Talk:Hemp/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Eytmology section
Etymology online is not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Online_Etymology_Dictionary.
Moving here til this can be sourced..
- Etymology
Hemp is probably a loanword, ultimately derived from the original Scythian or Thracian term, cannabis.[1] It is possible that his happened as early as in the Proto-Indo-European community, or shortly after PIE became a dead language, but more likely, when the Scythians began using it as a drug, as documented by Herodotus. The name hemp follows Grimm's law, similar to other words in the Germanic languages, like hundred (see Centum-Satem), which indicates that hemp was borrowed into proto-Germanic before the sound shift from K to H. Cognates of hemp in other Germanic languages, include Danish and Norwegian Hamp, German Hanf and Swedish Hampa.
References
- Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- What about TFD.com? HempFan (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've now readded that section and changed it around a bit in line with the new source, with the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture as the main source. If that doesn't meet your reliable source criteria, I don't know what does. HempFan (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is our reliable sourcing criteria. You are a Wikipedia editor and it is your responsibility to understand the policies and guidelines and follow them. To the extent you continue to place yourself outside the community you continue on the very wrong path. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is good. The other ones, not so much. We can just source that whole section to the encyclopedia one though. We don't need the other sources. I'm working on some tweaks to the wording now to make it easier to understand and I'm just going to get rid of the other sources and extra details that weren't also in the encyclopedia, though most of the material is in that one. I bet it was the source used by the other sources. —PermStrump(talk) 04:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is our reliable sourcing criteria. You are a Wikipedia editor and it is your responsibility to understand the policies and guidelines and follow them. To the extent you continue to place yourself outside the community you continue on the very wrong path. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've now readded that section and changed it around a bit in line with the new source, with the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture as the main source. If that doesn't meet your reliable source criteria, I don't know what does. HempFan (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
current version needed fixing - should say upfront that etymology is uncertain and just tell the best estimate simply. The last bit about Grimm's law is interesting and probably valid but was unsourced. The middle stuff about herodotus doesn't need to be here. And this still uses the unreliable source above.
- Etymology
Hemp is reconstructed by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European root word *kannabis.[1] A Scythian or Thracian origin has also been proposed for cannabis,[2] based on when the Scythians used it as a drug, as documented by Herodotus,[3] but such an etymology origin is less certain. The name hemp follows Grimm's law, similar to other words in the Germanic languages, like hundred (see Centum-Satem), which indicates that hemp was either borrowed into, or present in proto-Germanic before the sound shift from K to H. Cognates of hemp in other Germanic languages, include Danish and Norwegian Hamp, German Hanf and Swedish Hampa.
References
- ^ Adams, DQ (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Illustrated ed.), London, UK: Taylor & Francis, p. 266, ISBN 9781884964985
{{citation}}: Unknown parameter|editors=ignored (|editor=suggested) (help) - ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hemp
- ^ Herodotus. Histories. 4.75
I just fixed it here. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I was working at the same time. Basically had most of the same stuff as you with one or two additional things that I needed to tweak some of the wording to fit in.
