Talk:Cannabis use disorder/Archive 1

Citation style
The first version of this article had no established citation style-- it's all over the map. The citation style makes work on this article difficult: Evidence for cannabis dependence comes from a number of sources including epidemiological surveys, studies of long-term users, clinical trials of people seeking treatment,   controlled experiments on withdrawal and tolerance,  and laboratory studies on cannabis brain mechanisms.

Does anyone object if I make consistent and truncate authors to first three plus et al so that the text in edit mode will be less dense, and I can begin to flag the Reviews and primary sources here? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, those primary sources are all gone now anyway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdated tag restored
If I had a copy of DSM5, I'd write this section; I don't, and have restored the tag removed by another editor. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DSM US-only
Credible editor deleted bunch of cites saying that disorder was in DSM. But DSM is US-only. Is that really "good enough" for the whole world? Seems US-centric. Saying that, however, does not mean that numerous cites should not have been rm! Student7 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the DSM is not "US only"; it is widely used, world-wide. Second, there is also a WHO ICD-10 diagnostic code, but I've not encountered any journal coverage of the differences, if there are any, between DSM and ICD.  Third, the DSM5 was recently published, and the specifics of the diagnosis were changed.  I do not have the DSM5, but I did find the Table of Contents online (see section above), and there were enough changes that the old text needs to be rewritten.  By someone who has a copy of the DSM5. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole article sounds a lot like the cases described in DSM Criticism - where in this case 'cannabis dependence' is a mis-diagnosed form of chronic stress, which a patient had previously been self-medicating for, in order to prescribe a more lucrative drug. Without the downer/hangover experienced with the likes of caffeine or alcohol, cannabis only has more potential for psychological dependence than LSD & psilocybin because it more reliably brings about a pleasant experience. 4ndyD (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reference to support that? Best regards. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison between caffeine and THC addictive potential
The article says that "Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be less than for caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin," but gives no citation. For the latter three drugs this would be hard to dispute, but is there good evidence showing this is true of caffeine? It is hard to find a reliable source for this. Several studies in particular list caffeine as only "marginally addictive," while the same is not usually said of THC or of marijuana. This probably isn't an unreasonable claim, but it also isn't obvious and should be backed up.

I've added a citation needed tag pending discussion. Eebster the Great (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of one study that examines caffeine dependence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621326/, they cite another study that found 30% of current caffeine users were dependent, though it does not directly compare addictive potential to cannabis. Psyden (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect
According to Britannica's Macropedia, cannabis does not produce withdrawal symptoms, nor does it cause a chemical dependence, nor cause increased tolerances. Any dependence on it is habitual. It does have negative effects for long term use, according to recent studies, but not dependence. Lucy346 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Macropedia? See our medical sourcing guidelines.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * its part of Encyclopedia Britannica. It has two sections the normal micropedia, and macropedia which is knowledge in depth. Surely, it is a good source. Lucy346 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see PubMed for reliable medical sources; we clearly have recent secondary reviews compliant with our medical sourcing policies, which Britannica is not, that disputes all of what you say their Macropedia says. For example, Cannabis dependence is defined as a medical condition, so it clearly creates dependency.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * clarification: It says it can produce a psychological dependence and affect will, but it doesn't cause a physical dependence. I shouldn't use one encyclopedia to improve another, (that defeats the purpose of competing encyclopedias) except to point out that the un-sourced information is contradicted by a good (tertiary) source. Britannica's information can't be dismissed wholesale. But, I wish to make no further changes, just leave this here for people to consider, when they made edits. Lucy346 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The recent edits are clearly wrong, but whatever. Lucy346 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever; here is a list of the DSM-5 changes:  I'll add those to the article when I find a higher quality source, since the DSM5 isn't available online, but that page is accurate. The Table of Contents of DSM5 is available online via google search, and shows:
 * Cannabis-Related Disorders
 * Cannabis Use Disorder
 * Cannabis Intoxication
 * Cannabis Withdrawal
 * Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders
 * Unspecified Cannabis-Related Disorder
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In truth the only negative efects come from prolonged and excessive use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.105.150 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'For example, Cannabis dependence is defined as a medical condition, so it clearly creates dependency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a circular argument; cannabis dependence [unproved] defined as medical condition, so it [clearly?] creates dependency. dependence creates dependence?
 * Yet in another page of WP, we have 'It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.' The same article concludes that 'the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry.'
 * And you dismiss a Encyclopaedia Brittanica as inconveniently not agreeing with a body many think is clearly corrupted by the vested interests of pharmacuticals. PetePassword (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cannabis (drug)
Cannabis addiction redirects to the Cannabis (drug) article so this page should do the same.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dependence and addiction are separate concepts so I don't think the addiction redirect can justify the merge. That said I'm not opposed to a merge on other grounds.Sizeofint (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Cannabis dependence is a separate issue per ICD-10 and ICD-9, as stated in that article's infobox, while the target article is too big to accommodate it. Brandmeistertalk  19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having separate dependence pages is consistent with other drug entries, including alcohol dependence, amphetamine dependence, and opiod dependence.DrNicotiana (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

