Talk:AK-47 (cannabis)

What constitutes "medical claims"
- I will extend an olive branch, though someone doesn't have to be on Wikipedia long to know that WPMed likes to bulldozer through anything it think it vaguely has dominion over, and ask about what you think constitutes a "medical claim". You removed the following text for being a medical claim, when I (and presumably anyone else who doesn't think only in MEDRS) would see it as a comparative review of cannabis qualities compared to other strains, like describing a Gala apple as compared to a Granny Smith. Could you explain why you think there's medical claims in this text? Especially when attributed in-line, which effectively informs the reader it is one person's experience and view. Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Cannabis review magazine Way of Leaf said that the blend can relieve stress and improve focus, with few side effects and a relatively long three- or four-hour high. [...] the magazine does however say that, unlike other high-THC strains, AK-47 does not usually cause paranoia


 * Any claim that one specific brand/strain/whatever of cannabis doesn't have the same negative psychoactive effects as are well documented for cannabis in general needs to be backed up by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. These are medical claims. This isn't open to negotiation.


 * as for weed-mag reviews, why should anyone care about their promotional puffery, if all it is is personal opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article didn't actually say it had no negative psychoactive effects, it said "few", and that compared to other products with THC levels as high as this strain. It still has the well-documented side effects, don't worry, dude.
 * As for why people care about reviews; what a laughable question. Cannabis is a culture as much as film and you'd never 1. ask why people care about some film critic's opinion of a movie, or 2. call them "promotional puffery". The cannabis magazines aren't promotional or puffery, just to reiterate: they are documenting a global culture, like a coffee or cheese and wine journalist. Stop looking down on cannabis just because. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And FYI,, whose username is clearly indicative, your comment at the DYK nom was off-topic and could have been flatly removed. DO NOT threaten me for merely striking out an off-topic, and frankly uncivil, comment. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to settle this at WP:ANI, that's fine with me. Though I'd recommend you read WP:TALKO first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have to settle this (in the euphemistic meaning you're clearly using) at all, it's you and yours that come in all guns blazing unwilling to compromise, and what would ANI even deal with here. No, I want to have an actual response to this edit dispute, not some "because I said so". I have read MEDRS on several occasions as I edited COVID-19 article quite a bit, but I'm sure you're more familiar: if there is something in it that would specifically rule out text here, which I would still liken more to a food critic review than medical advice, can you point me to that part of MEDRS? Because then I (and any non-WPMed people who come along seeking to edit) will be satisfied with not including anything about the subjective qualities of the strain until it comes up in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals (even though they're also prejudiced against cannabis and such sources may be hard to find). Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Content making claims about a psychoactive substance having effects on 'stress' or 'paranoia' need to be backed by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. As for 'all guns blazing', I'd have to suggest that it was you that fired the first shot.
 * And for the record, I'm not 'anti-cannabis'. I'd be a hypocrite if I was, given how much of it I used to get through. I am however anti the use of Wikipedia to promote stuff: whether it is a recreational drug, or a hot dog. Neither should be sourced solely to sources promoting said stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think complaining about unexplained blanking of a new article could be the first shot - how about whoever it was did the blanking and decried any and every article on cannabis strains, then? Regardless, as soon as this was tagged for WPMed, you all descended and didn't even discuss before making content decisions that are arguably not within MED remit.
 * Look, I brought this to discussion without even reverting under some status quo claim, because I actually want to sort it out. Your repetition of your non-answer from before still isn't answering the question. I asked for what in MEDRS says that discussion of qualities of cannabis strains needs to be covered by it, not for you to just tell me that MEDRS always applies. I don't think the disputed content is medical, so MEDRS won't automatically apply, I would honestly like for you to make some effort to show it does here.
