Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:31, 12 January 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis (drug) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Cannabis (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 Date Process Result June 29, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 27, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 3, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted April 7, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cannabis Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive index Cannabis archive 1 Cannabis archive 2 Cannabis (drug) archive 1 Cannabis (drug) archive 2 Cannabis (drug) Archive 3 Cannabis (drug) Archive 4 Cannabis (drug) Archive 5 Cannabis (drug) Archive 6 Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Tobacco discussion Taken from Talk:cannabis to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 for the sources and discussions of this article. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis (drug) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Safety

Re links between cannabis use and lung cancer risk, this article seems to stress studies that indicate "no connection", and light use. But see also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283 regarding long term heavy use. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering this study was published just some 10 days ago, it's hardly surprising that it's not yet included here. I'll add when I have a moment. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PMID 23846283 is a primary source; see WP:MEDRS. There are numerous secondary sources compliant with MEDRS that can and should be used. For those who don't know how to determine if a study indexed in PubMed is a primary (an orginal study) or secondary source (an independent review of an original study), Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help. Medical content should be sourced to recent secondary reviews. For example, PMID 24234874 is a recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, having read through the wiki on reliable sources for medical articles, I have a better idea of what to use. Would it be ok to reference this link from the National Cancer Institute regarding the link between pot and cancer? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, MastCell Hi again, JoelWhy! On the surface, I'd probably say yes, since it appears to be a secondary review, but I've pinged some folks who would know better because a) I'm not familiar with that source (they may be), and b) I'm wondering why we can't just use the secondary reviews they reference. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO it is better to use the published review article. This would be an okay source if better ones are not found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, we have Gordon 2013 that does specify cancer risk:

• Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Gordon says: "there does appear to be an increased risk of cancer (particularly head and neck, lung, and bladder cancer) for those who use marijuana over a period of time, although what length of time that this risk increases is uncertain". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, JoelWhy. I just cited the NCI overview at medical cannabis. I think it's a good source, as is this detailed overview from Health Canada. The bottom line is that cannabis products are carcinogenic in a variety of in vitro assays, but human studies have been limited and inconclusive to date. MastCell  17:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to make sure we mention its when burned that there theses problems. As the studies indicate oral consumption as in eating (not smoked) is not a precursor. Also have to be carefull when it comes to sources here...this is not a medical article and the sources dont have to be medical - just reliable in nature about drugs. -- Moxy (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Medical and health statements require WP:MEDRS sourcing no matter where they occur, and some portions of this article are about health (in fact, most). Think of it like WP:BLP; just because a statement about a living person occurs in an article that is not a biography does not mean we can violate BLP. This articles is about a drug; MEDRS will apply to a good portion of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with what your saying....but a comprehensive review by the Drug and Alcohol Review Board would be a fine reference... we need to source the wider views of experts on the topic over just medical reports. Lots out there that has validity that is not just medical in nature. On a side note the section "History" is way to big for here. -- Moxy (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just created History of medical cannabis via a merge, and we also need to spin a lot of content from here and cannabis into History of cannabis; these articles are a bear to work on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

David Nutt and the removal of his remarks on British Lung study

Professor David Nutt, who used to chair the UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired after releasing the results of his examination of drug scheduling and its relationship to drug dangers. He found that cannabis was less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol.

His remarks on the British Lung Study should be in this article. This encyclopedia needs to include the voice of prominent critics, as well as government agencies, etc. Please add this back to the paragraph discussion the BLS. Smoke without fire: Scaremongering by the British Lung Foundation over cannabis vs tobacco. We have good coverage of the study, it is not too much to ask for the one sentence about Nutt to be once again included. petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the BLS study considered a reliable sources? As those are medical claims, we should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Someone mentioned that blogs are not RS, but blog is a technical description of a website's structure and layout, it is not possible to generalize.

From WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." which David Nutt meets.

But we should make a summary from Effects of cannabis‎‎ and Long-term effects of cannabis‎‎ and add it to the relevant section(s) in this article. Götz (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't notice, but I already removed the BLF reference before you posted this so the comments by Nutt aren't important now. The BLF publication wasn't peer reviewed as far as I can tell and so we shouldn't be referencing it. If the claims it makes are valid, we'll be able to find them in the literature. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read more than a couple dozen secondary journal reviews this week, and it's a) amazing the amount of information that is untapped in these articles, and b) apparent that it is unnecessary to be resorting to lesser quality sources when there is such an abundance of information from high quality sources that often say the same things. It will take some time and effort to upgrade the sourcing in this suite of articles, but very good sources are available and there is no need to resort to advocacy sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In my reading, came across this from the most recent (2013) Cochrane review:(PMID 23633327)

The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine is a hotly contested issue. Those in support of its medicinal use assert that marijuana is effective in the treatment of wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer; neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis; and glaucoma (Aggarwal 2009). A counter argument might point to the existence of effective treatments for many, if not all, of these conditions. Not unlinked to this debate is the question of the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug. A recent re-appraisal of the harms to individuals and others in the United Kingdom associated with various substances rated cannabis as less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco (Nutt 2010). Nonetheless, the current legal status of marijuana constitutes an important philosophical obstacle to the legitimacy of its use as a medicine (Cohen 2009). (From PMID 23633327 )

This reinforces my belief that most of the problematic text in these articles can be better sourced to recent high quality reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

THC fatalities?

