all forms but that sources that deal with specifics have a distinction in what come from the plant. Moving the article because people are ignorant and dont use the terms properly on the world wide web is not what we should be doing here at this international project. -- Moxy (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, this is pathetic. These are your sources supporting your claim that marijuana does not include hash? Oh, please. Did you think no one would click the links to verify them? Four of the 7 don't even support you and the other 3 are just lame. Let's go through them and see what they actually say.
  • Barceloux: "Hashish (charas) is the concentrated, dried resin collected from flower tops that contains substantially higher (i.e., up to 10%) concentrations of Δ9-THC compared with ganja and bhang. This form of marijuana is particularly common in the Middle East and North Africa." This simply doesn't support you.
  • Moore: "In the USA, the four most common preparations of cannabis are marijuana, sinsemilla, hashish and hashish oil. ... Sinsemillia, in turn, is a dried collection of only the flowers." The authors are obviously not aware that sinsemillia is not a "preparation", as if made by picking out the seeds. It's grown that way indoors by preventing the female plants from being pollinated. Not surprisingly, the authors are experts in neuropsychiatry, not marijuana.
  • Goldberg: "Two other forms of marijuana are hashish, known in India as charas, and hash oil." Once again, this reference simply doesn't support you.
  • Caulkins: "Most of the rest of the world refers to marijuana as "herbal cannabis" and hashish as "cannabis resin," with "cannabis" being a catchall term that includes both products. ... However, this book generally employs the vocabulary more familiar in the United States, using "marijuana" except when referring specifically to other forms of the drug or to the plant itself." Translation: He's an American and as far as he's concerned, marijuana includes hash. Again, this doesn't support you.
  • Rätsch: "In the United States, it has become common to use the term "marijuana" to refer to the leaves and, sometimes the flowers of the Cannabis plants when they are used for inebriating purposes." Setting aside that this author may be confused about which part to smoke, there is nothing here to suggest that he intends this as an exclusive definition, that if it's not the leaves or sometimes the flowers, it's not marijuana. He appears to be remarking only that that's usually what people mean. And that's probably true, if only because bud is more common tha hash in the US. Again, this doesn't really support you.
(Added: Random musing: The original text by Rätsch was in German; it's been translated by Baker. On reflection, I'm wondering if the "sometimes the flowers" fragment was a translation error.)
  • McNicholas: "The term marijuana refers to the leaves and flowering tops fo the cannabis plant that are dried to produce a tobacco-like substance." This one does seem to support you, but note that this is a book about maritime security. What makes you think this author is a reliable source on marijuana?
  • cdnaids.ca: "It does not apply to any derivatives of cannabis such as hashish or hash oil." So what. Governments regulate all kinds of things. You can buy sparklers but not fire crackers even though both are fireworks. In California, Washington and Oregon, marijuana does include hash. Canada makes a distinction in its Controlled Drugs and Substances Act between cannabis and marihuana, which it considers synonyms, and hash, which it calls "cannabis resin". Again, never mind this is just an WP:OFFICIAL definition, it doesn't give a different definition for cannabis than marijuana. It follows the UN convention and excludes hash from the definition of either.
  • Finally, NCPIC: "The agreed international term is ‘cannabis’, hence its use in global legal instruments such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs."
The claim is absurd. There is no hence. The SCND was signed in 1961. Current usage did not cause events 53 years ago. And there is no international agreement that the correct term is cannabis. The international agreement is that it's the genus Cannabis, a scientific fact that no one disputes, no matter which title you prefer. From the English version of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, page 1:
b) “Cannabis” means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
c) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis,
d) “Cannabis resin” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.
No one writing this was thinking about trying to choose the most common name. What they wanted most was legal precision and a term that could be translated into the 6 languages the agreement would be published in. They wanted to clearly identify a particular plant and products of that plant so of course they gave the name of the genus, Cannabis, knowing that would translate.
This Australian document has misrepresented the evidence. If an editor did that here, it would be instantly reverted as WP:OR.
But also, look at the rest of the document. Consider this claim: "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 in the US continues to impact upon the terminology used today. This bill legitimised the use of the term ‘marihuana’ as a label for cannabis plants and products, including hemp. Prior to this time it would appear that ‘marihuana/marijuana’ were purely slang terms and there is no evidence of them being included in any official dictionaries."
This claim was lifted from our own article on Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Here's our current version: "the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marijuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world. Prior to 1937, "marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries."
How do I know they got it from us, not the other way around? Because the Australian document is dated October 1, 2011 and the language in our article predates that. I can trace our language back to earlier versions (e.g., here in 2009) and even further back to previous variants.
Basically, what we have here is a self-published document by an anonymous Australian bureaucrat that cites no sources, misrepresents the facts and plagiarizes from Wikipedia.
This is your evidence? Here are some better references that contradict you.
  • Drugs and Society by Glen Hanson, Peter Venturelli, Annette Fleckenstein, p. 395: "Hashish (or hasheesh) is a second derivative of cannabis that contains the purest form of resin. This type of marijuana consists of the sticky resin from the female plant flowers."
  • Drugs Across the Spectrum by Raymond Goldberg, p. 255: "Two other forms of marijuana are hashish, known in India as charas, and hash oil."
  • Marijuana by Jeanne Nagle, p. 11: "Another form of marijuana is hashish, or hash."
Under our policy of WP:NPOV, we don't decide controversies, we simply report them proportionately. As I suggested in the move review, you've probably got enough here to support a sentence acknowledging the controversy, something like, "Some sources define both cannabis and marijuana as not including hash.", if that's what you seek. But you're a long, long way from offering compelling evidence that your claim that marijuana does not include hash is anything more than a minority view, especially among the people who actually use the word marijuana. Msnicki (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Alexbrn

The (full) OED has two non-figurative definitions for marijuana:

  1. The cannabis plant
  2. (A preparation of) the plant, used as an intoxicating and hallucinogenic drug; esp. a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant in a form for smoking.

