Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

temporary author comments[edit source | edit]

The author disagrees with the reviewers below who suggest this article should be a subset of the "cannabis" article. Cannabis is one item sold at dispensaries. They can also sell accessories, related merchandise, pipes, vaporizers, souvenirs, etc. Hovering your mouse over the first and second footnotes will help the reader see that the term "marijuana dispensary" is defined in several of the United States and now in other countries. Just as Drugs Stores and liquor stores are a separate and unique types of retail stores, marijuana dispensaries deserve the same distinction. The various local, state, and country laws regarding dispensaries deserve their own subsection. Noteable dispensaries deserve their own subsection. I will aim to demonstrate my belief by creating more depth and citing my references. --Potguru (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru, part of the problem that I see is that you haven't done the necessary research on the subject beyond a quick google search. Wikipedia articles require additional research to create a topic. Most, if not all of the information you have added already appears in different articles, so if you want to create a new article on a singular topic, you first need to start with a good source that covers the topic, not pick different sources and combine them together. Have you been to your local library or consulted any bibliographies on this subject? To begin with, you should be able to identify at least one good print source (book, newspaper, magazine article) that summarizes the subject before continuing. Then, you can work from there. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The above poster set to war with me and gone to great efforts to stop the publication of this article including recommending it for deletion. In the process he changed the original name of the article from marijuana dispensary to his prefered cannabis dispensary, a thing I for which I can find no evidence to support its existence. --Potguru (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit war is over now, it's probably best to forget it. Let's move on to more productive conversation, please. I think we'd all like to help improve the article at this point, at the bottom of this Talk page is more discussion relating to the article title and the appropriateness of various terms. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope to remove much of the misguided noise (that I created) below. Please jump to current discussion (current bottom of page) here. --Potguru (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

archived

(propose remove section) my thoughts

I see you have been working on this article for a while. I was just wondering if you had by any chance reviewed the Head shop article. I am not saying they are the same thing but there may be a bit of overlap between the your article and it. Krj373 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Thank you very much for that. A head shop is fundamentally different in that a head shop cannot legally sell cannabis. I will incorporate your comment. Thanks!!

That is the primary difference is the legality of one over the other. They are some what related and the head shop article is older & has been polished over the years. It was just a thought. Your article keeps popping up in the recent changes. So I figured I would take a look and see what you where doing. Another piece of advise when you make a comment on a talk insert ~~~~ behind your comment. It adds a signature otherwise the sign bot will get you. :) Krj373 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kkj373!! --Potguru (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


I would like to remove this section. kkj373, may I remove this section (if yes, feel free to remove it yourself). --Potguru (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons categories

I started https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marijuana_dispensaries.

I see also shops. Same thing? Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, yes they all the same, thanks you rock!!! --Potguru (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

infobox or no infobox

Hi there, I'm a little confused by the info box, it contains information about marijuana (species, conservation status, etc.) but the article is about the dispensaries. Isn't this duplicating information more appropriately located in Cannabis? Thanks! Chrisw80 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a taxobox and shouldn't be there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I rather preferred the dispensary image and sidenavbar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll get back to an image, Anna, as soon as I find a good one... I promise!! --Potguru (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remove this section. Anna Frodesiak, may I remove this section (if yes, feel free to remove it yourself). --Potguru (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Name

being discussed below, this section is archived

Should this article be named "Cannabis dispensary" to keep it consistent with our cannabis articles? Sizeofint (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it should be named marijuana dispensary as that is the more common term used to describe them. Calling them cannabis dispensaries is uncommon but that changes as people start using the word cannabis to marijuana. These words all have meaning depending on who the local government is. and oh, by the way, can you make it an article again? --Potguru (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing the above idea. I am having a difficult time locating sources that actually use the term "cannabis dispensary". The vast majority of references seem to prefer the term marijuana dispensary. For example:

--Potguru (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Cannabis is already the well-established consensus term for a plant/drug on Wikipedia (e.g., Cannabis in the United States, Cannabis_(drug), 420_(cannabis_culture). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:Naming criteria may be of relevance here. There are cannabis vs. marijuana discussions in virtually every archive of Talk:Cannabis (drug). Sizeofint (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Google scholar indicates "Cannabis dispensary" has some use in literature [1] Sizeofint (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not an article about cannabis or marijuana, it is an article about marijuana dispensaries. There are VERY few reputable sources to support the existence of cannabis dispensaries. When you used google, you forgot to use the plus sign. The actual results of your query are:
  • "+"cannabis dispensary" (Scholar = About 104 results (0.05 sec))
compared to
Yes, I wasn't attempting to compare usage of the terms. I agree that "Marijuana dispensary" is much more commonly used. I was just showing that there are in fact scholarly papers that use the term "Cannabis dispensary". Our use of the term is consequently not completely unsupported. As far as I can see, the essence of the debate is WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:CONSISTENCY. I happen to lean more toward consistency. Sizeofint (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that consistency is important but, while there are a handful of scholarly articles (which I concede way down below) there are 4 times the number of articles using the term marijuana dispensary. To me the strongest argument is that the licenses issued by the licensing bodies are marijuana dispensary licenses. Imagine for a second that people didn't like the word "drivers" and everyone prefered the term "non-walkers". Would it be write to call a drivers license a non-walkers license or should we go with the given name by the authority who issues the document? I contend this is not the place to debate the common name marijuana vs cannabis .... we need to focus on the words together and determine if there is any legitimate support for the word cannabis dispensary. I don't see overwhelming evidence (or any really) to support that position. --Potguru (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Article title vs Prose

The article name (ATM) uses Cannabis but, in every instance in prose it's marijuana, seems one needs to be changed and the article's title is unlikely to change during an AfD. Community consensus is Cannabis and that also is unlikely to change, regardless of how many reliable sources use marijuana. Since this is an obvious Keep, might as well get this discussion started. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is because somebody decided they should change the article from the original name and subject (marijuana dispensary) to this fictitious thing called a cannabis dispensary. (grumble). --Potguru (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Marijuana is certainly more commonly used. However, common use isn't the only consideration. It seems that there is an informal consensus regarding use of the name "Cannabis" in article titles, but I don't see anything recent that is a formal discussion directly on the topic. Is there something more recent that I'm missing? I'd love to see some links if anyone has them.
I do find some relevant guidance in WP:NPOVNAME which states:

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

In essence, the guidance suggests that generally a more formal name should be used in article titles instead of a colloquial term. It seems that most often in these cases, the colloquial term ("marijuana dispensary" in this case) is created as a redirect to point at the article with the more encyclopedic name. This has already been done in this case (searching Wikipedia for "marijuana dispensary" gets you to this article). Chrisw80 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Chris that was done by the user who moved the article back to my draft space, the same user who is requesting deletion. The issue created is that there is simply no such thing as a cannabis dispensary, nor should we try to invent such a thing because some people feel a way about a word. If this is an encyclopedia, please find references to support the notion that the subject is EVER called a cannabis dispensary. I have provided a ton of references that use the term "marijuana dispensary".
See my request for mediation.
This section's initial question reveals the problem, if the name remains cannabis dispensary then the article needs to be rewritten into an article about a fictitious thing. --Potguru (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Potguru, I don't think a complete rewrite would be necessary. Also, please don't misunderstand my intentions here, my purpose here is to help find a way to result in the best article for Wikipedia. Part of the idea here is to be accurate in what we say on Wikipedia, not only reflect common vernacular. As I noted, while commonality of a term is definitely part of a discussion regarding an article name, it's not ALL of it. I've seen your references several times regarding the term marijuana dispensary and I think there is merit there. Thank you for providing them. I also am offering some suggestions for you to consider in kind. I do note that there are sources for "Cannabis dispensary". Here are a few for your consideration:
Texas Marijuana Legalization 2016: State Prepares To Issue Cannabis Dispensary Licenses
Maine Medical Cannabis Dispensaries See Sales Surge
11 groups vie to open Berkeley’s 4th cannabis dispensary
It seems some dispensaries also do use the term "cannabis" to refer to themselves:
Green Dragon Cannabis Company
3D Cannabis Centers
Harborside Health Center
Alaska Cannabis Club (Granted, it's not a dispensary, but I included for the use of "cannabis")
The Apothecarium
Royal Cannabis Dispensary
In fact, it looks like the two terms are intermixed quite often. So I think there is merit to both sides of the argument.
Looking further, I looked at the definition of "marijuana" and it says in the definition that it is "Cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes". From what I've seen, most dispensaries sell far more than just dry leaf for smoking. They also sell edibles, various hemp products, hash, etc. I hope this helps. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Chris, again, thank you for taking the time to actually consider the topic and evidence. I dismiss the sources you cite for the term dispensary under the following conditions.
  • 1) the IBTimes article does not use the term cannabis dispensary in the body of the article, only the title.
  • 2) The others are questionable... you see the problem. Good sources, like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post all seem to adopt the term marijuana dispensary.
  • 3) I think that the fact people often interchange the terms is important to note but "marijuana dispensary" is actually a defined term by many regulating authorities in the US and other countries.
  • 4) People use all kinds of words on their websites in an effort to garner attention but even the image of the "dispensary" on the page calls itself the cannabis station marijuana dispensary. (Their about page).
  • 5) In 2010, when many of the above companies were formed it was considered "classier" to use the word cannabis over marijuana... particularly in the name of the company. In Denver there were about 700 companies who applied for original licenses in 2010, most who included the word "marijuana" in their name found banking and renting to be difficult. People with really silly names didn't make it past year one. http://www.postindependent.com/news/13858637-113/marijuana-medical-recreational-state

Potguru, you're welcome, I just want to find a good solution here. Obviously folks have a wide variety of emotions on the topic. Remember that we're aiming for consensus in this discussion, it's possible that the "right" solution may not be to anyone's complete satisfaction. Regarding the IBT article, it's still relevant as I'm specifically referring to the title of the page. :) Regarding your point 2, I wasn't necessarily saying that all the sources I used were WP:RS, sorry if there was a misunderstanding there, just adding some additional info for consideration. For point 3, I understand that many regulating authorities call it as such, and again that's merit to your argument. (joke)Though, when have you known the government to get things right? :)(/joke) For point 4, I think this shows that there is confusion about the term and this discussion about which to use is important. I just wanted to point out that there ARE people who do use Cannabis in this context that are in the industry. What about your thoughts regarding the definition of marijuana that I cited? Chrisw80 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that a good definition of marijuana is cannabis. I would have written ... the parts of the cannabis plant that are normally consumed. But that is not the same thing as a marijuana dispensary which is (most often) licensed and regulated by a government tax office. --Potguru (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

issue resolved

Not ready for mainspace

I've moved this back to draft due to problems that were never addressed in the original reviews. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Previous items have all been addressed. I consider your action vandalism. --Potguru (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In another post, which I moved to the users talk page, the user gives the following vague reasoning for the article deletion.

" have moved it to Draft:Cannabis dispensary. Most of the article is unsourced original research or a poorly composed combination of different topics. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)"

To which I contend:

The article, an original work by me, is completely researched and includes 28 distinct references backing up each and every claim. I am unaware of any non obvious claims made that still need citation but if you can point me to one I'll modify the statement or make a citation. This is not a reason to delete the article.

To the claim "poorly composed combination of different topics", I respond: I am confused by your statement. The article is a combination of facts about marijuana dispensaries including information about the history of marijuana dispensaries, the laws that effect them, their existence in popular culture, differences between medical and recreational shops. Perhaps you could be more specific and try to improve the article instead of removing it with little justification?