We say "Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil." sourced to PMID 16225128, but according to this old edit this is a misrepresentation of the source, as this material relates to animal studies. Has somebody got access to the full text and so can check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That was my - possibly mistaken - reading of the cited abstract. (It seemed from the language of the abstract they were discussing humans - "hair" not "fur", "autopsy".) However, reliably attributing death to an acute effect of cannabis ingestion seems to be problematical in the rare instances it's suspected, and this BJP review from 4 years earlier says, "no deaths directly due to acute cannabis use have ever been reported." So, I'd be comfortable citing that and dropping the Przegl Lek. abstract - unless we can find a more recent authoritative statement on death as an acute effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully someone at the Resource Exchange can get hold of the full text. This is an important thing to get right. SmartSE (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering it's an obscure and dated source, and that Petrarchan47 is apoplectic about what may just be a mistake by another editor (hey, mistakes happen, but never by Petra apparently), I'm going to remove it for now. We have secondary reviews of mortality and fatalities; we don't need this text anyway. And Petra, people make mistakes; be glad no one is as hard on you as you've been on Anthonyhcole for what may or may not be a mistake. Oh, and thank you Alexbrn (gee, a MED editor) for spotting the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alex didn't spot the problem, I did, and pointed it out to him at Gandy's talk on 10 December. So what you call "drama" is actually what it took to get this *oopsie* out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This 2011 paper in Forensic Science International states:

"As THC overdoses are exceedingly rare and almost never a direct cause of drug-overdose deaths, no “lethal” THC concentration in humans is described. Except in the setting of trauma resulting from drug-induced impairment, THC measurement in post-mortem specimens has little impact on the ultimate determination of cause and manner of death by medical examiners, and this fact is likely responsible for this relative scarcity of information."

"...no fatalities from cannabis (or THC) overdose have been reported..."

It doesn't make any mention of intravenous injections though (but I did find Intravenous Marijuana Syndrome). I've searched for other IV info in other papers but couldn't find anything else even mentioning it other than this which was an experiment where the LD50 of cannabinoids was found for monkeys. Perhaps it is best to remove the obscure source and use the FSI paper? Let me know if you want a copy. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse; I just added a 2010 review of mortality that says the same thing (no reported fatalities from overdose). Possible mistake made, error spotted, error fixed, would have been fixed even faster without the drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

removed

Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.

And also removed

We have a 2010 review citing no fatalities in the article; a 15-yo review saying the same thing is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Photo with caption as follows: 'A joint prior to rolling, with a paper "roach" at left.' is incorrect, and disagrees with the caption on the full-size version. The item at left is not a "roach," but a "filter."

Mrnews (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the caption.--Soulparadox (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move to "Marijuana"

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..

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)

Evidence in move close:

2. - do a search for "ised" vs. "ized" to see

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)

• 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, "Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages"."

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 Misplaced Pages, 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
Misplaced Pages	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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support Jaqeli (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose--Soulparadox (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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[REDACTED] 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)

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 Misplaced Pages is even more lacking of any evidence or guidelines support. Frankly, it's downright silly. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Google searches aren't everything, in Britain at least cannabis is the normal term, marijuana is rather unusual and would be seen as rather dated or an Americanism. PatGallacher (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• Comment. WP:COMMONNAME suggests also considering the usage in the sources used as references for the article, so I decided to count them. There are 156 references, of which 49 have the word marijuana in the citation compared to only 36 with the word cannabis. Once again, it appears that marijuana is the more common name. Msnicki (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a natural disambiguation from the genus article Cannabis. bd2412 T 15:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose More review articles on pubmed use cannabis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

We look at review articles for sourcing per WP:MEDRS, not for titles. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Comment Additionally cannabis is the broader term "cannabis includes marijuana, hashish and hemp oil" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Here are two policy links specific to the point:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Scientific_versus_common_names (this would favor cannabis)
• Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.")

Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Countering systemic bias, this is also relevant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

SqueakBox, your claims need to be backed up by evidence, and you haven't produced anything. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Yes many sources use cannabis and marijuana interchangeably. 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)

• 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)

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)

• Opposes - Marijuana is an American spelling - Marihuana Medical Access Regulations -- Moxy (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Excellent source. It increases my support for keeping the article at the name it is at. We are not an American Misplaced Pages 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)

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 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This would tend to weigh in favor of Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Scientific_versus_common_names, which would favor the current (scientific/botanical) title. That leaves us with this other consideration at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages." -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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 02:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Query - These are (all of? some of) the titles of articles in the cannabis "suite". Which would change if this proposal is accepted?