I have to wonder whether the very opening definition of this article is wrong in stating marijuana is broadly synonymous with cannabis the drug. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"esp." means "especially", not "exclusively". The OED does not support your claim that marijuana does not include hash. Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by BullRangifer (Brangifer)

Cannabis is the scientific/genus name for the plant (thus international) irregardless of use. Marijuana is the common name in Spanish and English (and this is the English Wikipedia), but is also used for the plant parts when used as a drug. Various preparations of the cannabis/marijuana plant have their own names, such as hash, hash oil, etc..

So "Cannabis" would be the basic plant article which describes hemp, sativa, indica, etc., and "Marijuana (drug)" would be the drug use article. That article would simply start like this:

  • "Marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana), and by numerous other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." (This is taken from the first sentence of this article.)

Brangifer (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jmh649

We are global in scope, rather than USA in scope. We should us the more global terminology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Msnicki

Here are a couple of additional tables I presented at the move review. First, here's a look at the top 10 daily newspapers in English. The list and circulation figures are from that first hit at mapsofworld.com. In making my comparisons, I'm consistently using google.co.uk to search UK and other international publications and google.com to search US publications. The exception is The Daily Mail for which I'm using bing.com. (Google reported 40,600,000 hits for marijuana but that's simply not credible. More likely, Google encountered a problem indexing the site.)

Publication Country Circulation Marijuana Cannabis Ratio
The Sun UK 3,472,841 730 796 0.92
USA Today USA 2,610,255 10,300 3,850 2.68
Daily Mail UK 2,476625 87,700 26,700 3.28
Daily Mirror UK 2,187,960 5,540 4,570 1.21
The Times of India India 1,879,000 17,000 9,440 1.80
The Wall Street Journal USA 1,800,607 33,800 1,420 23.80
The New York Times USA 1,109,000 93,300 3,470 26.89
The Daily Telegraph UK 1,020,889 5,790 7,640 0.76
Daily Express UK 957,574 4,950 16,400 0.30
Los Angeles Times USA 944,000 96,800 3,430 28.30
Total 18,458,751 355,920 77,696 4.58

Here's a finer cut at the English-speaking web. What this indicates is that the preference for cannabis over marijuana is strongest in New Zealand and mixed in Australia and the UK, where goverment, organization and academic sites prefer cannabis but commercial sites prefer marijuana. Marijuana is clearly preferred in the US and Canada. Note that Canadian .org, .edu and .com sites are lumped with US sites because they do not have a separate .ca suffix. Also, I'm doing this by hand, so I've only sampled the Canadian provinces. But one of them, Quebec, is all in French, which favors cannabis, so I think this is probably fair.

Search Marijuana Cannabis Ratio
Canadian web
site:ca on google.ca 1,390,000 324,000 4.29
site:gc.ca on google.ca 30,900 24,500 1.26
site:qc.ca on google.ca 9,110 12,700 0.72
site:ab.ca on google.ca 4,810 491 9.80
site:yk.ca on google.ca 1,140 517 2.21
Subtotal 1,439,830 363,958 3.96
UK web
site:gov.uk on google.co.uk 18,300 143,000 0.13
site:co.uk on google.co.uk 31,300,000 9,290,000 3.37
site:ac.uk on google.co.uk 8,250 24,700 0.33
site:org.uk on google.co.uk 17,100 57,600 0.30
Subtotal 56,043,650 19,715,300 2.84
New Zealand web
site:nz on google.co.nz 115,000 306,000 0.38
site:govt.nz on google.co.nz 21,300 15,500 1.37
site:co.nz on google.co.nz 100,000 248,000 0.40
site:ac.nz on google.co.nz 3,200 1,980 1.62
site:org.nz on google.co.nz 6,200 17,400 0.36
Subtotal 245,700 588,880 0.42
Australian web
site:au on google.com.au 371,000 419,000 0.89
site:gov.au on google.com.au 42,600 55,300 0.77
site:com.au on google.com.au 243,000 222,000 1.09
site:edu.au on google.com.au 8,680 15,100 0.57
site:org.au on google.com.au 12,000 17,000 0.71
Subtotal 677,280 728,400 0.93
US web
site:com on bing.com 21,300,000 11,600,000 1.84
site:gov on google.com 1,340,000 154,000 8.70
site:edu on google.com 593,000 91,700 6.47
site:org on google.com 37,600,000 13,400,000 2.81
Subtotal 60,833,000 25,245,700 2.41
Total 119,239,460 46,642,238 2.56

Basically, what you're looking at in both tables is what it really means to say that this is an international encyclopedia: Big nations may overwhelm small nations. Take any category, whether the web as a whole, government sites, educational sites, newspapers, books, patents, whatever – and marijuana is simply more frequent and yes, it is because the US numbers overwhelm the entire rest of the world. But we don't count nations, we count sources. Again, this is what it means that this is an international encyclopedia. Msnicki (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jmh649