Response

I'm happy to respond:
  1. Wikipedia doesn't publish original work. Any original work by you (as you claim) must be deleted before this article can be moved to mainspace. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for its content, not original work by its users
  2. You say the article is "completely researched", but in fact not a single reliable source about the subject is used. I recommend using Google Scholar, Google Books, database indices, and your public library for details. The article should be based on good reliable secondary sources about the topic. For example, you should use an article from the International Journal on Drug Policy, not potmalls.com or leafly.com. You should consult reliable sources like the Handbook of Cannabis, not hightimes.com or weedmaps.com
  3. I have reviewed your 28 sources which supposedly back up your claims, and I have found that is not true. Half of the article is unsourced, and the other half is poorly sourced.
  4. What you consider "non-obvious" might not be clear. Please source the entire article with WP:RS.
  5. You have claimed that he article is a "combination of facts". Yes, that's precisely the problem. We call that synthesis and coatracking and it's discouraged. Please avoid combining facts and instead begin by focusing on one reliable source that covers the entire subject. By focusing on one good citation to start, you are forced to frame the subject according to the source. This is how we write articles. Then, you can branch out into different subtopics with other sources. This is how article development works.
If any of this isn't clear, please ask. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

At a current ratio of 14 against to 1 (Viriditas) the community seems to disagree with your position as noted here. --Potguru (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Potguru (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

for reference, most of the original references user above questions (from my notes) : (moved to below) --Potguru (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Famous Amsterdam shops

I commented out a request for more info on this on the article space. The Bulldog and the Grasshopper (now defunct) are probably two of the best known; I think there are a few others. It's been awhile since I've visited.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, now we have some names. Anyone have any pictures? Or a location? What are they called today, still coffee shops? --Potguru (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that we already have an article for Coffeeshop_(Netherlands), and as I noted in the [[2]] for this article, this article's title should probably be moved to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States, since that is the major scope of the coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Coffeshops are country specif, and they are NOT marijuana dispensaries... they are illegal operations which (by definition) is not what a marijuana dispensary is. --Potguru (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not illegal? Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, coffeshops are illegal whereas marijuana dispensaries are fully regulated. http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-and-old-amsterdam-308218 --Potguru (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Cannabis dispenaries"

Extended content

This now redirects to Medical Cannabis. Seems this redirect should be deleted now. LaMona (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is being vandalized by user viriditas with no community support. (see Viriditas continued attacks) --Potguru (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No it is not. Be patient. Trust the community. Give it time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued attacks

Extended content
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis articles usually use the word cannabis NOT marijuana. 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis then? Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It would help your cause enormously if you stopped attacking other editors and concentrate on your argument, I am indifferent as to which title is used for the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

United States

USA or Worldwide?

Article should not be US centric as there are marijuana dispensaries in many countries.

You've been repeatedly informed, both here and on your talk page, that Wikipedia uses reliable sources to write articles. Please visit your local library and look at their database indices. Most public and university libraries now allow you to access these indexes from your home computer, so all you need is a library card number and a password. Otherwise, you can find reliable sources in Google Scholar, Google Books, and newspaper archives. If you find a particular source whose full text is behind a subscription service that your provider doesn't allow you to read, you may request the source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. With their generous help, I have been able to write many articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah great, glad your back. As you can clearly see I did not put this in the article but on the talk page while I look for reliable articles. It is interesting that the largest known directory of marijuana dispensaries know to exist on the planet is not considered a reliable source by you. Perhaps you can help me find some good sources that clearly demonstrate marijuana dispensaries exist around the world and not just in the USA as you and Jamie would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You just asked me a question that I just answered up above. For further help see Wikipedia:Evaluating sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

See here: Viriditas Continues Attacks

Note: I just started a discussion under "precision" in new section below to address this issue. --Potguru (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable and legitimate references that use the term marijuana dispensary over cannabis dispensary

Extended content
Would be best to use scholarly publications over news feeds https://scholar.google.ca/ and https://books.google.com/ --Moxy (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, except that there are so few scholarly article dealing with this plebian topic. Got any? --Potguru (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes as seen above.....your arguing a point that has been settled already. -- Moxy (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a new section below for total counts. --Potguru (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I found my root document and this is it