- F everyone's I: Root word and source word aren't exactly synonymous and source is better than root in this case (since it's unknown, we don't know if the source word was a compound word or based on a single stem, etc.) —PermStrump(talk) 06:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: It's also your responsibility to follow other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like WP:CIVIL, WP:DONTBITE and WP:GOODFAITH. Don't you think you're a bit too hostile against me? All I did was provide a top notch source and pointed out that if this source isn't reliable, no source on the subject is reliable. And you got riled up over it and threatened with banning me basically. Not cool. I think you need to chill and not take every sentence on the talk page so seriously. I understand it can be frustrating to discuss edits and changes, and not always get your way with the article, but there's no need to get worked up here. You should also have a look at this (I just found it on another Wikipedia editor's profile): User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. You're really not being collaborative here as far I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've haven't threatened you with anything. I have told you that if you keep placing yourself outside the WP community by writing things like "your guidelines" and if you keep bringing bad sources and edit warring them back in, you are going to leave unhappy or the community will eventually take action against you. I am telling you what I have seen happen many times. You can listen, or not. And yes, all the content in WP matters. We - the community - take that seriously and you need to as well. You are a Wikipedia editor. This has nothing - nothing - to do with "my way." It has to do with the policies and guidelines for content here in WP - it has to do with "our way" and that "our" includes you. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- So let's recap: first, I add the source etymonline (which by the way, for your information, is still used in etymology of cannabis, and thousands of other Wikipedia articles; I did a Google search), and whether or not it's a reliable source hasn't actually been agreed by the "Wikipedia community", because the noticeboard archive discussion you linked to, was a short, unresolved discussion, and only a few Wikipedians posted their two cents; there are millions of Wikipedia editors, and not even 1% of all Wikipedians have agreed that it should be totally unacceptable to use etymonline. If you start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard concerning etymonline, chances are that this time around, other Wikipedia editors might agree that it should be acceptable to use it as a source here on Wikipedia. Anyway, forget about etymonline, it's not relevant, and I agree that primary sources are better. You voiced your opposition to etymonline, described it as an unreliable source and moved the etymology section to the talk page for further discussion. I then added the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture as the new source, and left a comment on the talk page about it. You then removed most of my edit by calling it "nonsense". Not exactly civil or respectful behavior on your part, wouldn't you say? That's you violating Wikipedia policy right there by being aggressive against another Wikipedia editor, describing his edits as nonsense. After I left a comment on the talk page, saying that I just added the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture as the new source, you just jumped on me, with insinuations that you'll ban me "if I place myself outside the WP community" (which apparently, you're the sole decision maker of here). I think you should relax and be more collaborative. If I do something wrong, don't crucify me immediately over it. We can discuss what qualifies as acceptable/reliable source and so on. It's fine. I'm also not edit warring; I'm discussing on the talk page. Disagreeing or discussing with you is not edit warring. HempFan (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- HempFan, something in the wording here doesn't makes sense to me:
"Hemp has been has been reconstructed to *kannabis,[9][10] but there is still uncertainty on whether this qualifies as a securely reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root, in part, because the Greek term kánnabisis the oldest attested form, which may have been borrowed from an earlier Scythian or Thracian word."
Can you give a synonym for how you're using "reconstructed" in this sentence, so I can try to understand how you're using it? I've read the linguistics page that you wikilinked to and while I'm pretty sure I understand that article, I'm still not understanding what you're saying here. —PermStrump(talk) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)- Well, if you look at the IE encyplopedia (and the new IE Oxford source I just added), Mallory and Adams actually did reconstruct hemp and its cognates in other IE languages, back to ?*kannabis (with a question mark preceding *). I assume the question mark indicates an uncertainty as to whether *kannabis is a proper PIE word or a loanword from Scythian. I use reconstruction in this sense: linguistic reconstruction (as in the comparative method). For whatever it's worth, I'm totally agnostic on whether *kannabis is a PIE root or a Scythian loanword. HempFan (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Would you mind quoting one sentence from the page you're talking about so I can find it? The search function isn't as good for that book on google and I'm having trouble finding the part you might be talking about. FWIW I think their position is more clearly articulated in the Encyclopedia source. I don't think the way it's worded right now means the same thing as what they were saying. You can take out my addition about the geographic range if that's too wordy, but I think the previous wording was more clear and more reflective of the source when it said, "