We say that Wikipedia is not a democracy but it sort of is. It is generally accepted that one needs a 2/3rd majority to make a change. If one cannot convince the editing community of the merits of your proposed change maybe it is because the arguments for it are not as convincing as the arguments against. Yes an independent closing editor can use some judgement around the 2/3rds mark based on arguments. Trying to turn a majority against into a move is not cool and is obviously not congruent with policy. In this table one key value is the position of Wikipedians Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply ridiculous. We do not have any sort of 2/3 majority rule or informal policy whatsoever. Period. For example, WP:AFDs are routinely closed decisively as keep or delete on close splits all the time. We do not count noses, we consider the arguments. Msnicki (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In many discussions a 2/3rd majority is required. Think of say pending changes, or the image change discussion regarding the picture in the lead of the pregnancy article, or starting a new project like Wikivoyage. All those required and meet the 2/3rd cut of. This move was not even supported by 50%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply ridiculous. Any given editor may assert he thinks a 2/3 majority is needed but that does not make it so. Lots of editors assert lots of silly things. There is no 2/3 majority requirement for content decisions anywhere in our guidelines. To prove me wrong takes only a single counterexample. Go for it. Produce the link. Msnicki (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you three :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me nothing. Are you unclear about the difference between a guideline page and a discussion page? And do you not know what a link is? You have not given me a link to any guideline page requiring a 2/3 majority. There is no 2/3 majority requirement for WP:Pending changes nor is there one for WP:Wikiprojects. If someone insisted in the discussion of a picture used in some article that there was a 2/3 requirement for anything, he was wrong. Msnicki (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to look at these example, it is not my issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Msnicki

One last table that may give additional insight into how this horrible thing could have happened that US sources have overwhelmed other English language sources, causing marijuana to become more frequently used than cannabis.

Country Population
UK 63,181,775
Canada 35,158,300
Australia 23,358,775
New Zealand 4,468,200
Subtotal 126,167,050
United States 317,539,000

Setting aside that our new laws are in the nightly news and other sources constantly, there are simply more of us. Again, this is what it also means to be an international encyclopedia. Msnicki (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the rest of the data that has been left out List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population. What we see is that their is large English speaking populations in India, Pakistan, the Phillippines, and Germany. Thus the fact that German use cannabis 100 times more often than marijuana matter [18] for their 50 M speakers of English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might matter if you could show that significant fraction of all English-language reliable sources on this topic were from India, Pakistan, the Phillippines and Germany and if, in addition, you could show those sources displayed a preference for cannibis. The Times of India numbers above, for example, suggest that Indian sources may prefer the term marijuana. In any event, my table was merely offered to show relative population sizes as a way of offering insight into what's happening, not to tally up the total English speaking populations on either side of this issue. If that had been my intent, I'd have added Canada and the US together because it looks to me like Canadian sources probably also favor the term marijuana, Moxy's preference for cannabis notwithstanding. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already shown that Cannabis is the most used term in recent review article. And at the same time I showed that simply using the raw number given by search is not very accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to write all you want. Writing more does not however give your arguments greater weight. You have not convinced the community in question. The move close has been "overturned". There is currently no consensus for this move. Time to let others comment if they so wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the other thing about your numbers: They never stand up to even the most cursory inspection. Take your latest claim that "German use cannabis 100 times more often than marijuana matter [19] for their 50 M speakers of English". You don't expect anyone to click this? It's an n-gram analysis of marijuana versus cannabis frequency in German! This is the nuttiest thing you've posted so far. This is an English language encyclopedia. What possibly makes you think it matters what they call this stuff in German? Msnicki (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki, again your scholarship is superior. You use policy based arguments, don't limit your sources to scientific ones (which is the proper thing to do in this situation), and double check the faulty offerings we've seen here. This search is also limited only to books.
The English (ALL English) search shows that the scientific/genus term (cannabis) has been in use for a longer period of time, but marijuana became the dominant term, and still is the most commonly used term on the whole.
When we remember to check "case insensitive" "marijuana" skyrockets far above "cannabis". -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it isn't. If you look at the usage of cannabis versus marijuana in review articles on pubmed from the last 5 years. Cannabis is much more used. One actually has to count usage however rather than just accept the number provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued insistence that if pubmed is searched just right, you get a result you like, reminds me so much of Captain Queeg and the strawberries. Sorry, I just can't help it. It was a good book and a good movie. Msnicki (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, of course PubMed would be expected to use "cannabis" more (even though a search above showed it doesn't...). It's a scientific source, so one would expect the scientific term to be used more often there. The "PubMed" argument is an illegitimate argument because PubMed only publishes scientific sources, which are a miniscule subset of all the sources and uses on the whole subject. Cannabis is the scientific/botanical name known by all scientists and a minority of the public, while marijuana is the common name in the public domain, known by all groups. Marijuana covers the larger topic of drug and medicinal use, with scientific terminology being a subset.
Cannabis and marijuana both have their legitimate uses as article titles. For convenience (and logic's) sake, it would be best to follow the convention with all botanical articles, and use Cannabis for the plant article, keeping the drug and medicinal use topics for Marijuana (drug). That way they both get their due. All articles could still use both terms, depending on the sources used, since they are often used synonymously.
The area of most concern is the one where massive OR is at play, often directly against the sources used(!), with Medical cannabis being used instead of the obvious Medical marijuana. The sources literally say "medical marijuana" and editors change it to "medical cannabis". That's totally wrong. The law uses "medical marijuana", and medical marijuana cards use it too, so that article should be so titled. Medical marijuana should not redirect to Medical cannabis. It should be the other way around.
Otherwise, all I'm suggesting is that we exchange one word in the title of this article, not change articles. Just change this one to Marijuana (drug), and it will continue to cover drug and medicinal use. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two of you prefer a google search and count technique. I prefer a reading of the literature and keeping the topic area named consistently and a more indepth count technique. There is really no need to continue with this. Yes google searching shows slightly high rates for marijuana overall. The medical literature prefers cannabis. And the whole scientific area is name around cannabis. This is the evidence. Now people get to weigh in to decide which arguments are more compelling. Currently mine appear to be. I have not convinced you that my techniques are preferable and you have not convinced me that your techniques are preferable. The article has been at this name a long time. There is no consensus to move it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at cannabis. For one, I do not believe that Google hits should ever trump (or be given the same credence to) reliable sources, but that is not what I am basing my opinion on. According to this source, it seems that both cannabis and marijuana are both used as the more formal words for the same drug. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to dispute the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is the more frequent term, even if only because of the avalanche of US news coverage. Instead, you appear to arguing that frequency doesn't really matter. You've also chosen a UK source that says, "When talking about the drug, marijuana and cannabis both have the same meaning. When talking botanically - talking about the plant genus - we use the word Cannabis." Your own UK source says marijuana means the same thing as cannabis but doesn't need to be disambiguated from the genus. Why is this not a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL? Msnicki (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of using "Marijuana (drug)" as the title here