--Potguru (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of making new comments in this section Please jump to current discussion (current bottom of page) here. I propose to remove this section. Please feel free to remove any of my words from this section. --Potguru (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable and legitimate references that use the term cannabis dispensary over marijuana dispensary

Extended content

Arguably, there have been no "good sources" from any major media outlet that seems to use the terminology "cannabis dispensary". --Potguru (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You're getting closer to the truth, but in a roundabout way. We don't look to "major media outlets" as paragons of reliable source material. This is because they often rely on sensational, inflammatory language. Many of those sources also use terms like "weed" and "pot" which we disregard in favor of "cannabis". Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of making new comments in this section Please jump to current discussion (current bottom of page) here. I propose to remove this section. Please feel free to remove any of my words from this section. --Potguru (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

totals - scholarly article count

Please learn about how we evaluate and use reliable sources before telling us how we should use them. Viriditas (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As I look through the google scholar articles I think... wait... going to google scholar is going to get university articles which will predominantly be written by graduate level medical researchers and I realize... most of them will use the term cannabis. Boy was I surprised to find that "cannabis dispensary" is used about 20% as often as "marijuana dispensary" on google scholar. Nope, I'm still going with marijuana dispensary for the win. --Potguru (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Google scholar "marijuana dispensary" - 467 results
  • Google scholar "cannabis dispensary" - 102 results
  • Google scholar "marijuana dispensary" - (Case Law Only) 299 results
  • Google scholar "cannabis dispensary" - (Case Law Only) 22 results

--Potguru (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Search engine test and pay close attention to what it says. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've told you if you would like to contribute please provide a single verifiable link to a source that indicates the common name for marijuana dispensaries is cannabis dispensaries. As you know I've been challenging your (as yet unverified) claim for days and you have still not provided a useful link. Have you nothing better to do that harass me? --Potguru (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question has already been answered, but please take a close look at this wonderful top-level source: Hall, W. (2015). "U.S. Policy Responses to Calls for the Medical Use of Cannabis". Yale J Biol Med, 88 (3):257-64. This source even goes so far as to support the claims up above, differentiating the term "marijuana" from cannabis as part of the plant that only refers to the flowering tops. Please also note the multiple references to cannabis dispensaries in the US throughout the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked through that source again and all I can conclude is

  • 1) it is a secondary source including original work like the sentence that includes the authors made up term "cannabis dispensary".
  • 2) it offers no citation to the term used exactly one time in the paper "cannabis dispensary".

Overall I'd rate your source a 1 out of 10, hardly the type of document we should be using as an authority on th3 subject matter of marijuana dispensaries. --Potguru (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The source you are discussing is rated a 10, it is a current high-level review journal article. It specifically refers to cannabis dispensaries throughout the article and it specifically differentiates marijuana from cannabis, supporting two separate arguments in the RFC. This is as good as it gets. If you're going to misrepresent a great source as a poor one, then we have a more serious problem to deal with here. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles supporting authors contention

Thank you. Have you read our helpful tips on the uses and limitations of search engines? I linked it for you above. And can you point me to the definitive reliable secondary source you are using as a framework for article building? Please keep in mind WP:BURDEN. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we at a truce? Are we actually going to be civil? This is a serious question. --Potguru (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The only incivility on this page is from you. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again I must disagree with your erroneous assertion. However, I will continue.

This is probably a good source to start a discussion. Verifiable. Legitimate. A fair overview of the facts at hand.