it looks like the cannabis enemies have found new ways to prove they are supposedly 'right'.
By defining what sources are 'allowed' (...) and what not (macropedia) the anti cannabis coalition has decidedly taken the entire discussion out of objectivity, and turned it back into something that they can talk bullshit about. A lot of university research turned out to be gutter science (the emperor wears no clothes -jack herer).

As youth worker i have seen many dependencies, but never on cannabis. Neither have I heard anything about this from my dutch collegues.

To just state something, and disallow people that are perfectly right to improve the official (non- talk) page, that the world uses as their main information source, is not very scientifical or objective. Using a list of books that all tell the same story reminds me of old church manners. Hey, there may be books and research stating the opposite, but we are not going to allow those (they are part of the 'forbidden books', or Apocrieves).

So, please PROVE there is dependency, EXPLAIN VIA BIOLOGY HOW THAT MECHANISM WORKS, and discover there are cannabinoid recepters that are unique for our body, even when someone has never taken cannabis.

Please don't go on with the Anslinger dead end road. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.38.230 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I do know someone who had a problem with cannabis. He would start casually (and often) asking friends for free cannabis for instance, and would not endure a non-high phase at day (he would leave to go to another friend). I find it plausible that such behavior is indicative of some kind of disorder concerning the use of cannabis.
 * However I don't like this article either. Quick search reveales Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs among others, which refutes "The sedating and anxiolytic properties of THC in some users might make the use of cannabis an attempt to self-medicate personality or psychiatric disorders." because depending on view Cannabis is a valid medication (in some countries) that can be prescribed for these kinds of ailments if it helps the patient. 84.119.3.225 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

older entries
I can't help but feel the 'Worldwide data on cannabis use and dependence' is more like 'Australian data on cannabis use and dependence'. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic.114.76.51.217 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Does any one else find it amusing that one of the first references cited here is Budney et al.?

Yeastbeast (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought boredom would be a symptom of withdrawal. I guess that might fall under depression though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.0.129 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole entry is misinformation, and culled from the DSM. On another wikipedia page we have:
 * It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.


 * The same article concludes that the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry.