The relevance of using "Marijuana (drug)" as the title for this article is made even more clear from the book search above. The fact that use of the word "marijuana" seems to have gained prominence in connection with the beginnings of the war against marijuana drug use is significant. The timeline indicates it began to be used in books in 1927, with zero instances before that. In 1950 it surpassed the use of "cannabis", and has retained that position ever since, with an absolutely HUGE dominance. There is no question about "marijuana" being the dominant word.

The word cannabis had been in use for some time, it being the scientific/genus term for the plant. The use of cannabis (and products made from it, such as hash and hash oil) as a drug became the focus of significant legal and societal opposition at that time, and this opposition most often focused on "marijuana" as a demon weed, and the popularity and common use of the word "marijuana" pushed it into becoming the dominant word, at least when describing use of the cannabis plant as a drug or medicine. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're muddying the water here. There's simply no reason to add the "(drug)" disambiguation. Marijuana and Marijuana (drug) have both been stable redirects to Canabis (drug) since 2010 and 2007, respectively, except for short while after you changed Marijuana to point to Cannabis, the genus, without discussion, while my WP:RM was still open, and without, I'm pretty sure, anything close to any evidence or consensus that when reliable sources use the term marijuana, they usually mean the plant, not the drug. Our guidelines at WP:NATURAL ask that we prefer article titles that do not require disambiguation, meaning as between Marijuana and Marijuana (drug), there does not appear to be any credible reason why anyone but you would prefer Marijuana (drug) over Marijuana or Cannabis (drug). Sorry. Someone had to say it. Msnicki (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right (about "muddying"), since we (you and I) haven't discussed this. I've been doing my own thing and only occasionally popped in here. What's the point of using a disambiguation in the title above, if not a desire to ban use of the word "marijuana" (and that's wrong). As it is by far the most common name in the English language (as a whole), it shouldn't be relegated to a redirect. My suggestion gives it it's proper due attention. Since it's a synonym for cannabis, the one being the scientific/genus term for the plant and the other the common term for the plant and drug, we can use both of them. If we do that, we wouldn't necessarily have to title this article using a disambiguation ("drug"), but just call it "marijuana", and let the lead do what it does now, by describing it as a synonym for the plant, and especially when used as a drug or medicine.
Let's continue to discuss this, because I'd like to understand your thinking. I thought you were struggling for the use of the word "marijuana", and you have made a very strong case for using it, but I must have been wrong. If you are suggesting we use the word, in what manner would you use it? I thought we were talking about a move or change of title(s). If not, then what is all the discussion about? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Below a simply quiz from a medical text book... who can get them right? Most here can because they understand the difference usage of the terms and is why the article has been stable here at the term "Cannabis" the parent and medical term for years and years....actually since the articles inception we have made the distinction between the types of products that are produced. Adam Prus (2013). An Introduction to Drugs and the Neuroscience of Behavior. Cengage Learning. p. 304. ISBN 1-285-62946-9.. -- Moxy (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're making the same mistake which Doc James does. A medical or scientific work uses technical language, even to the point of violating common usage. I haven't touched pot since 1973, and have never heard anyone refer to a joint as rolled cannabis, but always as marijuana. In fact, the word cannabis was rarely used in the drug culture and common literature (books, news, etc.), except when referring to the technical plant name. Then the scientific term came into play, but the common word was always marijuana, as well as other terms like weed, pot, etc.. No one is questioning that the word "cannabis" is commonly used, and is likely the dominant term in medical and scientific literature, but there can be no doubt (no one, including yourself, has demonstrated otherwise) that "marijuana" is by far the most commonly used term in the English language as a whole. There are minor exceptions, but only that. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is used more often... but to refer to one type of drug produced by the plant. I think this has been demonstrated clearly with stats and sources. Even non medical America goverment sources make this distinction as seen at NHTSA quote: "Marijuana refers to the leaves and flowering tops of the cannabis plant; the buds are often preferred because of their higher THC content. Hashish consists of the THC-rich resinous secretions of the plant, which are collected, dried, compressed and smoked. Hashish oil is produced by extracting the cannabinoids from plant material with a solvent. In the U. S., marijuana, hashish and hashish oil are Schedule I controlled substances. Dronabinol (Marinol®) is a Schedule III controlled substance and is available in strengths of 2.5, 5 or 10 mg in round, soft gelatin capsules." . There is this distinction in the world so we can keep track...meaning we track there usage (by different names), levels of potency, prevalence in society and cost of the different types of drugs prepared by the plant as cited here. -- Moxy (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you, so be patient with me and correct me if I misrepresent your position. I assume we are agreed that the cannabis/hemp/marijuana plant is used for various purposes. Some are industrial uses (rope, creams, oil, etc.), and we often use the word "hemp" for those purposes. Other uses are for drugs and medicines. The legal status varies quite a bit! The names of these drug and medicinal products vary quite a bit, but basically one often uses the term "marijuana" for the (usually) dried plant parts. Any refinement beyond this in the form of concentration or extraction gets its own name: hashish, hash oil, etc.. Yet these all derive from the same plant, the one we scientifically call cannabis. Correct so far? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct ...you got it. We have different types of drugs produced by the same plant. Where I am from (Canada) only the dried plant (marijuana that in Canada is legally spelled as marihuana) can be used, but other forms like hashish, oils and all other derivatives are still not legal to use (see page 3 here). This is also the distinction used in international law (see section titled "The cannabis plant" here). This is done so the world can keep track of the different types of drugs produced by the plant for stats and labs and so on (See section 12.4 Form of Cannabis here). To put this simply when educating people about these drugs we classify them ...Quote Cannabis is used in three main forms: marijuana, hashish and hash oil. Marijuana is made from dried flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant. It is the least potent of all the cannabis products and is usually smoked. Hashish is made from the resin (a secreted gum) of the cannabis plant. It is dried and pressed into small blocks and smoked. It can also be added to food and eaten. Hash oil, the most potent cannabis product, is a thick oil obtained from hashish - See more here "Marijuana therefore is a term used to describe only one of the cannabis products available and therefore is not inclusive of all products in the class" again from NCPIC website-- Moxy (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that's the Australian and Canadian POV, and I can understand them. They, together with the Brits, are the exception which proves the rule. The Australians make a point of recognizing that the Americans use the terms Marijuana/Marihuana, as well as the terms hashish and hash oil. So we have a situation which isn't black or white. It's rather muddled! Do we acquiesce to the minority Australian attempts to ban the use of the word marijuana? Is this an Australian encyclopedia? Don't the majority Americans get any say at all? If they do, in what way should that be done? (I'm American, but with a European flavor, being married to a Dane and having lived in Europe for many years, so I'm also familiar with some European usage.