The etymology is uncertain but there appears to be no common Proto-indoeuropean
" —PermStrump(talk) 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)rootsource for the various forms of the word; the Greek term kannabis is the oldest attested form (and may have been borrowed from an earlier Scythian or Thracian form) and the word then appears to have been borrowed into Latin, and separately into Slavic and from there into Baltic, Finnish, and Germanic languages.- Mallory's and Adams' encyclopedia entry, on page 266 in the IE encyclopedia, lists "hemp" as ?*kannabis, so according to them, it's possible to reconstruct hemp (+ konoplja, kanepe and so on) back to *kannabis, and whether *kannabis was a PIE word or a loanword from Scythian, that's a different question, but reconstruction is certainly possible. The * indicates that it's an unattested word (as is typical of proto-languages). What this also means, is that ?*kannabis is a reconstructed word (and again, they also included this reconstruction of hemp, for the second time in their second collaboration, almost ten years later, in their Oxford PIE dictionary). The previous wording was misleading in saying there's no common PIE source/root (I honestly don't understand why you're opposed to using root here?), which there actually might be, based on Mallory's and Adams' reconstruction. The issue here is that Mallory and Adams themselves aren't actually sure if *kannabis was a PIE word (in their first encyclopedia book, they explicitly said it wasn't, and in their second collaboration, the Oxford book, they didn't say much about its PIE status, but the fact that they included hemp as ?*kannabis there as well, indicates some PIE status for the word. HempFan (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should say "source" because it's more accurate. Source and root aren't necessarily synonyms in a linguistic sense. In the Encyclopedia source they say explicitly "The various attested words, while similar to one another, cannot reflect a common PIE." Then they go on to present other people's hypotheses that they ultimate disagree with at thend of the piece. I think we're all more or less on the same page, but I don't think the current wording clearly reflects that. I think it will be hard for other people to follow too. The previous wording of that first part meant essentially the same thing and it was more concise and clear. —PermStrump(talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The way you are using the word "reconstruct" is incorrect. That was one of the problems with your original formulation. Please stop misusing that term. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now I want you to explain why and how exactly I'm using "reconstruct" in an incorrect way, and how exactly it's not supported by the Oxford source I provided. This should be fun. HempFan (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The thing that is "reconstructed" is the lost root, when it cannot be found. (it is constructed again - reconstructed - because we no longer have any attestations to it). The contemporary term is not reconstructed; that makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand how reconstruction works. I figured it was something like that. You can of course reconstruct root words through their modern descendants that we have evidence for in documentation and other written records. An example would be reconstructing Latin vocabulary (and the entire Latin language) exclusively through modern Romance languages (yes, it's fully possible to do so). The point here in this context, in any case, is that modern terms for 'hemp' in other languages are together, reconstructible to *kannabis, as pointed out by Mallory and Adams (twice). Now, the issue with *kannabis is whether it goes directly back to PIE, or to Scythian (which by the way, based on your definition of what reconstruction means, Scythian qualifies for that also, since it's not really an attested language, or very poorly so anyway). That said, I expect you to do the right thing and revert your most recent edit, because it's not in line with the Oxford source I provided (you can't complain this time that it's not a reliable source), not to mention that you keep removing sourced content, such as the term's possible Scythian origin. HempFan (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Again the thing that is reconstructed is the now-unattested root. The object of the verb is the lost root. For instance Barber reconstructs the root *kan(n)aB- in her book. In your content you had it the wrong way around, where the current word is reconstructed. You wrote: "Hemp has been reconstructed to *kannabis" - and that is wrong on two levels. First, "kannabis" is (apparently) the earliest attested form in Greek - it is not reconstructed, it is an actual attested form. Secondly, what you mean to write is something like "The root of "hemp" is unknown but a reconstructed Sythian root, *kan(n)aB-, has been proposed by E.J.W. Barber, which she says was in turn derived from Sanskrit sana and bhanga. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well the article is about hemp, so obviously, hemp has been reconstructed to *kannabis. We can of course spell it out in more details something along the lines that "Hemp and its cognates in other languages, have been reconstructed to *kannabis", if you like that better? Now, whether *kannabis is too similar to the earliest Greek documentation of the word, doesn't matter, because that's the most archaic form of the word hemp and its cognates can be reconstructed into. Perhaps it can be argued that the reconstructed word *kannabis is too similar to the Scythian term (which there's no documentation for anyway, because the Scythians were illiterate), to the point that *kannabis can't be PIE. Okay, that's fine, but you can't say it's not a reconstructed word, because that's exactly what it is (and that's regardless of your own personal opinion on what linguistic reconstruction is, and also regardless of how similar it looks to the Greek word). And look, whether you like it or not, hemp is featured in an Oxford PIE dictionary, as *kannabis. That PIE dictionary wasn't written for Scythian terminology; if the word is there, it's in most cases, a PIE word. HempFan (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, the root of hemp has been reconstructed and only by Barber, as far as I have seen. Hemp is an actual word, it is not reconstructed. kannabis is not reconstructed, it is an actual word attested in Herodotus. Linguists reconstruct things that don't exist anymore. The only reconstruction I have seen is the hypothetical reconstruction (all reconstructions are hypothetical) *kan(n)aB- from Barber. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well the article is about hemp, so obviously, hemp has been reconstructed to *kannabis. We can of course spell it out in more details something along the lines that "Hemp and its cognates in other languages, have been reconstructed to *kannabis", if you like that better? Now, whether *kannabis is too similar to the earliest Greek documentation of the word, doesn't matter, because that's the most archaic form of the word hemp and its cognates can be reconstructed into. Perhaps it can be argued that the reconstructed word *kannabis is too similar to the Scythian term (which there's no documentation for anyway, because the Scythians were illiterate), to the point that *kannabis can't be PIE. Okay, that's fine, but you can't say it's not a reconstructed word, because that's exactly what it is (and that's regardless of your own personal opinion on what linguistic reconstruction is, and also regardless of how similar it looks to the Greek word). And look, whether you like it or not, hemp is featured in an Oxford PIE dictionary, as *kannabis. That PIE dictionary wasn't written for Scythian terminology; if the word is there, it's in most cases, a PIE word. HempFan (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Again the thing that is reconstructed is the now-unattested root. The object of the verb is the lost root. For instance Barber reconstructs the root *kan(n)aB- in her book. In your content you had it the wrong way around, where the current word is reconstructed. You wrote: "Hemp has been reconstructed to *kannabis" - and that is wrong on two levels. First, "kannabis" is (apparently) the earliest attested form in Greek - it is not reconstructed, it is an actual attested form. Secondly, what you mean to write is something like "The root of "hemp" is unknown but a reconstructed Sythian root, *kan(n)aB-, has been proposed by E.J.W. Barber, which she says was in turn derived from Sanskrit sana and bhanga. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand how reconstruction works. I figured it was something like that. You can of course reconstruct root words through their modern descendants that we have evidence for in documentation and other written records. An example would be reconstructing Latin vocabulary (and the entire Latin language) exclusively through modern Romance languages (yes, it's fully possible to do so). The point here in this context, in any case, is that modern terms for 'hemp' in other languages are together, reconstructible to *kannabis, as pointed out by Mallory and Adams (twice). Now, the issue with *kannabis is whether it goes directly back to PIE, or to Scythian (which by the way, based on your definition of what reconstruction means, Scythian qualifies for that also, since it's not really an attested language, or very poorly so anyway). That said, I expect you to do the right thing and revert your most recent edit, because it's not in line with the Oxford source I provided (you can't complain this time that it's not a reliable source), not to mention that you keep removing sourced content, such as the term's possible Scythian origin. HempFan (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The thing that is "reconstructed" is the lost root, when it cannot be found. (it is constructed again - reconstructed - because we no longer have any attestations to it). The contemporary term is not reconstructed; that makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now I want you to explain why and how exactly I'm using "reconstruct" in an incorrect way, and how exactly it's not supported by the Oxford source I provided. This should be fun. HempFan (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mallory's and Adams' encyclopedia entry, on page 266 in the IE encyclopedia, lists "hemp" as ?*kannabis, so according to them, it's possible to reconstruct hemp (+ konoplja, kanepe and so on) back to *kannabis, and whether *kannabis was a PIE word or a loanword from Scythian, that's a different question, but reconstruction is certainly possible. The * indicates that it's an unattested word (as is typical of proto-languages). What this also means, is that ?*kannabis is a reconstructed word (and again, they also included this reconstruction of hemp, for the second time in their second collaboration, almost ten years later, in their Oxford PIE dictionary). The previous wording was misleading in saying there's no common PIE source/root (I honestly don't understand why you're opposed to using root here?), which there actually might be, based on Mallory's and Adams' reconstruction. The issue here is that Mallory and Adams themselves aren't actually sure if *kannabis was a PIE word (in their first encyclopedia book, they explicitly said it wasn't, and in their second collaboration, the Oxford book, they didn't say much about its PIE status, but the fact that they included hemp as ?*kannabis there as well, indicates some PIE status for the word. HempFan (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Would you mind quoting one sentence from the page you're talking about so I can find it? The search function isn't as good for that book on google and I'm having trouble finding the part you might be talking about. FWIW I think their position is more clearly articulated in the Encyclopedia source. I don't think the way it's worded right now means the same thing as what they were saying. You can take out my addition about the geographic range if that's too wordy, but I think the previous wording was more clear and more reflective of the source when it said, "
