Talk:Charlotte's Web (cannabis)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stanley brothers

I have great concern that the names of the Stanley brothers are redirecting to this page, it is like Steve Jobs redirecting to iPhone 6, or John Rockefeller redirecting to Reformulated Gasoline. Stanley brothers have multiple other products, and this becomes somewhat of an advertisement for them. Because they have been frequent subjects of news articles, many positive reports such as Weed by Gupta, and some negative such as http://theleafonline.com/c/business/2015/03/corruption-alleged-drafting-charlottes-web-rules/ I think their own wikipedia pages would help a balanced discussion of their activities -- Wax025 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Stanley brothers notability is exclusively for Charlotte's Web. With time they may gain notability for other things, at which time we can create an article for them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Another Believer why did you move this page without discussion? Do you see that a discussion has been underway/lingering above? Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see the above discussion, and someone is welcome to move the page back. I was merely browsing the encyclopedia and thought the name "Low THC cannabis ("Charlotte's web")" was absurd. I could see there being an article about the Charlotte's web strain specifically, and certainly a section or article about Low THC cannabis, but this hybrid article title is bizarre to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

yes you are not the only one who thinks it needs fixing. i appreciate being bold but please check talk pages before moving... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I obviously think the restoration of the original title is proper, since it is a notable subject in its own right, the title should fit the content, and the MoS requires such a title. BTW, the "web" should be in caps ("Charlotte's Web") since it's a proprietary brand name, and the producers and RS also capitalize it. Thanks to Another Believer for doing the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I should have moved it to "Charlotte's Web (cannabis)". Never have a seen a Wikipedia article with a word in quotes, surrounded by parentheses (Low THC cannabis ("Charlotte's web"). Surely that does not comply with MoS. I think "Charlotte's Web (cannabis)" should have its own article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you please fix the capitalization issue? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't feel like moving the page again since my hand was slapped for doing it the first time. Someone else can worry about this, since it may involve moving over another page which I cannot do since I am not an admin. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

yep the name-space clutter we are getting into, and possible need for admin help, is why i was unhappy about the move. bullrangifer let's finish the discussion above about the rename before moving it again. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Structure of Article

I think a little work might be done here to differentiate the material going into the Charlotte's web (cannabis) and the material going into the Cannabidiol. Frankly, I think all the medical efficacy information should be moved to Cannabidiol, as I believe the "active ingredient" in Charlotte's web (cannabis) is meant to be Cannabidiol. Secondly, I'd propose moving this page from Charlotte's web (cannabis) to Charlotte's web (nutritional supplement). Seems like clearer disambiguation. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

NickCT has started edit warring content into the article based on primary research[1] and/or other weak sources. Such content must be sourced to good WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - I don't start edit wars. I end them. ;-)

No, but seriously. I'm adding sources. The specific factoid I'm putting in relates to a fairly widely reported-on and reputable Phase II study.

Out of curiosity, are Medscape or Medical Daily going to satisfy your interpretation of WP:MEDRS here, or do you want something else? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear you're an editor of peace (I think ). We really need good WP:MEDRS on this topic: something like a review (or better) that is MEDLINE indexed or a statement from a major medical body (like the NIH or NICE). Anything less probably won't cut it per WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Hmmmmm.... You're proposing that the statement "Cannabidiol could be effective at treating Dravets" is an "exceptional claim". That strikes me as exceptional claim in and of itself!

This recent Phase II study comes on the heels of a bunch of anecdotal evidence to the same effect.

