SkipCaptcha
250
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 175:
Line 175: +
Clean-up explained.
What I would suggest instead: Make a mass-killings section further down, come up with ''more than one example'' and once that section is properly fleshed-out, then put a summary of that section within the lead so the lead is a proper encapsulation of the full body of the text. Right now the reader gets "mass killings", then one guy, and then no further substantiation whatsoever. This undermines the credibility of the article, and is an easy fix. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
What I would suggest instead: Make a mass-killings section further down, come up with ''more than one example'' and once that section is properly fleshed-out, then put a summary of that section within the lead so the lead is a proper encapsulation of the full body of the text. Right now the reader gets "mass killings", then one guy, and then no further substantiation whatsoever. This undermines the credibility of the article, and is an easy fix. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:I agree. Two of the four paragraphs in the lead are pretty much ''post hoc ergo proper hoc'', and that kind of false liberal reasoning has no place here. I struck them and relocated the little bit that was not full of fallacies to the medicinal part of the entry. As for the harm to innocent people, I have no doubt that marijuana causes this, but I believe the adverse effects section would be a better place in which to cover that. The paragraph can't stand on its own with just ''post hoc''.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:50, 4 April 2018 (EDT)