- Well, if you look at the IE encyplopedia (and the new IE Oxford source I just added), Mallory and Adams actually did reconstruct hemp and its cognates in other IE languages, back to ?*kannabis (with a question mark preceding *). I assume the question mark indicates an uncertainty as to whether *kannabis is a proper PIE word or a loanword from Scythian. I use reconstruction in this sense: linguistic reconstruction (as in the comparative method). For whatever it's worth, I'm totally agnostic on whether *kannabis is a PIE root or a Scythian loanword. HempFan (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- HempFan, something in the wording here doesn't makes sense to me:
- So let's recap: first, I add the source etymonline (which by the way, for your information, is still used in etymology of cannabis, and thousands of other Wikipedia articles; I did a Google search), and whether or not it's a reliable source hasn't actually been agreed by the "Wikipedia community", because the noticeboard archive discussion you linked to, was a short, unresolved discussion, and only a few Wikipedians posted their two cents; there are millions of Wikipedia editors, and not even 1% of all Wikipedians have agreed that it should be totally unacceptable to use etymonline. If you start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard concerning etymonline, chances are that this time around, other Wikipedia editors might agree that it should be acceptable to use it as a source here on Wikipedia. Anyway, forget about etymonline, it's not relevant, and I agree that primary sources are better. You voiced your opposition to etymonline, described it as an unreliable source and moved the etymology section to the talk page for further discussion. I then added the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture as the new source, and left a comment on the talk page about it. You then removed most of my edit by calling it "nonsense". Not exactly civil or respectful behavior on your part, wouldn't you say? That's you violating Wikipedia policy right there by being aggressive against another Wikipedia editor, describing his edits as nonsense. After I left a comment on the talk page, saying that I just added the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture as the new source, you just jumped on me, with insinuations that you'll ban me "if I place myself outside the WP community" (which apparently, you're the sole decision maker of here). I think you should relax and be more collaborative. If I do something wrong, don't crucify me immediately over it. We can discuss what qualifies as acceptable/reliable source and so on. It's fine. I'm also not edit warring; I'm discussing on the talk page. Disagreeing or discussing with you is not edit warring. HempFan (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've haven't threatened you with anything. I have told you that if you keep placing yourself outside the WP community by writing things like "your guidelines" and if you keep bringing bad sources and edit warring them back in, you are going to leave unhappy or the community will eventually take action against you. I am telling you what I have seen happen many times. You can listen, or not. And yes, all the content in WP matters. We - the community - take that seriously and you need to as well. You are a Wikipedia editor. This has nothing - nothing - to do with "my way." It has to do with the policies and guidelines for content here in WP - it has to do with "our way" and that "our" includes you. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hemp. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2011%2F06%2F08%2Fprweb8548278.DTL
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221071148/http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01214.html to http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01214.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 16:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hemp. 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/20080308233838/http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha5111.html to http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha5111.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518101928/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ages/ages001e.aspx to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ages/ages001e.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hemp. 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/20060720175048/http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml to http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520231032/http://hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml to http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The World's Biggest Producer
Information seems to be garbled as to who the world's biggest producer is. The Producers section says China, but in the section on France it then says France. The table of figures seems to switch from China to France in the space of a few years. Something is garbled somewhere. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
bad writing
All of this section "After the Restoration of Independence in 1640, in order to recover the ailing Portuguese naval fleet, were encouraged its cultivation as the Royal Decree of D. John IV in 1656. At that time its cultivation was carried out in Trás-os-Montes, Zone Tower Moncorvo, more precisely in Vilariça Valley, fertile land for any crop irrigation, and a very large area, flat and very fertile culture still wide until the last century grew up tobacco, a plant that needs a large space to expand and grow, the area lies in the valley of Serra de Bornes." is badly written. Syntax, grammar and punctuation are all wrong. It looks like a google translation or something. It needs to be written properly.