Regardless, how about the FDA's opinion on the issue. Is the FDA "major" enough for you? NickCT (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, there are some general issues with this article that really need to be addressed. I'm going to start another section below to discuss. Perhaps while your eyes on this, you can offer your opinion. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The FDA is a good source. Statements about the positive efficacy of a treatment are always exceptional, and super-exceptional for treatment of serious conditions, which is why our guideline is so particular about requiring very strong sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Ok. So to be clear; you're OK with stating that "cannabadiol could be effective in treating Dravet syndrome" if it references the FDA's statements about ongoing Phase 2/3 clinical trials on it?

re "Statements about the positive efficacy of a treatment are always exceptional" - That's fair enough, but it strikes me that widely reported Phase II results for a drug shouldn't really require statements from a major medical body to include. NickCT (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be okay to report research is underway, so long as it doesn't imply anything about the outcome. Your text sourced to the FDA would not be verifiable. They say it's being investigated without hinting what "could be" the outcome. We'd normally say something like "Cannabidiol is being investigated for a possible role in treating conditions x, y and z". Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - I would have thought that going to Phase III sorta implicitly means something "could be" effective at treating an illness. If there wasn't evidence that drug could be effective, why would it go to Phase III?

Regardless, did you look at any of the other sourcing regarding efficacy, or is it your stance that any statements regarding efficacy can only come major medical bodies? Seems like a pretty strict interpretation of MEDRS, no? NickCT (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It could be effective, it could turn out not to be. We don't hint either way. As for sourcing yup, we need to be strict (good quality secondary sources like review article, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are good also don't forget). Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - So how do you suggest we report on Phase II results, if nothing meeting your strict interpretation of secondary MEDRS covers them? Or are positive results from Phase II studies effectively censored? Plus, do articles from mainstream Medical News outlets (e.g. MedScape, WebMD) count as reviews or are we talking journals only?

So how's this wording "A formulation of Cannabidial called Epidiolex and produced by GW Pharmaceuticals is in late stage trials for treating Dravet Syndrome. Early studies suggested the drug might have some efficacy." (ref FDA, and various other new outlets reporting on the first trial results)? NickCT (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd wait for secondary sources. Your proposed text has the "hinting" problem. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL but deals in accepted knowledge. There is no accepted knowledge about efficacy in this case; it is however accepted knowledge that it's being investigated. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Ok well listen; why don't you propose language which you think summarizes the results of the studies without "hinting"? Frankly, I think when the FDA fast-tracks drug candidates and/or pushes them to late stage trial, they are themselves hinting that a drug might be effective. That's how drug discovery works in the US. You don't generally get this far without some indication of efficacy.

Regardless, there's clearly a lot of fairly high-quality, mainstream RS covering the trial in question. Even if it doesn't rise to the standard of secondary MedRs, I don't think you can just sit back and say the information can't be included. Seems a little censor-ish.

If you like, we can always RfC the issue. Though, reflecting a bit, I think this is really content and a discussion for the Cannabidiol talkpage (per my comments below). NickCT (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I suppose this article is more about the media story of Charlotte, but the article mentions lack of good research, but there is actually a good deal of government research on CBDs and Epilepsy, Alzheimers, liver function etc. Just as there is also science research on the harmful effects of high THC strains. Here are some science research articles that I found:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942876/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057300/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061885/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.124.207 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific research about Charlotte's Web is definitely a legitimate topic here, but we are trying to follow WP:MEDRS very strictly, which means we avoid using single peer-reviewed studies, and prefer using reviews. Largely thanks to the publicity and legal activity surrounding Charlotte's Web, previously forbidden research is happening. The science is developing and changing, and so far it looks rather promising, but more studies will need to occur and then be summarized in reviews before we can add those reviews. This is how we avoid original research which cherry picks individuals results. We see this happening in the activist community all the time, and it's unfortunate. Laymen tend to see a positive study as proof of effectiveness, and then they start making big claims. That's not how science works, but that's how quackery works. We avoid that here. We just have to be patient. If anything pops up, by all means let us know. I use Google Alerts to keep me on top of this subject. There is constant mention in various types of venues, but much of it is unusable here. When more stable results for research or legislative changes occur, then it can be mentioned in this article. Feel free to bring anything to this page where we can discuss if it's appropriate for inclusion. The more eyes the better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Cannabinoids" discussion is very misleading - article needs to include the evolution of public opinion

