Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].

List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use edit

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria, and I have improved the list based on feedback received during a peer review session. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: This list should be up to par as far as reference formatting, disambig links, external links, and alt text go. A few things I am uncertain of myself:
  1. Is "Historical context" an appropriate section title, or would something subject-related like "History of cannabis use" be better, with "Pre-prohibition" and "Post-prohibition" subheadings (or something along those lines)?
  2. Also, I cannot find birth years for two of the politicians. How should I make this clear in the blank cells?
  3. This list is specific enough that I am not sure it belongs in either of the templates currently displayed at the bottom of the list ('cannabis resources' and 'legality of cannabis in the United States'). Should the templates be removed?
Thanks so much for the suggestions and feedback, and for taking the time to review this list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • No Disambiguous pages, external links look fine, article seems well written with a good lead and a clean and organized table. Alt text seems clear, I checked it through AWB and removed a couple of date related links but nothing major. In summery other than my skepticism of the encyclopedic value of the article I think it looks good and support. In regards to the 2 cells missing dates due to the politicians being living I would put a dash in the cell as in List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, the problem with the blank cells is not that the politicians are living, but that I cannot find the years of birth. I am sure other reviewers will have additional ideas as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Try shortening the Reference column to just Ref. It removes some whitespace in the table, and all the entries have one cite each anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. The only suggestion I have is that {{Dynamic list}} should be above the actual list. But that is really not a big issue. As for the missing years of birth, you may need to add a footnote to explain that they can't be found.—Chris!c/t 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the dynamic list tag, and will work on a footnote as soon as possible. Any suggestions for wording, or are you aware of an example I can look at for similar "missing information"? Thanks! -Another Believer (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of an example.—Chris!c/t 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This list just uses question marks. I will insert these symbols, which I think are self-explanatory, and see if another reviewer has a problem with this or suggests an appropriate footnote to be used. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While topic is a great idea for a list, I think the List of politicians itself suffers from a lack of specificity. I'm not sure how useful it is to lump honest hemp farmers like Jefferson in with potheads/coke fiends like Obama. I'd like to be able to see from the table whether or not Michael Bloomberg for example smoked marijuana, rather than having to dig through the references section. I suggest adding a sortable column to the table for type of use; recreational/medicinal/agricultural would be one way to divide it. On another point, the captions for the Jefferson image parrots that of the Washington one; it would be best to change one of them so as to make reading them more worthwhile to the reader.  Skomorokh  15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is difficult for me to take your feedback seriously when you are calling Obama a pothead and "coke fiend". My problem with adding a column for type of use is that we cannot be certain that someone used for just one reason or all of the three you mentioned. Also, I think reading the prose informs readers that the Founding Fathers listed grew likely for agricultural purposes, and modern politicians used for recreational purposes. I did remove the duplicate caption. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The type of use ought to be specified in the sources; without this information differentiating farmers from habitual recreational drug users, this is list of people of a certain occupation from a certain country who have used a certain plant, which is about as useful as a List of Kazakh electricians who have encountered palm trees. In its current state I do not think the list meets criteria 3 [a] ("comprehensively covers the defined scope...has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items") or 4 ("easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities").  Skomorokh  23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh, please see my comment below regarding type of use. I tried addressing your concerns and Staxringold's concerns at the same time. Feel free to respond directly below this line if you would prefer to keep your section separate from Staxringold's comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Ignoring Skomorokh's rather... Odd comments above I have a big question about this list. Given the nature of cannabis history in the US isn't there a serious lack of pre-Civil War entries (when, according to the list, it was still domestically produced)? I realize that this list, like List of brain tumor patients (I always use that as my example of non-completable lists), can never really be completed but it comes off very thin to have twice as many entries for the past 70 years then for the near-200 years before that (particularly when growth and therefore probably use was more common). As such I too take issue with the idea that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" as the FL criteria require. Again, as with the brain tumor list I understand that you can't get every mayor who ever toked up once with a reliable source. But surely there's information on more than 9 pre-1900 born political users? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as a sidenote, I realize that the illegality makes the use more likely to be documented and therefore source-able (Obama using pot will be far more notable and written down then some governor smoking it in a pipe when it was legal in the 1830s), but if that's what this list is going for then it should be under List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use after 1937 or 1952, or 1956, or whatever. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the background information has some pretty weighted sentences like "However, a wave of conservatism during the 1980s allowed President Ronald Reagan to accelerate the War on Drugs during his presidency, prompting anti-drug campaigns such as the "Just Say No" campaign of First Lady Nancy Reagan." (emphasis mine) With absolutely no source. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, the list was separated into two sections, distinguishing pre-prohibition use from post-prohibition use. However, at one point or another it was suggested that I combine them into a single table. If you feel the separation would be better, I'd be happy to revert to the previous version (leaving the edits made since then). Like List of recessions in the United States, I think having the pre- and post-prohibition sections makes the article flow better, and this would solve Skomorokh's concern with not stressing the type of use. While I do not like the idea of adding a 'type of use' label to each politician, as we cannot be certain that Old Abe's smoking was recreational or to help his bad back (I made up an arbitrary example), the two sections will certainly help to distinguish hemp/industrial use from modern recreational use. Thoughts?