• Blueberry (Cannabis)
• Cannabis
• Cannabis (drug)
• Cannabis and memory
• Cannabis cultivation
• Cannabis dependence
• Cannabis drug testing
• Cannabis foods
• Cannabis in pregnancy
• Cannabis in the United States
• Cannabis political parties
• Cannabis reform at the international level
• Cannabis smoking
• Cannabis strains
• Cannabis tea
• Charlotte's Web (Cannabis)
• Diesel (Cannabis)
• Effects of cannabis
• Haze (Cannabis)
• Jack Herer (Cannabis)
• Kush (Cannabis)
• List of British politicians who admit to cannabis use
• List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use
• Long-term effects of cannabis
• Medical cannabis
• Medical cannabis in the United States
• Purple (Cannabis)
• Religious and spiritual use of cannabis
• Shaman (Cannabis)
• Skunk (Cannabis)
• Sour (Cannabis)
• Synthetic cannabis

Alexbrn 05:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have to say I don't like the sound of "may ripple through" (aka "someone else can do it"). Misplaced Pages 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 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(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)

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 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support as per nom.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as marijuana is a recent American term, and Misplaced Pages is an international encyclopedia. Also, the title has been stable for a long time (WP:TITLECHANGES), there is no good reason to change it. —Götz (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above suggests otherwise; see, for example, the google.co.uk hits. Neelix (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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:

• Cannabis (/ˈkænəbɪs/) is a genus of flowering plants that includes three putative varieties, Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis.

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)

(arbitrary break)

• Oppose - the new title would be a pars pro toto; adopting it would be equivalent to renaming our Automobile article "Wheels". Alexbrn 17:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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:

• Marijuana (latin: cannabis), also known by its Latin name cannabis, is a genus of flowering plants ....

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

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)

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 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Strong Oppose Why not rename "sexual intercourse" to "fucking"? In all but scientific jargon, "sexual intercourse" is very rarely used. JDiala (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

This is an encyclopedia we go with what the reliable sources say not the number of Google hits (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability vs Misplaced Pages: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)

• Donald G. Barceloux (2012). Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants. John Wiley & Sons. p. 889. ISBN 978-1-118-10605-1. Marijuana (marihuana) refers to plant material from the hemp plant that produces psychotomimetic or therapeutic effects, primarily the flowering tops and dried leaves. Cannabis refers to any psychoactive part or preparation of the hemp plant......'
• David P. Moore; Basant K. Puri (2012). Textbook of Clinical Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience 3E. CRC Press. p. 772. ISBN 978-1-4441-2134-6. In the USA, the four most common preparations of cannabis are marijuana, sinsemilla, hashish, and hashish oil
• 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)
• Martin Booth (2011). Cannabis: A History. Transworld. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-4090-8489-1. The psycho—active products of cannabis are hashish, marijuana and, rarely, hashish oil.
• JaVed I. Khan; Donnell R. Christian, Jr.; Thomas J. Kennedy (2012). Basic Principles of Forensic Chemistry. Springer. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-934115-06-0. Marijuana is not a scientific classification; it is a term typically used to describe the dried leaves of cannabis plants and flowering portions of the female cannabis
• Fred Ovsiew (1999). Neuropsychiatry and Mental Health Services. American Psychiatric Pub. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-88048-730-6. Various preparations of cannabis are available including bhang, marijuana, ganja, hashish (cannabis resin), and liquid cannabis (hashish oil),
• Suzanne Bell (2008). Drugs, Poisons, and Chemistry. Infobase Publishing. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-8160-5510-4. The term marijuana refers to drugs derived from the plant Cannabis sativa and specifically to the leaves and flowering tops of those plants. ... Hashish, or hash oil, is the oily resin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Article titles, and the shortcut to the exact text is WP:COMMONNAME. Red Slash 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Completely false. Marijuana refers to Cannabis, full stop. Where did you hear otherwise? petrarchan47tc 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana refers to a preparation of Cannabis; Cannabis (drug) is an umbrella term that covers other preparations too. See many comments above. Alexbrn 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have raised the issue of the controversial close here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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
• Marijuana 0.65M

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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
• M>C in American

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

• The French German Italian etc all prefer Cannabis.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect to UK data a search of the London Times is more accurate. M 1811 C 3852 . 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

1. Kochanowski, M.; Kała, M. (2005). "Tetrahydrocannabinols in clinical and forensic toxicology". Przegl Lek. 62 (6): 576–80. PMID 16225128. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
2. ^ "Cannabis sativa information from NPGS/GRIN". www.ars-grin.gov. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
3. 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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Cannabis articles
• Top-importance Cannabis articles
• WikiProject Cannabis articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• High-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class neuroscience articles
• High-importance neuroscience articles
• Pages at move review