tldr
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm new to the Talk aspect of Wikipedia. I'm willing to be coached, as my goal is to add clarity to this article. I'm the father of a young man who uses Charlotte's Web Hemp Oil - every single day - to provide mood stabilization for bipolar disorder. He was taking the pharmaceutical drug, Lamictal for mood stabilization, which main use is as an anticonvulsant. As with all mental health pharma drugs, there are nasty side effects. Why not use a natural product with no side effects instead? I can tell you, Charlotte's Web has NO side effects and it WORKS for mood stabilization, just as it does for many epilepsy disorders. I would love to come to a consensus on this Wiki article. I would hope that any moderator for this site will be open to people who have direct experience with this product. This article should provide information to the layman as well as any doctor who might be introduced to it by a patient. I agree with Kindzmarauli (talk) that much information on this page, "under "Medical uses" seems to be about how medical canabis is useless and about how certain studies show cannabis products don't work." I'm adding consensus about the fact that it does work. The science and verbiage about cannabinoids on this article is off-track when discussing CW. It's relevant to discuss cannabidiol and THC. There's no purpose in citing reviews about an aggregate of cannabinoids. The aggregate doesn't relate to a product which clearly and specifically states that CBD is it's pertinent ingredient. This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid is great which states, "At least 113 different cannabinoids have been isolated from the Cannabis plant[5]." Don't cloud the focus about CW by deflecting to a broad-brush range of "evidence." It's like saying, "Don't go to a baseball game. Here's a science review of injuries from wrestling, football, and martial arts showing that there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions about the safety or enjoyment of baseball." The efficacy of CW centers around CBD. There's TONS of PubMed studies showing CBD has no side effects, and it's effective. In the first paragraph of my edit, I kept all the negative "cannabinoids" information that was there, and added in citations to PubMed about a range of cannabinoid studies. In retrospect, perhaps that wasn't a good idea to point to the broad range of cannabinoid studies, vs. just centering on relevant CBD studies. But instead of erasing every single word I wrote, I request coaching about the specific things that you found objectionable. Let's find a consensus about the focus of CW which is cannabidiol. I personally met with the pharmacological scientist, Dr. Daniele Piomelli, who co-authored a study in Germany that I cited. Dr. Piomelli is an expert on CBD, and his study found that CBD was as effective as amisulpride, a pharma drug - but CBD had NO side effects. I have dealt with 4 years of agony watching my son stop his medications because of the side effects. This is THE cause of people who have mental illness becoming worse. In my edit, I gave references for Dr. Piomelli's full study, http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201215a.html as well as a TIME Magazine article about the study. http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/30/marijuana-compound-treats-schizophrenia-with-few-side-effects-clinical-trial/ Please tell me how we can reach a consensus about the validity of an article from a reputable national magazine publication, TIME magazine. The other powerful aspect of cannabis remedies is that public opinion is changing about cannabis remedies. Much of the force behind this change in opinion is when doctors such as Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN and Dr. Mehmet Oz televise numerous specials about the lives of families who are changed forever because of Charlotte's Web and other cannabis products. This is worthwhile evidence by media experts who vet their subjects thoroughly. It's not "pop pot promotion." Doctors and general readers deserve to see the impact that this media coverage imparts. Please tell me how we can have a consensus about the validity of numerous reputable cable news network specials such as are presented on CNN http://www.cnn.com/specials/health/medical-marijuana/index.html - or The View http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/video/pl5554876/VDKA0_it2yysjx - or CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-derived-drug-reduces-seizures-in-hard-to-treat-epilepsy/ - or Dr. Oz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/dr-oz-medical-marijuana_n_5324393.html Help us come to a consensus about the real focus of Charlotte's Web: the benefits of cannabidiol. Guide me as to how I might submit an edit that brings the relevant science about what's actually contained in Charlotte's Web, vs. a multitude of other cannabinoids that don't pertain here. BullRangifer (talk) said, "When more stable results for research or legislative changes occur, then it can be mentioned in this article." That's precisely why I included the three paragraphs about the GW Pharmaceutical's positive results of the first pivotal Phase 3 study of its investigational medicine Epidiolex® (cannabidiol or CBD) for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. (March 14, 2016) I'm not a GW Pharma representative in any way. I'm a father of a young man suffering from mental illness. I did not mean to advertise, and it may have been improper to discuss another company's product on a CW page. Let me know. But If we're looking for legitimacy, safety and efficacy of cannabidiol, wouldn't their study and their medicine pertain as evidence? Or advise me as to why this isn't "stable." Guide me as to how a more proper link and/or statement about this development can be included in this article. http://www.gwpharm.com/GW%20Pharmaceuticals%20Announces%20Positive%20Phase%203%20Pivotal%20Study%20Results%20for%20Epidiolex%20cannabidiol.aspx As to the subject of "legislative changes" can we conclude that the 114th Congress may do nothing about cannabidiol legalization? The 113th Congress had bipartisan bill with 32 sponsors that collected dust. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5226/text The 114th Congress has a bill with 62 co-sponsors that has only sifted through committees. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1635?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22charlottes+web%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1 Isn't this level of cooperation in our government notable and worthy of inclusion in the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) article? But remember, Charlotte's Web is "Hemp Oil." If the general public is to know about this product, wouldn't it be fair to show why it's legally shipped to all 50 states? Doctors and patients alike DON'T KNOW the details about the language of hemp, and why they can purchase it without worrying that they will be arrested for possessing it. People should know the facts. Here's the U.S. Code: 21 U.S. Code § 802 – Definitions (#16) The LEGAL language of Hemp: “The mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/802#16 I can explain in detail why the Federal government doesn't prosecute in the states that have legal marijuana statutes, but i've already written a huge novel here and I know the moderators here are busy.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my presentation. Please let me know how we can proceed to update this page to provide the information that the public and the professionals can benefit would appreciate. Listenforgood (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