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brangifer American source even in books that use "marijuana" in the title have this distinction.... again for stats and the like. - Mahmoud A. (The University of Mississippi) (2007). Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. Springer. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-59259-947-9. cannabis preparations confiscated in the United States between 1980 and 1997 (59), ElSohly et al. reported that the average concentrations for THC were 3.1% in marijuana (herbal cannabis), 5.2% in hashish (cannabis resin), 15.0% in hash oil (liquid cannabis) -- Moxy (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, are you once again leading us down the garden path? Are you once again arguing that marijuana and cannabis are different, contrary to what the article currently reports? If you are, then can you please state the change you seek in the article content so we can all stop trying to guess what that is? If all you're saying is that both marijuana and cannabis most often refer to the dried flowers but can also mean hash and that, as the article reports, the terms are used interchangeably, then I really have no idea why you think any of this is relevant to discussion of which title we should choose. Msnicki (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki we all understand that this train of thought is not what you agree with. I have also pointed out to you many times now that there is no need to change any content in the article. What I am trying to do is show that the term "marijuana" is not as clear cut as you believe it to be...in other words cannabis is by far the most neutral name used by all sources in all countries to cover all the types of drugs produced by the plant. We are all here because you want a change that is being contested by the majority....pls dont act like you dont know whats going on. -- Moxy (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what part of the guidelines you believe supports your train of thought. Even if you could show that marijuana was not as "clear cut" or "neutral" as cannabis, we take English as we find it in the sources. From WP:POVNAMING, "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment." You're a long, long way from any train of thought that gets you to a credible argument that marijuana is a judgmental term. And even if you got there, so what. This time I was quoting not merely from a guideline, but a policy page saying it wouldn't matter.
Further, you appear to be referring to a majority of !voters, not sources. From WP:Naming conventions (use English), "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." The number of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times news articles alone should have told you what the answer is. Legalization in the US is absolutely filling the news here. This isn't Amsterdam legalizing it to the amazement of of the characters in Pulp Fiction. This is a whole country of over 300M doing it, state-by-state. California alone has more people than all of Canada. This is a big deal. Not only is this constantly in the news, it's creating a market for lots of books and other sources using our term. There just plain are a lot of us, and our "per capita" number of sources being created and consumed has risen. Americans are overwhelming the rest of the English-speaking world in discussion of marijuana and in defining what that term means. I didn't create this situation. All I did was notice it. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit much at some point you will have to accept others POV and the fact most simply dont see it they way you do. Pretending you dont know what people are talking about is not serving you well. So lets recap as you seem to be lost again. We are taking about what is verifiable and neutral. I have presented 15 or so sources to support my position...that position is.. In Canada the term marijuana is legally not spelled "marijuana" and refers to only the dried bud. The Australians simply dont like the term marijuana and dont use it in the manner you would like. Your own stats indicate that in the UK cannabis is more of the norm. We have some American sources that define marijuana as one form of cannabis when talking about stats and the like. Then we have international law that prefers the term cannabis. Its clear to most here that cannabis is a term used by all with a similar meaning even by your fellow Americans. Going out of your way to push American usage by way of Google hits that do not tell us the context of the usage is not doing well as you can tell. The majority of people here and the majority of source presented thus far do not support your views. It takes alot to move an article that has been stable for almost a decade....your not the first to try...but do have to give you credit for effort and sticking to your guns in the face of so much opposition and sources. -- Moxy (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your question, Brangifer, here's my thinking. I believe the evidence and our guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL and WP:OFFICIAL support renaming Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana. Based on WP:NATURAL, I would oppose moving Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana (drug) rather than Marijuana. I would also oppose moving Cannabis to any other title if such a request were made because I believe the genus name is the appropriate title for our article on the plant family. Msnicki (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we are in basic agreement! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above you two have no consensus for a move. We all know that you both support the move. Most of the rest of us however do not as we disagree with the conclusions of your reading of the evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? We're not allowed to talk? He's not allowed to ask me to clarify my position and I'm not allowed to answer? Are you worried we'll conspire? Msnicki (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have no illusions that we currently have a consensus to change the title of this article, but we have the better arguments, based on clear demonstrations of common usage, and based on policy. Botanical articles prefer the scientific titles, and that's what we currently have at Cannabis. We're seeking to change the old, rather moldy, consensus based on better analysis of the evidence for common usage. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS are policies which should not be ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can talk all you like but we actually have the BETTER arguments :-) Naming should be based on reliable sources. And the current name just makes sense as it fits into the rest of the naming scheme for this chemical / drug class and is supported by more reliable sources. It is the same reason why we use generic names for pharmaceuticals even though I am sure you two could "prove" they are not the most common name.