 * Reviews of things, especially which are popular and so have subcultures which would like reviews, are not all promotional nonsense. In fact, at the film project, getting reviews of films is a way to prove notability. Maybe we think differently, but that's why we edit in different areas. So maybe let's skip the philosophical side, and can you find something in MEDRS or even WPMed advice that would be interpreted to say "don't talk about something being relaxing without a proper source". Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask at WP:RSN whether claims about a psychoactive substance having effects on 'stress' or 'paranoia' need to be backed by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources or not. It seems self-evident to me, but if you need further opinions, I'm happy for you to look for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The effect of a drug on a person is WP:BMI, so WP:MEDRS sourcing is needed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since one of you specifically notes a psychoactive substance, and the other a drug, I again have to ask if the MED insistence is prejudiced (not anti-cannabis, but treating it differently). Would the pile-on be the same if, e.g., a famous spa said massages can be relaxing - would that not be an RS? This is a tangent from what I was doing, so I shall start an RS discussion another time (like, placebo highs exist, so medical research could say X isn't relaxing but that doesn't have any say on the actual experience, especially with the state of medical research into cannabis...), especially as reading through some of the "better" sources has given the article something at least more interesting to say about its uses.
 * Now, truly, if someone from WPMed would want to come over to WPCannabis and help facilitate discussion of how to integrate salient parts of MEDRS into a guideline for writing about medical cannabis, 420 collaboration is upon us. There's hopefully only going to be more medical cannabis Wikipedia content, so it would probably be really helpful in the long run. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just stick the the WP:PAGs? If you want to write about the biological effect of a substance on humans, use WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A substance now, is it? Is orange juice a substance? Do we need MEDRS to talk about its flavor? Breeze it off, dude, if it wasn't convincing the first time, being condescending now isn't going to work for you. Kingsif (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable". Yes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"genetic miracle"
This quote, in the lede, is sourced to the WayofLeaf website. For context, the paragraph concerned:

A four-layered landrace genetic miracle, AK-47 weed is as powerful as a gunshot in potency — but not in how it makes you feel. Setting off the body and promoting it to heal itself and provide massive relief from a range of ailments, this beloved strain is “high” on medicinal benefits, and low on negative side effects.

This would appear to be an assertion that it is the medical effects that constitute some sort of 'miracle'. I very much doubt that the website complies with WP:MEDRS guidelines, and accordingly should not be used for claims about such 'miracles'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is (clearly, at least to me) writing hyperbolically, like an excited reaction. It is not trying to say there is a medical miracle happening, and nobody is going to read it that way. Perhaps the article can change its phrasing to elucidate. Edit: also, it isn't using it to describe the medical effects, it is saying "AK-47 weed [is] a four-layered landrace genetic miracle" - the adjectival phrase before the comma is all one description of what immediately follows the comma - it's just saying that combining four "base" strains is hard. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If a quote needs a contributor's explanation to understand what it is saying, it doesn't belong in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Most people can comprehend adjectival phrases by reading them, hyperbole, too. I am not trying to talk down to you, but I swear nobody would reasonably assume this was trying to claim a literal medical miracle took place. The meaning is obvious to me, it wasn't to you, so you don't have any basis to say it needs explanation: it's 50/50 on obviousness (because I am a mere reader of the source, too, remember). This is where you get WP:3O if you feel the need. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And nobody is going to assume the sentence in the lead - Mixing all four has been called a "genetic miracle". - is medical at all, so what would be the basis for removal here? Is there any confusion with the sentence in the article? No. Do you now agree that the source (I'm sure WPMed deals with lots of hard-to-parse sources, right?) is saying what is written in that sentence in the lead, which is a little easier to understand? Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I don't 'feel the need' to ask for a third opinion for the blindingly-obvious - that context-free and ambiguous promotional assertions about 'miracles' don't belong in article ledes (or on DYK for that matter), I will instead remove the text in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you don't feel the need to discuss, you only feel the need for WPMed to get its way like a nuke, even on completely non-medical parts of articles that are only tangentially related, and are just not used to anyone ever challenging your tendentious lack of discussion and explanation of removals. It's disruptive, is what you lot are. You don't WP:OWN everything that has at any point ever had something that comes close to being medical, but you clearly think you do, by ignoring reasonable explanation and just saying "nah, I'm removing it". You have clearly targeted this perfectly fine sentence because you are strung-up on it being in a DYK nom. DYK is for quirky facts, which this fits perfectly; you have zero understanding of that process and are attempting to disrupt it by removing suitable article content despite opposition. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My latest post explains why the quote needed to be removed, with no reference to WP:MEDRS whatsoever. Regardless of what specific 'miracle' is being claimed, vacuous puffery doesn't belong in articles.