comments

OK, first tip. tldr. No one is going to read that. I didn't, and won't. Second thing, my sense is that you are unaware of WP:MEDRS. Please read that guideline, which is how we determine what sources are reliable for content about health in WIkipedia. Please also see the note on your Talk page I will leave you in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved COATRACK content

I've moved the WP:COATRACK material here until such time as it can be made to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Charlotte's web (cannabis). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/medicinal-cannabis-time-for-a-comeback/20067185.article When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Tagged as failed, because the original URL is not dead, it's "only" some kind of paywall. Otherwise the bot got it right as (almost) always. –2A03:2267:0:0:D4D3:F874:8C85:EDAB (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Charlotte's web (cannabis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140619164218/http://gawker.com/florida-legalizes-boring-medical-weed-that-doesnt-even-1592757850 to http://gawker.com/florida-legalizes-boring-medical-weed-that-doesnt-even-1592757850 When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Original URL works for me (not dead), it's also nicer than the archived version. –2A03:2267:0:0:D4D3:F874:8C85:EDAB (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Verification failure The paragraph starting with Some have attempted to use cannabis extract for treatment of cancer has two references, but these references only cover "Stanley brothers". Charlotte's web is not directly mentioned, and the not-by-name reference in the CNN source might be unrelated to this case of cancer. If somebody checks this, please try to reduce the number of "Stanley" in this spammy article, as of today sixteen is gross. –2A03:2267:0:0:D4D3:F874:8C85:EDAB (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Agree and trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC) , thanks. –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Adverse Effects? Did a skim through the archive and didn't see anything, but I find it hard to believe that this hasn't come up before... Papers here and here seem to be among the only recent articles actually looking at the effects of CBD (almost certainly Charlotte's Web) in exposed children. Though the studies are individual trials and not of sufficient quality to come to any conclusions about efficacy (and don't look too compelling in that regard), the incidence of increased seizure severity and frequency, status epilepticus, and death - as well as a variety of other adverse events - seems to be of sufficient concern to warrant mention in this article. Keep in mind that the standard of proof for reporting of adverse events with pharmaceuticals is lower than that of efficacy (thus, I would argue, mitigating any calls for strict adherence to WP:MEDRS standards of proof) and any reasonable concern raised in these studies about the safety of children being dosed with these extracts probably ought to be discussed. It wouldn't be appropriate to state that these risks have been proven, but surely they should be addressed as very real concerns. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC) We state "There is little evidence about the safety or efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Yet the article speaks specifically of assumed benefits associated with CW and CBD in general. Indeed, it is these assumed benefits that are the very reason the article exists. If such statements of efficacy are going to be made without substantial merit, listing some of the adverse effects associated with actual clinical observations in the two largest studies yet published, as well as in the press releases from GW Pharmaceuticals, seems appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we state that causation has been proven, but acknowledging what have been observed as potential adverse events in the best available evidence seems both prudent and warranted. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Indeed, any mention of such adverse events should be qualified with explicit acknowledgement that trials to date have been too small for causation to be established. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Were do you see "assumed benefits"? Can you quote the text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, Doc. Here are several examples from the article: "Her parents and physicians say she experienced a reduction of her epileptic seizures brought on by Dravet syndrome after her first dose of medical marijuana at five years of age." "Her parents said in 2013 that her epilepsy had improved so that she had only about four seizures per month, and she was able to engage in normal childhood activities." "Due to reports that some people with Dravet syndrome seem to benefit from treatment with Charlotte's Web..." "This information "...may prove useful for identifying patients likely to be helped by this therapy, as well as shed light on the putative mechanisms by which marijuana may exert any antiepileptic effect." "Her parents learned about another child with Dravet Syndrome, who had been using a different type of medical marijuana since June 2011, and decided to try marijuana.