  • I would generally expect a crime reporter to use prohibitionist language in an article about cannabis published in a crime column. That's not a very useful article about cannabis dispensaries in the US. For a neutral, top-level approach, see Spithoff, Sheryl, Brian Emerson, and Andrea Spithoff. "Cannabis legalization: adhering to public health best practice." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 3 Nov. 2015. This recent article discusses the availability of cannabis dispensaries in US states (and the rest of the world) without sensational or inflammatory prohibitionist rhetoric. It also takes a public health perspective, rather than that of criminal justice. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While you are free to attack the credibility of an extremely well known reporter who is an expert on the subject matter at hand, I'll accept your critism and find another source. Similarly your article is not about marijuana dispensaries in any way. Lets try to find something FAR more relevant. --Potguru (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The CMAJ journal article is a top-level analysis of cannabis policy around the world, including its legal availability in the US. The article is written using a public health framework. There are many sources that take a public health approach when discussing cannabis dispensaries. Will you accept any of them? Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this

While I understand that governments have done all kinds of horrible things to people throughout human history I think we should both be able to agree that this is an excellent source of information. Verifiable and approved as a collaborative effort by state level experts on the subject matter. --Potguru (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a primary source document about medical cannabis in NY, not a reliable secondary source about cannabis dispensaries. Given the prohibitionist and criminal justice rhetoric, we should avoid such sources and focus on public health approaches to dispensaries. This approach tends to use neutral words such as "cannabis", and avoids sensational, politicized language. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thoughts on the subject I'd like you to try to back up what you say. Yes it is a primary source, and a very good one given they are the authority on that particular subject in that particular region. Wikipedia does not require authors to only use second sources, there are very good reasons to use primary sources and this is one such time. While, again, I appreciate your opinion about what might be considered politicized work but stick strictly to the page I've provided I'd like you to get me a better reason it should not be considered as primary source material. --Potguru (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, I must point you to WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You should probably point to the current version that reads: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". And then you were going to give me an actual reason that we should all say the source is unreliable and that it should not be cited as evidence of primary source material using the term we are discussing. --Potguru (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to read a bit closer for comprehension. I pointed you to the current version. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You are still ignoring my legitimate questions, you cannot prove my source unreliable. But because wikipedia prefers articles be built upon secondary sources I'll give you another. Please tell me why this secondary source is not a perfect document upon which we can build the case to name this page:

It's a working paper funded by NIDA, an organization that spent decades fighting cannabis researchers and putting roadblocks in the way of policy reform. Beyond that slight problem, it's not peer-reviewed and isn't a third-party published source, but a self-published source by NBER. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course as you read the document you come to this other, useful, source of information we can start from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113822156 --Potguru (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

NPR is a government funded source that consistently cites so-called experts who argue against medical use and legalization while failing to note the conflict of interest of their experts who work as paid consultants for prescription painkiller drug companies.[3] The same government that funds NPR currently believes that cannabis is a dangerous drug that has no medical value. Perhaps this is why they neglected to mention that around 16,000 people die from legal painkillers each year in the US while zero die from cannabis. That's evidence-based policy making for you. Further, this is also an out of date (currency is part of RS evaluation) interview with a man on the street NPR corespondent about the state of cannabis dispensaries in Los Angeles from 2009. Hardly useful for anything but kindling. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna, it's ok, he REALLY had to try hard to find that link and it DOES NOT support his argument. It's clear that Viriditas is only here to harass and he has no useful links to contribute. I respectfully request we all follow the link he provided and see if ANY of us can determine HOW he concluded that NPR is a biased news organization using the cited article as a source. If we are just going to keep playing games without evidence what is the point? --Potguru (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