 * My observation is that much of the 'anti-cannabis' 'research' currently emanating is by psychiatrists, presents no science to back up allegations of addiction or psychosis, and is stacked with assumptions, illogical conclusions and obfuscation, if not downright misinformation. In light of the above, psychiatrists 'opinions' on cannabis should be avoided as unscientific and 'disease mongering', ie. creating conditions that only they can then treat. This page is therefore doing the job for the pharmaceuticals, who are busy patenting cannabis 'medicines' while the issue remains clouded in some minds. The threat to them is that people can and do self medicate, and with a substance they can grow themseves. Currently big pharmaceuticals make many billions fro conditions cannabis can and does treat, often more adequately that their chemical coshes, and with relatively trivial side effects. PetePassword (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you explain the behavior of someone I know (first indented comment)? But I largely agree with your statement. I had a middle-aged psychiatrist not too long ago who would, although I was fully adult and I had treated myself successfully for months, completely block on the topic of medical cannabis (it was and is by federal law completely legal in Germany), even though I've found him to be very forthcoming when it comes to prescribing "stuff he knows" like neuroleptics, that only make you fat, give you diabetes and movement disorder, that quickly stopped at cannabis. I get the feeling psychiatrists are not the right people to ask. If you know German, it's fun to look up talks by Gert Postel. With intense preparation, but no formal training (he was mail carrier) he became year-long senior psychiatrist at a big psychiatric hospital. (Look up his story, even if you don't know German. There should be English articles too)
 * Related: Controversy_surrounding_psychiatry84.119.3.225 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Review and criticism of the Article
The article gives a great explanation on what Cannabis dependence is caused from and the different diagnoses. It gives an accurate percentage of how many people have used cannabis which is 49% and goes on to state 9% of those people become dependent. The article also links heavy users of pot to addiction, which makes a lot of sense when considering the tolerance levels from continuous use. My only concern with the article is the different groups that are at risk of cannabis dependency. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the examples given within the article and in my opinion need more clarification. The article does not do justice to the reason why these groups have higher risks for cannabis dependency and I think the audience needs factual information to back up those vague statements. What the author can do is add some evidence from reliable sources that can prove whether or not the group has a higher risk for cannabis dependency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt37han (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole article need reviewing and re-writing by someone in possession of knowledge rather than googling skills. The comment above here is wrong even, while critical it talks of 'links heavy users of pot to addiction, which makes a lot of sense when considering the tolerance levels from continuous use' spoken as someone who has never known anyone using it. Tolerance levels have been copied from heroin, a truly addictive drug, which causes ADDICTION in ALL users who go beyond a casual try. It is largelky those with emotional or physical pain who seek out heroin, but the wwar on drugs has made it available and pushed on the streets, and all who start to use become addictied, no ifs and buts and 100%. Cannabis is not addictive if only a tiny percentage have problems stopping, and the very concept that it is addictive was started by a small number of users who panicked when arrested and sought an exit from the penal system, claiming victimhood to avoid harsh sentences. They were regarded at the time, the '60s, as traitors, makiing up lurid stories which were soaked up by the ignorant, and occasionally did succeed in convincing a magistrate or judge to be lenient. It has no basis in science. No changes occur that could cause withdrawel symptoms, the endocannabinoid system simply takes up the slack if use is curtailed. Conditions that cannabis treats naturally return if the medicine is removed, so restlessness, insomnia, chronic pain etc are not withdrawels but a return to real medical conditions. If you stop taking antibiotics that are needed, surprisingly infection returns. Get real, stop copying bs from more sources than you're prepared to reference, and when those sources are fake science, be very wary of repeating them. As real research is now in full swing across the world, this whole article need a complete rewrite. Israel for instance guarantees cannabis accessibility to all citizens who want it for whatever reason, medical or recreational [which is often medical as well, as, unpopular as it is for medical professionals, many self treat as hoiminids have done for many thousands of years. You can't control everything.PetePassword (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

University Student Editing Initiative
Hello! We are a group of students planning to improve this article over the next month. We will be proposing our changes on this talk page and welcome feedback and suggestions to our edits. We look forward to working with the Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article with evidence based sources.

For now, this is a placeholder heading introducing us before we propose any changes. EBM McEBMFace (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please ensure any account is linked to a single individual person per WP:ISU. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note . Each student will be editing Wikipedia articles under their own account. Dashboard link. They will be sharing their proposed article improvements here in the next week.JenOttawa (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Change #1:

Original: "As a time and cost saving alternative to extensive diagnostic interviews, several short scales for the screening for cannabis-related problems have been developed. Among the most frequently used screeners are the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT), Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS), Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) and Problematic Use of Marijuana (PUM)."

