Talk:Cannabis

Less than helpful illustration subtitle

The illustration in the section "recreational use" has a description reading: "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs". However, the graph there shows active/lethal dose ratio (i.e. how much you'd have to consume for fatal effects, vs how much will do to get you the desired effect) and potential addictive qualities of several "drugs". Meaning that physical harm as such isn't adressed but onyl potential lethality, which obviously can be pre-faced by a lot of physcial harm short of dying. This isn't necessarily the case for Cannabis but as the the section in general could benefit from some more research as to the psycho-social impacts of cannabis consumption, this comes quite close to intentionally confusing the reader. Even reducing the discussion of adverse effect to bodily harm proper is reductive to the point of being apologetic, but boiling it down even further to lethality is flat out denial. Hello people

Etymology

Here is the etymology given from Wiktionary, with credible sources given. The etymology given here is from a non-scholarly book. "A Kulturwort or Wanderwort of unknown ultimate origin, perhaps Scythian or Thracian (according to a remark made by Herodotus, that Scythians and Thracians knew the plant) or possibly “belonging to the pre-Indo-European agricultural layer”. A proposal going back to Schrader derives the word from Proto-Finno-Ugric *kana-pis: compare Eastern Mari кыне́ (kyńé), Western Mari кӹне (kÿńe, “hemp”) and Komi-Permyak пыш (pyš), Udmurt пыш (pyš, “hemp”), but Finno-Ugricists deny the existence of such a compound. Compare (wihtin the Indo-European language family) Albanian kërp, Old Armenian կանեփ (kanepʻ), կանափ (kanapʻ), Proto-Slavic *konopь, Lithuanian kanãpė, Latvian kaņepe, Old Prussian knapios, Proto-Germanic *hanapiz (> English hemp), Middle Persian [script needed] (kʾnb /⁠kā̆naβ⁠/), Persian کنب (kanab), کنو (kanav), کنف (kanaf, “kenaf”), Northern Kurdish kinif, Sogdian [script needed] (kynpʾ /⁠kēnapā⁠/), Khwarezmian [script needed] (knb-ynk), Ossetian гӕн (gæn), гӕнӕ (gænæ), Khotanese 𐨐𐨎𐨱 (kaṃha), 𐨐𐨂𐨎𐨦𐨌 (kuṃbā), Wakhi kəm, perhaps also to Sanskrit शण (śaṇá), Middle Persian [script needed] (šn' /⁠šan⁠/), the satem variants of the same etymon, and to Sanskrit भाङ्ग (bhāṅga), Persian بنگ (bang), the reverse forms of it (due to a taboo). Compare further Sumerian [script needed] (kunibu), Neo-Assyrian Akkadian 𒋆𒄣𒌦𒈾𒁍 (qunnabu, qunappu, qun(u)bu), Classical Syriac ܩܢܦܐ (qnpʾ), Arabic قِنَّب (qinnab), Georgian კანაფი (ḳanapi), Svan ქან (kan), Mingrelian კიფი (ḳipi), Laz კერფი (ǩerpi), Adyghe кӏэп (kʼɛp), Kabardian щӏэп (śʼɛp), Abkhaz ақәны (akʷnə), Eastern Mari кыне (kyńe), Karakalpak [script needed] (kenep), Turkish kendir. The interrelationship of all these forms is disputed."

I suggest someone with the knowhow to utilize the Wiktionary page below to rewrite the etymology section on this. Please do not try to use a new age book on spirituality for the source, use credible sources, such as those cited on the page below.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/κάνναβις#Ancient_Greek Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and disparaging Sears 2016, which is a scholarly source. The academic consensus is that cannabis is a Scythian word, and this is reflected in multiple reliable sources. Wiktionary, etymonline, etc are not reliable sources. University of Pennsylvania Press, Bloomsbury, etc definitely are. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm disparaging a new age book titled "Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God" being used as a source for an etymology, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. Actual scholars believe it may have come from Scythians or Thracians, but it is uncertain. Are you actually claiming that a book on new age drug use is more scholarly than ] Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010)? You are as academic as the YouTube quack survive the jive. That is why I asked earlier if you follow mencius moldbug, because his entire premise is about faking history in the way he wants it written. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If these sources are credible contained within the text, you are required to cite them "as cited in" Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also extremely dishonest to claim that I suggested citing Wiktionary, I suggested citing the source used on Wiktionary, Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010) (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 10), volume I, with the assistance of Lucien van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill, which is far more scholarly, as it is actually written by a linguist, than some new age book on how doing drugs makes you able to communicate with gods Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tommy Gunn. The cited sources as they stand are popular press, they are not scholarly or credible. Actual scholars do not claims a Scythian origin, it is just one of many possibilities, including Sumerian, Semitic, Finno Ugric, an old European substrate, or another Indo European language. It would be better for neutrality to have what is known for certain, that it is borrowed to English from Latin, and that it was borrowed in Latin from Greek. The source given to support this is from linguists and it is scholarly and credible Ari Feldstein (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a much higher standards then Wiktionary. Not sure anyone thinks Cambridge University Simon & Schuster and Hamad Bin Khalifa University are popular press publications. Moxy🍁 17:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Simon and Schuster is popular press, the source for Cambridge made zero mention of it being a Scythian origin. I also did not cite from wikitionary, I used the same source given on Wiktionary, which is a credible source.