You have done well. Now is the time to not attack Viriditas and alienate yourself, but rather say "So, community, what do you think? Who do you agree with?" That is what you do next. Please see that. That is how the article ends up the way it should. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ANNA this is a run away train. The "contest" above on name preference is not based in fact. (Can you end it so we can restart it with all the rules up front?) The argument of opinions of cannabis vs marijuana should NOT occur on this page, yet that is exactly what is going on. People need to be aware of wikipedia's rules BEFORE their opinions are collected otherwise this will continue forever "I think marijuana is a racist word and I think we should not use it". ((With no evidence to support their position)). Somebody moved my "site policy" section out of the "contest" and with no rules it becomes a simple game of what word someone likes with no evidence. I prefer facts and evidence, not conjecture based mainly upon white guilt. --Potguru (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru, I mean no disrespect here, but this isn't a runaway train. Leave it be and let it take it's course. Discourse is taking place and being managed well enough. At the end of the discussion (it may take awhile), an uninvolved experienced editor or admin will close the discussion and provide a concise report on the consensus. They MAY close it without clear consensus, it does happen, but you have to wait for that to take place. You've made an excellent case for the term 'Marijuana dispensary', now let people make up their minds and give voice to their opinions. Continuing to prod the issue is only going to drive away people who might support you and possibly result in another block. For User:Viritidas, I also mean you no disrespect, but I think perhaps you might consider stepping back for awhile also. I believe we should all let this run it's course and let less-involved/uninvolved experienced editors handle the discussion formatting and other issues (like the other proposed RfC below). Chrisw80 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for the advice but your premature and ill requested call for comments is causing this run away train. Without context all you have done is start another "marijauan" vs "cannabis" fight. That serves nobody. I am attempting to keep this train from running off the rails by trying to find useful references and a starting point for a conversation. If I walk away from this page, and your RfC remains, all we do is argue. My plan, removed by viriditas, has us moving toward a discussion. Put the page back the way I made it and see... all the crap up top removed and a sensible conversation about what wikipedia rules are most important and then a section by section consensus. My approach achieves an end. Please, I beg of you, end the RfQ in favor of what I am attempting. Else I'll need to keep noting to the respondents that this is not the place to argue the merits of the words marijuana vs cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. An RFQ doesn't end because a single purpose doesn't like the way it's going. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed request for comments section (Proposed RFQ Not Yet Open)

Experienced editors are familiar with the policies and guidelines. Please do not reboot or restart an RFC because you don't like the results. Viriditas (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with our main objective: Try to figure out the best name for the article. There are several wikipedia policies we need to consider. They are:

Article Titles

Guides

Only consensus belongs above this line if you have a wikipedia policy manual that belong above this line just add it (for now). Once we determine the relevant sections of guidelines we can begin to rank them and determine how to apply the guidelines to our specific issue... how to name this article.

Please modify this section directly, ignoring the author (this section only)... we need to get this right before we RFQ. --Potguru (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed request for comments comments (Proposed RFQ Not Yet Open)

Experienced editors are familiar with the policies and guidelines. Please do not attempt to reboot or restart an ongoing RFC because you don't like the results. Viriditas (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate Chris's attempt (far above) to start an RFQ to achieve a consensus I believe the structure for the discussion must be fully laid out before the request begins. What we appear to have above is an opinion fest on one term vs another with no background or context. That said let's try to determine which guidelines are most relevant to the topic at hand and let's see if we can't rank their importance BEFORE we start requesting, what often amount to be, opinions from the community. --Potguru (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Precision - USA

The precision section requires a title should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.

Is there ANY support that this is only a United States only thing? --Potguru (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently information in the article is for the United States only. I think if there was more global information (for instance on dispensaries in Uruguay if they exist) other editors might be more amenable to a broader scope. Sizeofint (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, (having written the original article), I can assure you it did include and certainly can include mentions of ____ dispensaries outside the US, starting with Canada. Here is an article that mentions ______ dispensaries in Canada : http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/16066359.2012.733465 --Potguru (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


Neutrality

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.

Non-neutral but common names (marijuana vs cannabis)

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to.

This is interesting, what is the best way to approach this?
How can we define significant majority? Should we build some search engine tests?
Popularity – See Google's trending tool below.
Usage – Identify a term's notability. (See for example Google's ngram tool.)
Genuineness – Identify a spurious hoax or an urban legend.
Notability – Decide whether a page should be nominated for deletion.
Existence – Discover what sources (including websites) actually exist for possible presentation.
This is a given, there are definitely articles supporting "marijuana dispensary" AND "cannabis dispensary"
Information – Review the reliability of facts and citations.
Names and terminology – Identify the names used for things (including alternative names and terminology).
--Potguru (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1087724614"