 * As for WP:OWN, that works both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't been close to violating OWN, I've been asking and discussing and explaining and not undoing you and your backup buddy's ridiculous unexplained removals, despite some hostile WPMed guys coming here to be disruptive and apparently tag-team me.
 * You cannot say in the section above that something is obvious to you so you refuse to budge, but then in this section just ignore me saying something is obvious to me. If you cared about discussing and not making a perfunctory talk page message before just doing whatever you want because you WP:DONTLIKEIT, you would have actually responded to me instead of literally saying I will instead remove the text in question. I don't know what horror it is on the medical side of Wikipedia, but here on the collaborative side, we discuss disputed text, not ignore discussion. And if we can't be bothered to seek out further avenues of dispute resolution, we do not crown ourselves the victors and force our desired edits.
 * Clearly you don't like the quote, but what element of policy makes it inappropriate? It is reliably sourced, the sentence in the lead (Mixing all four has been called a "genetic miracle"., right after it is mentioned that four types of cannabis make up the subject, so not contextless) does make sense, and we could say it gives some quick information as to the notability (that experts find it uncommon). I suggested proposing alternate phrasings if it could help, but you having quibbles with a compound sentence in the source and just not liking the word "miracle" is not a good reason for removal. The frayed ends of my good faith are at their last thread; if you don't just want to gut this article and prevent it going to DYK, you will surely discuss this. Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many years ago, I removed an assertion from Wikipedia's article on Joseph of Cupertino that said saint "went to kiss the Pope's... ring and flew 30 feet in the air and wouldn't come down until the Pope asked him", on the basis that Wikipedia doesn't believe in flying saints, and shouldn't imply that it does. The same applies to 'miracles' regarding the cultivation of plants. If the cross-breeding of this specific cultivar was difficult, and we have a (WP:RS-compliant) source that says so, it might be appropriate to discuss it in the article. But not as a 'miracle' (even hyperbolically), but instead as what it presumably is - the result of applied knowledge and hard work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you removed the saint story instead of adding "The legend tells:" before it? Well now I get it, you're a deletionist, too. Don't go near the Jesus article, eh. The fact of the matter here is, Wikipedia is not saying there was any kind of miracle, and in the sentence phrasing it really isn't asserting anything at all in wikivoice; by including a hyperbolic quote, it illustrates for the reader how hard the experts think it was, when the article saying "an expert thought cultivating the strain was so complicated they hyperbolically described it as a 'genetic miracle'" doesn't necessarily get it across. Edit: you may have a problem with the word miracle, but that is like if you had a problem with the word fuck - not something you can enforce across Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What the quote 'illustrates for the reader' is that a website dedicated to the promotion of cannabis uses hyperbolae to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. Not everything is promontory, and it is a miserable view to assume the worst of everything you read. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your opinion actually. Or at least I assumed it was, since it was you that first described the quote as hyperbole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * are you being deliberately obtuse or are you missing the object there? Your opinion on everything being promotional, did I mention anything else. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that 'everything is promotional'. I'm suggesting that use of hyperbole by the WayofLeaf writers is. An opinion that others might well concur with, after reading said website's 'about us' page. I'm sure I'd say much the same thing if they were promoting hot dogs as a 'way of life' instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to say that because the magazine is subject specific to cannabis, it will only say exaggeratedly positive things about cannabis? Here is the prejudice again, seeing things a little warped: here the assumption that journalism as usual can not operate within cannabis culture. Well it can. Just like film magazines do not only write positive things about films, like football magazines gladly criticize players, cannabis magazines may be overall positive about the lifestyle but are able to write neutrally and accurately when reviewing strains. In fact, it is in their interest to do so, or their reputation among the people that use them as information will tank. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif, you shouldn't refer to WP:3O if you don't like a removal, and then revert anyway back to your prefered version if another editor comes along and agrees that the "genetic miracle" line doesn't belong (certainly not in the lead, probably not in the article as a whole). Take care not to violate WP:3RR as well. Fram (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fram, you have been here long enough to know I was merely enforcing policy that disputed content, especially when brought to discussion before any edits have been made, should not be changed until there is some actual consensus. Your editing the article and not discussing does not constitute a consensus. I was so patient before actually enforcing this, too, so don't throw the acronyms at me.