New: To screen for cannabis-related problems, several scales and instruments are used. Scales specific to cannabis, which provides the benefit of being cost efficient compared to extensive diagnostic interviews, include the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST), Cannabis Use Identification Test (CUDIT), and Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT). Scales for general drug use disorders are also used, including the Severity Dependence Scale (SDS), Drug Use Disorder Identification Test (DUDIT), and Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). To quantify cannabis use, common instruments include measuring Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB), Cannabis Use Daily (CUD), and Smoking Topography. The instruments measure general consumption and not grams of psychoactive substance as the concentration of THC may vary among drug users.

Proposed Change #2:

Original: (None, this proposed change is a new addition do the Diagnosis section)

New: "Cannabis use disorder is also recognized in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), adding more subdivisions including time intervals of pattern of use (episodic, continuous, or unspecified) and dependence (current, early full remission, sustained partial remission, sustained full remission, or unspecified) compared to the 10th revision. "

EBM McEBMFace (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

'''Proposed Change #3:

Original: None. The proposed change is an addiction to the first portion of the “Signs and symptoms” paragraph.

New: The route of cannabis administration may pose different physical and psychological risk for cannabis dependency. Ingestion of “edibles” may increase the psychological ‘normalization’ of cannabis use, leading to an increased risk of dependency. Residual solvent compounds introduce the risks of cancer, neurotoxicity and birth defects with chronic consumption.

Emmaneary talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing these suggested article improvements. Great work so far! I re-added your references with the PMIDs using the citation tool. When you edit the Wikipedia article please add them in with the PMID. I would be happy to help you with this on the 25th. JenOttawa (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

'''Proposed Change #4 (adolescent section):

1) Adolescent cannabis use is associated with increased cannabis misuse as an adult, challenges learning, long-term cognitive complications and poor psychiatric outcomes including suicidality and addiction.

2) The endocannabanoid system is directly involved in adolescent neurodevelopment, meaning adolescent cannabis users are particularly vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of cannabis use.

3) Delete the current paragraph about adolescent cannabis use. AidanMedEditor (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing these Great work here! I adjusted your references to add them using the PMID tool. When editing the Wikipedia article please use this tool. I would be happy to help in class on the 25th. JenOttawa (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

'''Proposed Change #5 (pregnancy section):

Original: None, there is currently no information on the effects of cannabis during pregnancy. This proposed change will be added to a new section under the subheading "high-risk groups" in a separate section about pregnancy.

New: There is an association between smoking cannabis during pregnancy and low birth weight. Smoking cannabis during pregnancy can lower the amount of oxygen delivered to the developing fetus, which can restrict fetal growth. [1] Wikieditor M23 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

'''Proposed Change #6 (THC in breastmilk):

Original: none, this proposed change will be added to a new section under the subheading “High risk groups” in a separate section about pregnancy (see Wikieditor M23’s proposed changes)

New: The active ingredient in cannabis (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) is fat soluble and can enter into breastmilk during lactation. THC in breastmilk can then subsequently be taken up by a breastfeeding infant, as shown by the presence of THC in the infant’s feces. However, the evidence for long-term effects of exposure to THC through breastmilk is unclear. Nancepants2 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing this . Great ideas for improvement here Your citations did not come through properly when copying this from your sandbox, but this is fine for the talk page! I added them manually using the PMIDs for sharing with the Wikipedia community here. When you edit the actual Wikipedia article please add these again by pasting the PMID into the citation tool (the exercise we did in class on the 11th). Are there any words you can dub down a little to make it more readable for someone without a medical background? Metabolized pops out at me, even the word "inconclusive". I like to paste my work into here: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ to get ideas of how to write for a general audience. Your group is doing very well! This page gets an average of 401 page views a day so any improvements will make a difference. Thank you again! JenOttawa (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing looks generally good, except the Pediatrics Research International Journal appears to be from a predatory publisher. 2009 is really too old for a sourc in an area under active research. What about PMID 29843260? Alexbrn (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've included the article you suggested, and also taken out the citation to the journal from the predatory publisher. My apologies for the oversight!