khasab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.61.110.195 (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment above is correct. This section is atrociously written. Have it corrected as soon as possible, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.232.239 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hemp. 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/20131104220611/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/crops/industrial/pdf/flaxhemp-report.pdf to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/crops/industrial/pdf/flaxhemp-report.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013204859/http://news2000.org.ua/print?a=%2Fpaper%2F5463 to http://news2000.org.ua/print?a=%2Fpaper%2F5463
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030304234352/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1036 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1036
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Cultivation
The following passage seems confused and in need of correction: "When practiced, especially in France double use of fiber and seed fertilization with nitrogen doses up to 100 kg / ha rather low. Organic fertilizers such as manure can utilize industrial hemp well."Treedesigner (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Early Hempcrete Pioneers
The first Hempcrete house in North America was built by Jayeson Hendyrsan and Kim Brooks of Hempcrete Natural Building (www.hempcrete.ca)The are currently building the first modular mobile cottage out of Hempcrete. Kim Brooks Sept 14 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.134.195 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it was done in 2010, not 2018. https://newatlas.com/first-us-hemp-house/17115/ ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:880:14C5:EC8C:22C2:D47:22E4 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
"Draft:हेम्प" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:हेम्प. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
PBIO 4181J Article Evaluation
The talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a place for updating your class on edits you've made, WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTBLOG. Use your own class page for talking about edits made to class-project articles. Zefr (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Student edits on food, bees
This edit by student editors, MrSimpson73 and Brettfred has problems: 1) the sources, Kind Earth and Headed West, are not reliable sources, as they do not meet the source standards of WP:MEDRS (concerning human health and nutrition) or WP:RS (history). Hemp is not a superfood (a scam term). The statement beginning "Of 650 professional chef's" (sic; plural of chef is "chefs") is sourced and interpreted incorrectly. The CNBC source states that cannabidiol (CBD) is of interest by chefs to add as an ingredient to prepared foods (nothing to do with hemp, which is not a good source of CBD, and hemp cannot be used legally as a CBD ingredient source). But this is a misleading statement because CBD from any source is an illegal substance for use in foods, as of April 2020; see here. The statement inferring that hemp has a role to reduce/prevent CCD of bees is not supported by the EPA document provided, where hemp is not even mentioned. The only valid edit is the sentence beginning, "The abundance of pollen produced by flowering hemp..." which is correctly sourced. Please take more care in your editing (where is your instructor who should be reviewing your edits before students publish on the encyclopedia?) Zefr (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Correction: marijuana averages less than 1% CBD, whereas common hemp averages over 10% CBD. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Clarification on CBD
Recently I specified the legality of hemp by US state by linking to the relevant article (which article also happens to include legality of psychoactive cannabis, but that doesn't matter).
I want to confirm that this is correct, in other words, it should not be reverted.
- Some US states only allow growing plants for CBD, so those plants are all HEMP plants and NOT the THC cannabis plants! This is by the definition of what "hemp" means.
- Hemp contains more CBD than the psychoactive cannabis plant. Averages show over 10% in hemp and less than 1% in the THC-producing plants, however, this can vary depending on the plant.
- Fact: the intro at Hemp says "Hemp [...] may have higher concentrations of cannabidiol (CBD) [than psychoactive cannabis], which decreases or eliminates its psychoactive effects."[1]
Altanner1991 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Swanson 2015, p. 602.
Portugal
Why is EU Regulation 182/2011 Laying Down the Rules and General Principles Concerning Mechanisms for Control by Member States of the Commission's Exercise of Implementing Powers (adopted March 2011), see footnote 168, relevant to the changes in Portuguese law required by EU regulations 1308/70, 619/71 and 1164/89 (1970-1989)? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Please discuss dubious claims of CO2 sequestration when hempcrete sets
In the first paragraph in the 'concrete section', CO2 sequestration is implied to be a net benefit. That assertion neglects the production of CO2 when limestone is heated to produce quicklime plus the likely production of CO2 by the energy source required to heat the limestone (mainly CaCO3). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MrSimpson73.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2020 and 19 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mr.Brightside19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yanakigel1. Peer reviewers: Sedith7, Rumrunner3210.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)