Talk:Cannabis in China

Notability
I question the notability of the subject matter. Just because (i) a plant is notable; and (ii) it is grown in a country, that does not make "Plant in country" notable for an article. We do not have millet in China or rosewood in China, even though both plants are far more culturally significant to China than cannabis, which is of questionable or minimal economic, cultural or social significance in China. The bare facts that (i) the plant is apparently grown in China; and (ii) people take it as an illegal drug, would be more than adequately covered off in agriculture in China and Illegal drug trade in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello thanks for adding the Discussion. I didn't intend to be contrary removing the Template, just there wasn't any clear argument explaining why, but now there is. So for my part:
 * I argue that Millet in China wouldn't be the proper parallel, the parallel would be Category:Alcohol in China or Smoking in China, which do indeed exist.
 * We have "Cannabis in Foo" articles for over 110 countries and over 60 sub-national jurisdictions, so I argue this article is not out of place.
 * I agree it needs expansion, and I'll work on that soon, but in the meantime I think it has enough properly-cited content to justify being a standalone article. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Input solicited at WT:WikiProject China and WT:WikiProject Cannabis. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surely there is enough information about cannabis and its use throughout Chinese history to justify this article. Yes, expansion is needed, but the article should not be deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This should be called Hemp in China and not cannabis, since "hemp" history is important, while cannabis is just a drive by WPCANNABIS to create articles for every country. Whatever psychoactive uses and restrictions can be covered a subtopics of a hemp article. It is highly questionable that it is even notable for most countries to have cannabis or hemp articles, since it is not a significant factor in their histories, especially as some random international treaty banning cannabis does not affect what wasn't there in the country in the first place. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree: "Cannabis in Foo" is standardized across 110 countries and 60-some sub-national jurisdictions, it's pretty unified. Also "cannabis" refers to the entire plant, not simply the drug. I would certainly dispute that we don't need a cannabis article for all the countries that have one; by all means feel free to PROD any that you don't think meet Notability if you see them. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is a concerted effort by you (November 2016) to make it an issue, when it is not an issue in many countries, and are thus wholly inappropriately named. They should be mostly called HEMP IN X since "hemp" has a much richer history in most countries, and until the random international drug treaties were forced into being by the United States, cannabis was not an issue in most places. The article format "Cannabis in X" is purely your creation, since you created the articles a few months ago.  There is no widespread agreement that we should have such articles for all countries, since you alone cannot make a quorum of Wikipedia editors. Codifying your own actions as "standardized" is self-serving since it is a self-creation of yours. (and much of is is simple duplication of X became a member of the international treaty, end article; indeed only having a sentence or two in many articles) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

, while some of your points are slightly true, you're certainly missing the forest for the trees:


 * No, that is a concerted effort by you (November 2016) to make it an issue
 * The article format "Cannabis in X" is purely your creation, since you created the articles a few months ago.
 * Incorrect: while I have written a bunch of "Cannabis in X" articles, that format existed years before I came along, like Cannabis in California was started in 2009 and I didn't get interested in this topic until 2014. There are dozens and dozens of "Cannabis in X" articles that pre-date my work, so you are totally wrong there.


 * '' They should be mostly called HEMP IN X since "hemp" has a much richer history in most countries,
 * There is general consensus on Wikipedia that "cannabis" refers to the plant itself, overall. At least in American English, "hemp" refers to the industrial fabric product, and "marijuana" means cannabis used as a drug. But a plant just growing in the woods? That's "cannabis", not "hemp" since a farmer didn't plant it. So "Cannabis in X" is the broadest and most-inclusive term, whereas "Marijuana in China" would just be about drug use and "Hemp in China" would just be about industrial use.


 * and until the random international drug treaties were forced into being by the United States, cannabis was not an issue in most places.
 * Nope, wrong. Take a look at the article (that I wrote) Timeline of cannabis law, which clearly shows that many countries had much stricter and earlier laws on cannabis then the US. The US had no federal anti-cannabis laws until 1937, and "US forces other countries to change drug policy" largely dates from the 1960s and earlier. If you want to blame anyone for spearheading anti-cannabis law, look at the South Africans and the Turks, at the 1925 International Opium Convention.


 *  (and much of is is simple duplication of X became a member of the international treaty, end article; indeed only having a sentence or two in many articles) 
 * Do me a favor, find one like that and go ahead and PROD it for me so it can be removed. But I think you'll find the vast majority of them have significant, local, cited facts. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)