Proposed Change #7
Plan: Update the "Research" section of the article to help provide some more insight for readers with regards to the recent undertakings of the scientific community on this topic and help provide a scientific basis for the discussions taking place on the page.

Proposed changes:

The addition of the following small paragraph in the "research section of the wikipedia article:

"It has been established that cannabis use, similar to other drugs of abuse, causes abnormal brain activity and structural changes in several regions of the brain including the prefrontal cortex - a portion of the brain critical for executive functioning2,3. Heavy cannabis use has been associated with reduced cognitive functioning, however, it's specific details are difficult to elucidate due to the use of additional substances of users, and lack of longitudinal studies1. These limitations contribute to the lack of available therapies for cannabis use disorder.1"

1. Curran HV, Freeman TP, Mokrysz C, Lewis DA, Morgan CJ, Parsons LH. 2016. Keep off the grass? Cannabis, cognition and addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci.May;17(5):293-306.

2. Prenderville JA, Kelly AM, Downer EJ. 2015. The role of cannabinoids in adult neurogenesis. Br J Pharmacol. Aug;172(16):3950-63.

3. Scott JC, Slomiak ST, Jones JD, Rosen AFG, Moore TM, Gur RC. 2018. Association of Cannabis With Cognitive Functioning in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. Jun 1;75(6):585-595


 * Rationale for the addition of this statement:

I think someone coming onto this wikipedia page, and wanting to learn about the subject would perhaps be interested in some biological consequences of its consumption, and also what research in the field has been able to show and also not show. I believe this addition could perhaps be helpful in addressing those questions and concerns. I believe this statement best falls under the "research" category, because it is still very much an ongoing effort. As such, I wanted to include a statement which provided some evidence and results, however, also highlight the lack thereof.


 * Areas of ambiguity or controversy for the proposed change:

There are several independent studies which may claim they have elucidated the mechanisms and exact impact of cannabis of the brain, however, from my research I came to understand that this may not be the case. This is particularly due to the poorly controlled strain of cannabis used (which could significantly alter the impact of the substance). Thus, I decided to state that the exact impact of cannabis has not been elucidated and quantified, which may be somewhat controversial as some studies may disagree with this statement. However, looking at the collective field of data, I think it is appropriate level of detail to provide to the masses.


 * Validity issues or potential bias within the secondary source:

Although the sources I used were review articles, they are still not the highest tier on the hierarchy of study designs, as they have not done a complete and thorough search of the entire literature. Additionally they have not shared their research strategies in finding all the articles in which they cited. However, I believe these articles were still of high quality, and valuable in providing insight into the current landscape of cannabis use.

Pedak0 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? No research refs?
This is all very amusing, but many of the claims of addiction, such as irritability etc. could be the natural state of that individuals personality.

Cannabis use may in fact be the thing that allows them to be more relaxed and remove anxiety. Remove the Cannabis, and is it surprising they are more irritable/less relaxed?

In truth, this article seems to have little basis in reality, with very few actual studies showing that Cannabis "withdrawl" is indeed the CAUSE of these personality traits. Once again, it is also true that in teenagers, Cannabis can MASK behaviours that would otherwise lead to a psychological diagnosis, as the Cannabis prevents individuals from getting aggressive or annoyed.

As an individual I am disheartened by the lack of reputable studies. Those refs are needed. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I completely agree and have removed some of the worst unsupported claims of causation. I found it especially troubling that the references featured cannabis treatment businesses, at least one of which was in trouble with authorities. Unsupported claims should be removed, as real evidence is needed to add them in the first place. Cutelyaware (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelloreus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Epidemiology Section Not Relevant
The Epidemiology section is almost entirely about rates of cannabis use. Cannabis use disorder certainly does not happen as an automatic result of use, and has not been proven to always result even from heavy use. This means that the contents of this section are not relevant to the subject of the article, except to imply without proof that CUD is far more common than it is. It should be either entirely replaced with information regarding rates of Cannabis use disorder specifically, or removed. Violsva (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.--- Avatar317 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the first part of this section a little more clear on how general cannabis use relates to the disorder. Still needs updates! Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)