[65] Her parents and physicians said that she improved immediately and significantly." These appear to be appropriately qualified for the most part with statements regarding their preliminary and anecdotal nature. However, the inclusion of such statements on why people are using it (cum hoc perceived benefits) should be accompanied by information on potential adverse events, as observed by clinicians. Of course, these adverse events should also be recognized as preliminary and identified as the result of insufficiently powered studies. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Adjusted some. The content is attributed. If you want to add adverse effects we should use high quality secondary sources. Some must be avaliable? We have the Cochrane review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC) NEJM, 5/25/17 Doc James, what is the best way to cautiously use this recent secondary source? It mentions both benefits and side-effects, and the less-than-optimal previous trial (not double blinded). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC) That is a popular press piece. It is based on this primary source[2] which IMO is better to use. As this is a rare disease and the paper is in the NEJM and fairly decent I think we could use that for a sentence or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) That makes sense. What key factors would you mention? These results sound promising enough to justify larger trials. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Maybe "A 2017 study found cannabidiol reduced seizures but resulted in more side effects in people with Dravet syndrome."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) I have added the NEJM and the word "convulsive": "A 2017 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found cannabidiol reduced convulsive seizures but resulted in more side effects in people with Dravet syndrome." Is this good enough? It is now referenced in Scientific American as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC) How about "A 2017 study found cannabidiol reduced convulsive seizures but resulted in more side effects in people with Dravet syndrome."? We do not need to state NEJM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC) References Added Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Storage of sources Above we are referring to research in the NEJM, a primary source. That research has received mention in several reliable secondary sources: Scientific American, Newsweek, and National Review. BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Those are popular press peices. IMO a primary source for medical content is still better than popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Plant Pharma. Researchers in Singapore are looking to turn the therapeutic compounds in cannabinoids into legitimate medicine References WP:COATRACK and WP:BALANCE This article is supposed to be about a cannabis product, instead everything under "Medical uses" seems to be about how medical canabis is useless and about how certain studies show cannabis products don't work. The whole section is a WP:COATRACK about the efficacy of medical cannabis products. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) The WP:NOTABILITY of this topic is all about its potential medical use. How can content on its medical use be coatrack? I honestly don't understand your point. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, and it's worth looking in the archives here and at WT:MED where there has been a lot of discussion about how this article should be written. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC) WP:COATRACK is pretty clear. This article is about a specific product, not about medical marijuana use in general, and that info should be in the article about medical marijuana. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Would you please clarify what parts of the "Medical uses" section in particular you consider UNDUE? thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC) The entire section violates WP:COATRACK and should be deleted unless it can be made to cover the specific product known as Charlotte's web (cannabis). Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC) So we should have an article about cannabis treating epilepsy built around anecdote and hype without actually mentioning what the (lack of) real evidence says? That would not be neutral (not to mention responsible). Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC) We should not have an article that contains WP:COATRACK material. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Yeah, Kindzmarauli you are not dealing with the difficulties of this particular article. Where there is a bunch of media hype and really no medical evidence yet. I am pretty uncomfortable with this article even existing; if it does, there needs to be discussion about actual evidence for efficacy, since that is what all the media hullabaloo is about. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Difficult as the article may be, it should not be a WP:COATRACK. It's not up to Wikipedia to determine whether or not this specific product is effective or not, however it is up to us to report what reliable sources say about this specific product. If the product known as "Charlotte's web (cannabis)" has not been studied yet, then we need reliable sources that explain just that. Adding COATRACK material about medical marijuana in general is an unacceptable response to the problem of difficult content sourcing as it gives the impression of negative POV pushing. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Giving mainstream context for out-of-mainstream topics is not COATRACKING, it is the essence of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Adding content about the efficacy of medical marijuana in general to an article about a specific product is pure COATRACKing and gives the impression of POV pushing. The article is about one product, not medical marijuana in general. Present reliable sources that cover the medical efficacy of this product or kindly delete the COATRACK material. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Please stop making broad statements making claims of bad faith and instead make concrete suggestions about what should go in this section. I will not respond further until you do as this discussion is not productive. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) (outdent) I'm confused as to what you mean. The content I'm referring to blatantly violates WP:COATRACK and needs to be removed as such. I'll go ahead and do that now. As for what replaces it, it should be content that covers the subject of the article directly. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) No one else talking here really understands the broad point you are trying to make. It would be useful if you would simply offer a proposal for the content that should be in that section. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) It's odd that you don't understand, considering you made the exact same argument I'm making at another article recently [3]. My proposal is that the WP:COATRACK section needs to be deleted, which was what we (rightfully) did with the other article. I'm confused as to why you feel differently here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I don't understand what you are saying here. Please answer - What. content. should. be. here. ? Please do not repeat that you want to remove content. You have said that about 10 times now and no one is unclear on that. I am asking a different question. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I didn't say it should be replaced with anything. It's blatant COATRACK material and should be removed. What should replace it is content regarding studies on the specific subject of the article, and if those are not yet available that satisfy WP:MEDRS this section should not be in the article at all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Oh I see, this is an attempted WP:POINT. Don't disrupt this article to that end. There is a difference between coatracking and context. Neutrality requires that we place non-mainstream views in a mainstream context, and neutrality is a non-negotiable pillar of WP. Alexbrn (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Your comment is unhelpful and a borderline Personal Attack. And this has nothing to do with Neutrality, but it's funny you bring that up as what I see are yourself and Jytdog apparently working as a tag team to push POV in a variety of articles. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Kindzmarauli you propose a bunch of hypotheticals. I am asking you to propose actual content. Again, the notability of CW is all about its medical use, so if there is no content about its medical use, the article should be deleted. Please propose content that should be in this article about medical use. If you investigate and find that nothing can be said that satisfies you, I would find an AfD nomination reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I agree that this article has sections which don't seem to belong. The very first section never even mentions Charlotte's Web. If feels like an extension of a battle from another article. How many other articles about individual cultivars have this much overlap with the medical marijuana debate? The whole article could probably be shortened drastically to focus on the cultivar itself, with a little nod to Charlotte and the Stanley's. 184.100.60.20 (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC) The article is about the brand "Charlotte's Web" produced by the Stanley brothers, and about Charlotte Figis' role. It's based on RS and we document what they say about the whole thing. Much has been written in RS from many angles, and we try to cover them. If you want to write another article based on RS, go for it, but don't damage this one in the process. We follow WP:PRESERVE here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)