 * I referred to 3O when Andy suggested he couldn't comprehend the source, to see if someone else could confirm it, before he removed the content. I did not call for a third opinion on the content inclusion, as it had not begun to be discussed at that point. Do not turn facts inside out to curbstomb me. Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which policy is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Never heard of that policy. And your definition of "I was so patient" is not the same as mine, I think. WP:ONUS does say that for disputed content, it is the person wanting to include it who has to establish consensus for this, not the person wanting to exclude it. Perhaps you are thinking of WP:BRD: you were bold in creating this, you were reverted, then you should discuss, not reinsert it. It's not a policy, but it isn't BRRD either. Fram (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Fram, Andy only removed the content after bringing it to discussion and letting me object. His removal was BOLD, I reverted it. Ya'll must discuss. See how that works. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Conveniently excluding yourself from the BRD cycle won't work. There is no reason why your creation wouldn't be the "bold" part, it isn't as if this is some long-standing article. And I note that apparently the policy you were enforing isn't a policy after all? Fram (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you refactoring the situation to try and make out that removing content after the removal proposal was disputed is not a BOLD edit (since we are talking about that bit of content, not the whole article, here), won't work. The BRD cycle relating to creating this article is when one of you outright blanked it shortly after creation without so much as a good edit reason! Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to have it both ways here, and your arguments are getting increasingly hard to follow. Fram (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to discredit me won't work either. But let me make it real easy for you to follow: We are talking about one sentence. That sentence was added arbitrarily during development of the article; doing so was not controversial, nor was it contextless. So adding that sentence during article creation can not be considered BOLD. Then, Andy decided he doesn't want the word "miracle" on Wikipedia (after expressing a desire to not have a DYK for this). He came to the talk page and tried to argue that because he cannot understand the source, the sentence should be removed. I challenge this, with an actual attempt at positive interaction. He acknowledges me but announces he will delete it anyway. As we are discussing this sentence, THAT is the BOLD edit. I try to discuss, annoyed at the lack of process but trying to be bigger. Then I realize something: Andy very clearly announced he did not want to resolve the dispute and would enact his edit anyway. That is definitely grounds to revert him. As soon as I do, like a siren call, multiple other editors affiliated with Andy's no-cannabis tribe arrive to revert me. They do not join discussion. They are clearly here for the one reason. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, at this point you have two options. Either strike 'Andy's no-cannabis tribe', or be prepared to justify that at WP:ANI with sources to back that up (not that there are any, since as far as I can recall, I've hardly edited on the subject at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck it, get a sense of humor, dude. But hmm, you have threatened me with ANI three times now for fuck all; perhaps I will report that little fact there, it is incredibly uncivil. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't let me stop you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you do not mean that - ANI is the dearth of collaboration. Every report might as well come with an IBAN for how productive users can be together once a report is made. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Genetics" section
the genetics section, also used for Alt2 in the DYK, refers to a paper on a preprint server and has an incorrect DOI. Has this ever been peer-reviewed, or did it never get out of pre-print? In the latter case, it should not be used in the article. Fram (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a new article. It was not removed when one of your buddies culled some actual peer-reviewed journals, though, maybe take it up with him. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So much for first discussing things and only then removing them, I guess. I thought that was the way you prefered it, but apparently not. Fram (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was saying why ask Bri specifically about it, and you know that. You are all being persnickety about this article for no reason, it feels like you have been tagged in after the others have gone to lunch to make everyone who doesn't want the article gone feel constantly hounded and overwhelmed, bringing tiny dispute after tiny dispute to force surrender. Do you know that is how oppressive all this talk page shit is? Do you care? Do you want to jump on every new cannabis article, blow up minute problems, to prevent the project from being able to function? What is the aim here, because it certainly can't be working on content. Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bri created the section and I thought they had added the info. If I didn't want you to see my post, I would have put it on a user talk page, not here where you are active, so there was nothing malicious about the ping. And no, your response didn't make it clear at all that that was what you were talking about. I have not been "tagged in" by anyone, I am the one who initially raised it with the Med project because I had serious doubts about this article, which turned out to be justified. New articles get scrutinized, new articles nominated for DYK get scrutinized even more, and you haven't shown any indication of wanting to collaborate and being interested in making this article any better. Apparently the project can't function when a lot of people see all kinds of problems with this single article you created, right... All I see is one editor showing very WP:OWNish behaviour, pretending to uphld policies they can't name, ignoring policies they violate, claiming that all criticism is "dontlikeit" behaviour and all issues are "minute", and quite a few editors trying to actually improve the article and making it policy-compliant. Fram (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? You are trying to sell lies; the amount of articles I have nominated for DYK I would know if doing so immediately attracted a swarm of people to criticize it without offering reviews. No, what I see is that a wikiproject long know to oppose many cannabis articles because they only see them from a medical perspective, continuing to do that. No new articles get this much attention within hours, especially not from people who are not actually invested in the subject. You all specifically pull up the facts nominated for DYK hooks, MO being to stop it hit the MP, clearly, and then question everything that gets added after you start being involved. I am not acting like I OWN anything: I have tried to discuss and only reverted one thing because I truly believe it is within policy to do so, but am met with ridiculous replies. I cannot see any good faith from people with the express desire to see this article deleted, realizing they cannot do that but they can slowly delete it sentence by sentence and section by section under the pretense of frivolous statements and poor sourcing. That is what I see, and if I am the only one who will defend the right of cannabis subjects to have articles on Wikipedia, then let me look like a lone cowboy, but where I misspeak here, it is because of all the pressure to quickly deflect absurd deletionist arguments from every corner as you lot mount your pronged warfare. Kingsif (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's true some WP:CLUEful editors have on occasion tried to clear up some of the dreadful content in the "cannabis suite", and this has been coordinated at WT:MED. But the "suite" remains one of Wikipedia's worst areas. This article (and the owner's spiralling bad behaviour) adds to the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to improve the article that would be great: go out and find all the sources that pass your tests to cite the information, please! But you do not, you come here to delete it with comments about no cannabis articles having merit. I am not the article owner, but perhaps I am a steward, trying to let it have a chance to develop under overwhelming prejudiced opposition. For something with a Russian name, this poor article feels very much like Ukraine. I would also challenge you to justify calling my conduct "bad behavior" - desperate I will accept, but from the outset you and yours have all ganged up just because. If not firmly uncivil, you have all surely violated WP:JERK - a spirit of trying to reach a positive outcome you have not, just an MO to wear down. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see, you accuse people of trying to sell lies, being part of some tribe ganging up, violating non-existing policies, and so on... Yep, sure looks like a lot of bad behaviour to defend a lot of bad content. Fram (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. You (to at least one of the three of you, more on that) have lied. You have lied about the order of events to paint me as the aggressor, at the very least. 2. Sorry, wikiproject would be more accurate than tribe, but I wrote with personality, what can I say. Remember a moment ago when I said "more on that", here is the more. You have ganged up. The fact that I replied to you, Fram, then someone else replied to me, then I replied to them, and now you are replying to me again, is proof - the three of you have been reinstating each others' edits, continuing each others' conversations, like Cerberus. Of one mindset but with three times the attacking strength. You cannot sent this. 3. I explained BRD above to you, it was not broken by me, and I have had no chance to check if the STATUSQUO-like policy I remember exists or what it is called (see 2). If I am wrong on that, I have not had room to find out because of two users immediately mocking me for bringing it up and a third coming at me from somewhere else. You have all comported yourselves poorly, unless good behavior is raining down problem after problem for one person to face until they cannot. I started off genuinely engaging because I obviously want to improve Wikipedia content; I was not afforded such in return, just reiterated assertions that TNT was the only option. How is that appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Subjects' don't have rights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, then an encyclopedia is not the place for articles with the functional read of medical textbooks, shall we go about deleting those rights-less subjects? Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems perverse to me that the McKernan paper at Biorxiv is considered unworthy of a Wikipedia article yet appears as a citation in a published article, in fact for the very fact we are trying to get in under ALT2, namely the role of copy number variation. In other words, with you are standing behind the position that the citation is good enough for Genome Biol Evol, but not good enough for DYK. Fooey: my sense is that these objections have gone beyond normal DYK vetting which is why the nominator is upset. DYK isn’t supposed to be this kind of content improvement drive. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the nominator is upset that their medical claims are treated as medical claims. And DYK vetting should at least check the sources and their status. That it doesn't normally happen is a DYK problem, but as I believe that DYK (just like e.g. the Signpost) should be abolished, I am not doing an actual DYK review here. I came here as a new page patroller, I stayed because of the extreme ungelpfulness of the article creator after issues were pointed out. I maintain that the citation isn't good enough for a mainspace article, DYK be damned. Fram (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am "upset" because no new article is immediately descended upon by multiple uninterested parties who voraciously demand every single problem be deleted or fixed but preferably deleted right away. All new articles will have problems and be likely incomplete, but that is no reason for you to gang up and pummel someone trying. And, no, you didn't come as NPP, unless you're changing your story, now: you admitted yourself previously that you saw this nommed at DYK and assumed it would be bad so went not to the DYK nom, not to this article talkpage, but to the WPMed talkpage - where you knew everyone would agree with you - to decide what to do with the article as if it's that project's property. Stop lying about your, and my, motivations instead of actually answering 's question about the validity of the source. Kingsif (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was "descended upon" by multiple people because I saw it during new page patrolling, found the medical information dubiously sourced, and raised the issue at the Wikiproject Medicine talk page. Medicine articles are probably the most scrutinized articles (together with controversial BLPs). That the article was meant for DYK (and thus the mainpage) only made the issues more pressing. But no, I didn't "admit that I saw this nommed at DYK", I saw it at NPP, which is my usual place to look at articles (I haven't looked much at DYK for years now). And no, I didn't know that everyone at WPMED would agree with me, I have had very little interactions with them and I rarely get everyone to agree with me on enwiki anyway. Please stop accusing people of lying, it is a personal attack which doesn't help the discussion but which may get you sanctioned if you keep it up. Fram (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what doesn't help discussion: you and co., lying or not, resorting to sarcastic put-downs rather than giving genuine responses to people who want to improve, not remove, content. Please be helpful if you're going to keep dragging this out. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I usually give the appropriate answer to the kind of question of remark that gets posted. People repeatedly making false accusations of lying who, went called out on it, then fall back on "please be helpful" to "people who want to improve, not remove, content" (as if removal can't be just as much or more of an improvement than some additions), shouldn't be surprised if others then don't suddenly start with "oh yes, please, tell me how I can help you!". Nor do people like Bri who zoom in on the minor things to be able to ignore the major ones. For some reason "be helpful" sounds an awful lot like "let us edit like we want to and stop pointing out issues". Fram (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you really want people to be helpful, a first step would be to avoid edit summaries like "lies as distraction technique, now? ... edit conflict: did andy add anything to your not-answer or did you just want to make it two-on-one again?" from today. Fram (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. 'We are trying to get something into DYK' isn't even relevant when discussing article content. Either something complies with Wikipedia policies or it doesn't. And this article certainly didn't when the DYK nominations were first made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Except, Fram, you complained about trivia like a typo in the DOI. This is not what DYK review is for. Be honest here. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that typo was the only thing I brought up, not that the link contains "information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.". Thank you for reminding me to be honest, I would totally have forgotten that without your post here. That the article is 6 years old and still only in preprint is a point you missed? Very honest, that. Oh well, at least now you could add a paper to the lead which mentions AK47 in passing once, great improvement. Let's not get started about the difference between what a DYK check should be, and what it actually is. Fram (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

'Uses' section
As has already been noted, the WayofLeaf website makes clear that it promotes the use of cannabis for medical purposes. The page on AK-47 cited for the 'Uses' section likewise makes claims as to medical efficacy. The text in this section ("Way of Leaf does not recommend it for people who react poorly to THC") can thus only, in my opinion, be interpreted as medical advice. As a general principle, Wikipedia should not be offering medical advice about anything, but if it is going to, it must necessarily do so while citing sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. Unless someone can come up with a legitimate reason to the contrary, I shall be deleting this section, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now deleted the section, since even it isn't medical advice, it doesn't belong per WP:NOTGUIDE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your added comment here that the text is obviously not medical advice - and also with the further application of NOTGUIDE. Since the context of the sentence that comprised the section was previously removed, it was random, likely UNDUE, coverage of one opinion. Perhaps input could have been asked for, but as a dead section, the deletion here is non-controversial and a note appreciated (less appreciated is the implicit discrediting a perfectly fine source). Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)