This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
Richard Friar is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
If it is commercial cannabis then it refers to the drug as there is only a demand for the drug commercially, so why would we link to a biology article rather than one on the drug? If this wasnt the case why link to Cannabis in Australia? I have been analysing hundreds of these cases and am baffled as to why you think we should link to the biology article on the plant for a commercial cannabis grower. If the reader follows the link to the drug article they can understand why ppl like Friar grow cannabis commercially and why govts mostly ban this activity whereas all they will find out from the cannabis article is about the biology of the plant, which I fail to see having any relevance to this article. He is a horticulturist and this means cultivating a plant for human consumption, and the human consumption of cannabis is entirely dealt with in the drug article. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs14:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources explain what he was doing - growing the plant for food and fibre, not THC. This is not like other cases (like in Colorado) where horticulturalists can grow commercial cannabis for consumption as a medical drug. The commercial market in Australia (the legal one) relates to cannabis for food (usually as a supplement) and for fibre (hemp). What little is grown in Australia for pharmaceutical purposes is not grown by people like Friar. Again, have a look at the relevant sources. It relates to Cannabis in Australia because (again, per the sources) he was one of the first to be given a license to grow non-drug cannabis (legally) in his state. Stalwart11112:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem at all. You made a similar change to other articles on my watch list and those were all fine (they talked about the drug) but this case, per the sources, is a little different. Nice work! Stalwart11121:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