For example acetaminophen beats out paracetamol but we use the INN [20] rather than the USAN. So yes WP:RS is on our side. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but we are at an impasse. I've said what I want to say, and there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing. I'm definitely not even close to being convinced that COMMONNAME isn't grossly violated here, but since that policy seems to be ignored, I'm backing out. I have better things to do. The minority Australian/Canadian/UK POV seems to dictate what happens here, and even then only when sources are cherry picked and selectively quoted, as shown many times by Msnicki. I don't consider this to be a good or stable situation, but so be it.
The word marijuana, the most commonly used word for this plant/drug in the entire English speaking world, is relegated to a redirect. SMH! Doesn't that strike you as odd? The Australian attempts, to ban the use of the word (in Australia!), have won at Wikipedia. Is that really what we've come to? The Australian super minority dictates here?! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No what has come to pass is that the name used by most reliable sources has been upheld. No strange at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telling yourself that. When you cherry pick sources, use minority (Canadian, Australian, UK) sources, and scientific sources, while ignoring sources which use "marijuana", and ignoring common usage in the English language as a whole, you can create the picture you wish to see. That's what you've done.
Google Books:
Google Books Ngram for English language as a whole:
That Ngram has to be seen to be believed, because it shows a dominant use of the term "marijuana" in English language books that is so staggering that it should not be ignored to the point of Wikipedia relegating the word to a redirect.
Just those few links show the absurdity of your use of cherry picked sources. They tell only a small, minority, part of the story. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you are not a fan of pubmed med reviews. What ever than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I'm very much a fan of them, but we don't let a tiny segment of the real world to dictate COMMONNAME. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what the experts have to say is not that valid because Google hits says media outlets like Fox news uses less educated terms? I hope this is not how others approach things... find it odd that people actually think COMMONNAME from Google hits is more important then what the experts have to say. If this is the road we are headed down we should rename Politics of Russia to Putinism because this is what the Western media calls it now. -- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course marijuana will get the most hits as its the most common form of the drug. Look a seizures for example without dough marijuana is confiscated the most...but when other forms of cannabis are seized they use those terms even in the USA media from the past Largest drug seizure in United States history...once again shown that even the Americans see a distinction between the drugs produced by the cannabis plant. Then we have books where context and usage is what we are looking. For instances a book titled "The Everything Marijuana Book" this first American book that I see from a "marijuana cannabis" search. The term cannabis is the term used in the book despite the books title. We need our editors to actually take the time and look at the sources for there usage and reliability...not take Google searches as definitive. - Moxy (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Americans use the term more...but in an uneducated manner. But this does not matter in the long run as those of us that edit the page will just explain the problem. We will have to explain in more detail that marihuana is a form of drug like hash and oil. We need this because its clear not all understand why there is distinctions (for stats, labs, law enforcement etc..). We do say already but its not firm in its language...as in we dont explain why we separate the terms. -- Moxy (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you've never met anyone who calls it marijuana, it seems certain you've never visited the US. Even President Obama calls it marijuana. Msnicki (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only here for the RFC. To adopt as the headword of ANY article anything but its technically definitive name is not so much insane as stupid, counterfunctional, shortsighted. There is hardly a technical topic of which some common names do not occur more commonly in popular speech or articles than the definitive name. This does not make it more logical to use the common name, because the crucial attribute of a functional headword is that it should be definitive, whether popular or not. For common names we have such facilities as redirs, disambiguation etc. And why? Because we like grand, difficult, loooong names, hard to spell or pronounce, like Cannabis, whereas we could instead go for something concise, self-explanatory and universal like good ol' central American Marijuana? I suggest that the real reason is that an article that does not deal with a well-defined topic is by definition not encyclopedic. Popular names are:
  • non-universal - see how many alternative names you can find in different languages for any common name (there are plenty for Cannabis, including the same name for different purposes!)
  • volatile - within living memory marijuana was a minority term (I bet it still is) and in a minority of countries. Within a decade it could be again. And then we would change the headword again to some different slang? (Any bets about whether Cannabis would be changed any time soon, even if international English gets taken over by Chinese?)
  • ambiguous - people can't even SPELL or pronounce the name consistently, let alone agree on what it applies to, and some of us want? to? use? it? for? a? headword???
  • local - this common name in this case is local, used by a few tribes somewhere in the new world, somewhere east of the IDL, and used ambiguously at that. It is used differently by assorted subcultures for assorted purposes. There isn't a single country in the world where Cannabis is not used specifically for the precise meaning required. I doubt there are any large countries where you could not find a different usage on opposite sides of a large river or even highway.
  • unnecessary - anyone could add as many disambigs and redirs as he likes at any time he likes as long as he can support his sources, and any user who looks up such a word would find it just as easily as if it had been the headword.
And the counterargument is that some people find that one of the myriad slang items occurs more commonly in their local patois than the technical word? In limited senses? More recently?
Get a life guys!!! JonRichfield (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move was overturned - and there is clearly no consensus to move here either. So all will stay the same as its been for a decade. We should take the time now and explain in more detail why marijuana is just a form of the drug - why there is a differences between the terms that the media in the USA seems ignorant to - as in for law, labs, education etc... on the matter - last thing we want is more guess work - best we educate our readers as much as we can. -- Moxy (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An early Wikipedian coming to the realization that dead horses can't be made to go anywhere.
Yes, the closer on the MR called it as overturn, not relist. I think this was in error since it's clear the debate is not over. I have asked the closer to correct the MR outcome to be relist. If he doesn't, I will simply create a new requested move incorporating all of this current requested move content. Msnicki (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried to educate you in this matter but you simply refuse to understand why there is a distinction. What more do you think you can do? More Google hits? Keep ignoring all the fact presented by real sources? Wish you all the best of luck at wasting more peoples time. -- Moxy (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington wanted Hemp and Cannabis in America