Here is a source showing that Simon and Schuster is popular press, even when the book published is nonfiction, it goes through no scholarly evalutaion.

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/books Ari Feldstein (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Popular Press

As the name suggests, popular presses sell popular books; books meant to entertain. Even when they publish non-fiction books, they generally are not considered scholarly, because their audience is the general public. Like academic presses, they employ people to review and edit books before they are published. But their books are not peer reviewed and generally are not considered scholarly.

Examples: Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, etc."

Taken directly from the university website talking about credible sources. Arnold Schwarzenegger's encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding is a non fiction work published by Simon and Schuster, nobody would consider that a scholarly work, because it is popular press, as are the two books cited in the article which claim Cannabis is of Scythian origin. The source from Cambridge makes mention of it and I assume was added just to add fluff to make the sources appear more scholarly. Ari Feldstein (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

AI evaluation

Out of curiosity and as an experiment, I used AI to evaluate the lead of this article. Overall it rated it as a very accurate and neutral summary of the topic. It did however suggest to following would make the lead more complete:

• Cultural and Legal Aspects: A brief mention of the cultural significance and varying legal status of Cannabis in different regions could provide a more comprehensive overview.
• Biological and Chemical Properties: Including some details on the plant's biological characteristics and the chemical properties of cannabinoids might enhance the scientific value of the summary.

This does in fact make sense in light of the rest of the article. Our leads are best thought of as a summary of the most salient aspects of the entire article. And in that sense too, the lead would be best if legal, cultural, and scientific elements were serviced since they do form a large portion of the article proper. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

Please add an image descriptor of the different phenological stages of the Cannabis plant to the "Reproduction" section of the article. This image shows the various growth and development stages of the Cannabis plant. This image can help readers better understand the different growth stages of this plant. It has been published in BMC Plant Biology.

The image can be found at the following link: https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-024-04841-y/figures/9 Hunter7959 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. PianoDan (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No scholarly consensus on etymology

There is no scholarly consensus that the etymology is from Scythian, there are several hypotheses being considered but not enough information for scholars to decide upon one. Additionally, the sources that are used for this claim are not scholarly sources, they are popular press sources. For the sake of neutrality to this page as well as accuracy, please consider the changes I made to the page under etymology using linguists as the source. Changes I made are shown below.

Borrowed from Latin cannabis, from Greek κάνναβις, of ultimately unknown origin Ari Feldstein (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

From the sources I am reading they seem to say a "Scythian or Thracian" word...perhaps mention both as we do at Etymology of cannabis. "The mainstream answer to the origin of the word κάνναβις is through some concocted root in Scythian. Sometimes Thracian is pointed to as a possible source as well."

• Clarke, Robert C.; Merlin, Mark D. (2015). "Letter to the Editor: Small, Ernest. 2015. Evolution and Classification of Cannabis sativa (Marijuana, Hemp) in Relation to Human Utilization. Botanical Review 81(3): 189-294". Botanical Review. 81 (4). [New York Botanical Garden Press, Springer]: 295–305. ISSN 0006-8101. JSTOR 45211995. Retrieved 2024-07-31.
• Merlin, M. D. (2003). "Archaeological Evidence for the Tradition of Psychoactive Plant Use in the Old World". Economic Botany. 57 (3): 295–323. doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2003)057[0295:AEFTTO]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0013-0001.
• Ren, Meng; Tang, Zihua; Wu, Xinhua; Spengler, Robert; Jiang, Hongen; Yang, Yimin; Boivin, Nicole (2019). "The origins of cannabis smoking: Chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs". Science Advances. 5 (6). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw1391. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 6561734. PMID 31206023.

Did find one source with a debate....Small, Ernest (2015-12-01). "Response to the erroneous critique of my Cannabis Monograph by R. C. Clarke and M.D. Merlin". The Botanical Review. 81 (4). New York Botanical Garden: 306–317. ISSN 0006-8101. Etymology Dictionary tells us that 'cannabis' was originally a Scythian or Thracian word. There is no mention of derivation via Arabic. Moxy🍁 19:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Then can we please use these sources, and state something along the lines of "Cannabis comes to English as a borrowing from Latin, which itself was a borrowing from Greek, which may have been borrowed from a Scythian or Thracian origin"? Wording could be somewhat different, but just the general jist of this, I feel it is reaching to claim for certainty that it is a Scythian word despite all us knowing for sure is that it came through Greek and Latin and MAY be a Scythian or Thracian word. Ari Feldstein (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ari on using these sources and changing the wording to what Ari suggested.Tommygunn7886 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Both Tommygunn7886 and Ari Feldstein have been confirmed as sockpuppets and banned. Their comments here have now been struck out per WP:STRIKESOCK. Thanks to Moxy for having the patience to deal with this utter creep. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

References