Oh, and the source for the 1980s comment follows the next sentence. I didn't see the need to use the same citation after every sentence. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A prohibition divide would be a good step towards clarifying the ambiguity of the links. As to your Abe example, even if we do not know his motives for using cannabis, it ought to be clear his mode. Smoking it in a pipe is categorically different to wearing it as your trousers or growing it in a field.  Skomorokh  17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the list into two separate sections. Prose in the pre-prohibition section clearly focuses on hemp and industrial use, and mentions a hint of recreational use for Lincoln. Similarly, prose in the post-prohibition section focuses on recreational use by modern politicians. I think this works well in that it distinguishes industrial and recreational use, but still illustrates the "universality" of cannabis--the prose explains how use has changed over time. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely like a pre/post prohibition composition better, it brings the text into the list in a nicer way than before. But still my bigger issue remains. Were there really only 9, even if you only talk about those notable enough for Wiki, politicians who used cannabis prior to that prohibition? Labeling it as an incomplete list is correct, since you'll never know 100% about everyone, but that just seems too incomplete for me to say this meets FL criteria for completeness. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like the pre- and post-prohibition sections better. I've done quite a bit of research for this list, searching for any notable politicians who are known to have grown cannabis or used marijuana recreationally. As for John Adams, I have been unable to find a reliable source that confirms he did either. I have come across that quote numerous times, but I did not feel it warranted inclusion in the list as a confirmed grower/user. I've done a lot of searching, but of course we can assume there are more politicians that belong on the list, hence the "incomplete" tag. If you can come across any other politicians that need to be added to the list, I'd be more than happy to add them. The list as seen currently represents as many as I could find, though I will continue to research this subject in the future as it interests me greatly. As for the concern that the list is not complete, if someone could find many more politicians that should be added, I would certainly be very impressed with his or her research skills. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't oppose and be annoying, since I don't know of anyone else, but I just can't support the list with that short a group of entries for that wide a period of time. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your decision. I just feel helpless, as I wish there were more I could do to lengthen the list. I can only go by what the reliable resources tell me. :) Thanks for the comments and feedback! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I commend Another Believer's valiant efforts here, I cannot support a list whose main list-content (the tables) only address half its topic (i.e. the politicians but not the cannabis use). The 3 (a) criterion has not, unfortunately, been met.  Skomorokh  22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that including an additional column would be helpful. Would it be reasonable for that column to including uses found in reliable sources (Lincoln smoking it, Washington growing it) and explain this in the prose? Just tell the story that is found in the sources, and use the prose as an opportunity to explain to readers how much value we give to reliable sourcing.--otherlleft 16:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But here is the problem with defining the type of use. Cannabis can be grown for industrial purposes, grown and ingested for medical purposes, smoked for medical reasons, grown and ingested or smoked for recreational purposes., etc. For me, the point of this article is to detail the history of cannabis in the U.S., highlighting how use has changed (generally speaking) over time. At one time, it was grown for industrial purposes, then used in many common medicines, then recreational use spread during the 20th century. When sources do not specifically mention why cannabis was used (medical vs. recreational, or smoking vs. ingesting), I don't see the purpose in expanding on that for the list. The list simply contains politicians who admit to using the plant, regardless of method or reason. Besides, the sentences just prior to the tables mention the type of use ("...politicians known ti have used cannabis for recreational purposes include..., or something similar). If this is not specific enough for a featured list, I understand. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending to suggest that the list should include things that aren't in the sources - in fact, just the opposite. Only include what's in the sources, and use the paragraph of prose to explain it. "Between 19xx and 20xx the primary use of cannabis was recreational, with a secondary use being medical. Following is a list of politicians known to have used cannabis during this period." Add a note to the use column that says something along the lines of, "Only verifiable uses are mentioned for each politician." Take it as a suggestion only; I am trying to see if there are solutions to the concerns raised by other editors.--otherlleft 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use/archive1&oldid=1140228573"