George Washington pushed for the growth of Hemp and even grew hemp himself. In may 1765 he noted in his diary about the sowing of seeds each day until mid-april. Then he recounts the harvest in October which he grew 27 bushels that year. He and Thomas Jefferson (also a hemp farmer who developed a better way to break the stalk by modifying a thresher) would also share the flowers of the plant for smoking. They both preffered this to drinking alcohol or using tobacco, which they both saw as health concerns for the new land.

George Washington also imported the medicinal Indain Hemp plant from Asia, basically Marijuana, which was used for fiber and intoxicating resin production. In a letter to William Pearce who managed the plants for him Washington says, "What was done with the Indian Hemp plant from last summer? It ought, all of it, to be sown again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raisied, but to have desseminated seed to others; as it is more valuable then common Hemp." He anxiously sent more letters to Pearce, to get the most out of the seeds.

Other president's known to have used cannabis include James Madison (claimed it inspired him to found a nation on democratic principals), James Monroe (used until he was 73 years old), Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Bill Clinton (pretty sure), George W. Bush (pretty sure), and Barack Obama. [2]

This would make more sense if it was at the main parent article. -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse Cardiovascular Effects

A new source (PMID 24176069) has been mentioned at User talk:Jimbo_Wales#Reliability where this article is one of many topics being aired. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article's neutrality disputed?

I noticed that someone placed a {{POV}} template on this article in December 2013. In particular, which sections of this article are perceived as "non-neutral"? Jarble (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See substantial earlier discussion, you may need to look in archives. CFCF (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alot has chnaged since the tag was added ...will have to review the article again see if others still see a problem. -- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There sure is still a problem but until the dispute over naming, which has massively overtaken any work that might be done on the page, I'm just sitting on the sidelines waiting to resume work. This talk page is now 180KB, there are scores of reliable secondary sources that are not reflected in the article, and dozens of editors are arguing over what to call the stuff, yet not fixing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was tagged in this edit: [21]. The actual discussion seems to have primarily taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 44#Medical cannabis. I have no idea if the issues in question were resolved or not!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I believe that we can move on with fixing the article. We should summarize where we are at this point. -- Moxy (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Every time I've tried to restart work, I've found the name going back and forth and my edits getting reverted, and as far as I can tell, this little spat over the name is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death report by BBC

I am not convinced this is a reliable enough source.[22] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much speculation, and we can't trust the laypress. Specifically, cardiac, lung, or related to other products, who knows? (We do know that the oft-repeated claims that cannabis has no effect on mortality are demonstrably wrong, but this isn't the source to demonstrate that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get involved in the WP:MEDRS debate, because it's not my area, and I do think it's broadly a very good guideline; but something seems wrong here. From Sandy's comment I'm gathering that the line "Fatal overdoses associated with cannabis use have not been reported as of 2008" is either not true, or no longer true in 2014, compared with 2008. So yes, we go for verifiability not truth, but personally I think including a mention of the BBC's claim, explicitly labelling it as speculative, is more valuable to readers than the pure verified but probably inaccurate or misleading line above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there, Amakuru is in the wording (which is leftover POV that hasn't been addressed yet, and shows the problem with not relying on secondary reviews). We have recent secondary reviews that deal with mortality overall, and if we use those reviews and their wording, we can avoid the use of "fatal overdose" wording. The POV here (one we see throughout the cannabis suite) results from relying on only one aspect of mortality (fatal overdoses) rather than looking at mortality risk overall. At this moment, I can't recall which recent review does that best, and I'm uninterested in working on this article until the silly naming dispute is resolved, but I believe one can find that text and adequate sourcing for it in the medical cannabis article. You are correct that the wording in the article now is a wreck; my comment above was restricted to whether we should be sourcing mortality to the laypress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying that, Sandy. At least it's not just a case of our being happy with inaccurate information; and I understand your frustration over the naming distractions. It's an interesting question, maybe, what we would do in the scenario that there had never been an overdose death in history, then suddenly there was an unambiguous case that was recognised as such across the medical community. Inevitably I imagine it would take time for such a development to make its way through to peer reviewed secondary sources and in that interim period press articles might be all the evidence we have to go on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ... if that were the case, I suspect we'd have to use the laypress selectively. But what took hold across the cannabis suite of articles is that editors wanted to use (and quite selectively) some silly quote by a TV reporter claiming that no one had ever died from cannabis ... which is a subtly incorrect statement, dealt with by using secondary reviews of mortality rather than narrowing the focus to overdose. Otherwise known as cherry picking :) We've got it throughout this suite of articles, in which primary sources which selectively create a POV are used, to the exclusion of secondary reviews. I'd say about a third of the cleanup was done before the silly naming issue took over and stalled work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not just BBC, it's widely reported in the UK media without significant deviation, google it and look. Here it says, "Bournemouth coroner Mr Sheriff Payne asked Dr Hussein <pathologist>: ‘You are satisfied it was the effects of cannabis that caused her death?’ Dr Hussein replied: ‘Yes sir.’"
In 2004, Lee Maisey was the first man to be registered as dying from a cannabis "overdose", cause of death being "misadventure". I'm sure you're either aware of that case, or can google it. A fatal overdose is something different for everyone, it's something that triggers some pathological response of that person and they die. In both of these cases, there was nothing found by the pathologists to suggest the "cause" of death was anything else.
"Lay press" is used in many articles, including medical ones. I'm guessing that here pub med rules despite what actually happens in the real world? Just for the record, I have no beef with cannabis nor any other drug, but do believe in accurate information. Currently this article is inaccurate.Cjwilky (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts.... I always mistrust any product advertised as having no side effects. It's a pretty basic rule that if something has documented and measurable effects, then it will also have side effects of some sort. The same applies to cannabis. What's relevant is the relative difference when comparing its typical use with typical use of other types of drugs, both illicit and pharmaceutical. There the impression is pretty strong that it's generally much safer. But, can one really consider it truly "safe" under all circumstances? No, there are circumstances where adverse reactions, side effects, and dangers can exist, especially if someone has a weak psyche, concomitantly uses other drugs or medicines, or has some type of pathological condition which cannot tolerate more "excitement" from a drug such as the modern, high-THC, versions of cannabis products.

I suspect that with time we're going to see more unfortunate cases being tied to high-THC products, and if recreational marijuana use becomes legalized even more, I would hope that regulations are established which create proper evaluations and descriptions of content, much like on food items, where the contents must be declared. Example: joints being sold under different brand names, with each one having its CBD/THC ratio accurately described. If that happens, then we'd be able to understand which types have a greater "danger profile." Then reports in RS will be more "reliable". Right now we're in a limbo situation, where our definition of RS only means that the source is there tomorrow and has some sort of editorial control, and sometimes that's about it. That doesn't make it truly "reliable", in the sense of "true".

This is a pretty sensationalistic SINGLE case, regardless of how many report it, and there are probably other cases, involving other substances and even crimes, where the testimony of a lone coroner is not considered good enough to use as a source here. I'm pretty sure I've seen an article and situation like that here, but I can't think of it right now. I'll return here if it comes to mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis is in a study(Kenneth J. Mukamal et all,2008) of 1913 adults reported as a possible hazards for patients who survive acute myocardial infarction [[23]]Dala11a (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're referring to this URL. Interesting, not surprising, but not MEDRS compliant, and the author adds the usual disclaimer at the end. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: No one is suggesting that it doesn't have any side effects, just that it can't cause death in a healthy person taking a worldly dose. Exercisephys (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No normal, healthy person has yet died from a cannabis overdose. We have no literature to support claims to the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important point Exercisephys, and the article doesn't actually say this. Looking at the safety section of the article, there are 5 paragraphs, and overall is about as clear as THC fog.
1) The key issue I have there is the word "overdoses". The coroners reports are of overdoses, very clearly. So the article is wrong, there are documented "overdoses". Using the phrases "healthy person" and "wordly dose" or similar, would be helpful to the reader. Defining a healthy person - tricky one. The woman who died recently may well have been healthy in the sense that without the cannabis, she may never have had her latent condition triggered.
2) "human deaths from overdose are extremely rare." A direct contradiction of paragraph one.
3) I don't think quoting info about sativex is justified here. It's not cannabis and no-one can extrapolate the safety of cannabis from a derivative of it.
4) Good para :)
5) Also good. Though it does suggest a problem with overdose.
Cjwilky (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b "Cannabis sativa information from NPGS/GRIN". www.ars-grin.gov. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  2. ^ Robinson, Rowan. The Great Book of Hemp: The Complete Guide to the Environmental, Commercial, and Medicinal Uses of the World's Most Extraordinary Plant. Rochester, VT. Park Street Press, 2010. Chapter 5:129-135. Print
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=596552868"