Talk:420 (cannabis culture)/Archive 3

Columbine Shooting

Also noted that the High School massacre occurred on April 20, 1999 (i've edited it in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fultron89 (talk • contribs).

neither the Columbine incident nor Adolf Hitler's birthday have anything to do with cannabis... this article is not April 20... - Adolphus79 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can only speculate if the Columbine massacre did or did not have anything to do with it (the perpetrators may have known about it and been smokers) whereas Hitler's birthday indeed has nothing to do with it, SqueakBox 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if those horrific anniversities have nothing to do with riefer it is regrettable that anyone might misunderstand. Even if it's too late I'll make a suggestion: why not instead try March 4th (3/4, rie-fer, get it?). tokerdesigner, Sep. 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.155 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the adolf hitler page lists his birthday as the 23, not 20 76.22.79.194 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

um actually it does say the 20thC. Pineda 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Captain Cannabis

"Ironically, the original copyright for the Captain Cannabis character in Canada was issued on 4/20"

This isn't ironic.

"The official "birth day" of the Captain Cannabis comic book character. Created during 1976 by Canadian comic book artist and animator Verne Andru, the government Copyright office issued an official copyright certificate for the Captain Cannabis character on/dated April 20, 1977. This marks Captain Cannabis as the earliest documented and verifiable cross-reference between the April 20th date and the Cannabis Culture."

It sounds notable, but needs a source - I've asked User:Verne Andru to provide one, but he's yet to do so. --Joopercoopers 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Government Copyright Office registration information/citation added. Verne Andru 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a separate page for the Captain Cannabis character, duplicating external links and references on this page seems redundant. What do others think?

In any case: while 4/20 may be the date that the Canadian copyright office issued a certificate of registration, several sources all agree that the origin of the term's use is the San Rafael story. Hence I'm moving the Captain out of the "origins" section. — Hiplibrarianship 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The San Rafael "story" is based on urban myth and only connects the 4:20 time of day with cannabis. The Captain Cannabis copyright certificate is irrefutable documentation connecting the April 20 date to cannabis. To my knowledge it is the only documented and verifiable connection between that date and cannabis and, as such, belongs in the origins section not as some add-on. I don't have a problem with the external link to the creators page being excluded on the 420 page, but the link to the CaptainCannabis.com site, which is the home of the 420 movie and comic books, should remain on the 420 page.Verne Andru 07:26, 16 April 2007

• Well do you have a source for the allegation that Captain Cannabis is the actual origin of the term, rather than simply a cultural reference to it? Otherwise, clearly, it should go in a cultural reference section, not an origin section. The link between April 20 and cannabis is there, sure, but what is so significant about this link that it deserves pride of place in the entire article. External links added to this article should be about 4:20, not about a character that, as Hiplibrarianship points out, has its own article. My last question is, are you the same Verne Andru that created the Captain Cannabis character? If so, pushing as hard as you are for prominence of mention of the character in an article mainly about a different subject would quite possibly be seen by a wikipedian more cynical than I as vanity. Jdcooper 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It does seem rather possible it is a coincidence, unless a previously published reliable source has made this connection then this seems out of place. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only source that exists are the copyright certificate [that's been in the public domain/public record since it was issued] and the copies of the original comic book that have been circulating since 1977. The connection between Captain Cannabis / April 20 is the only one I've seen to exist. All other cited sources are to hearsay and myth. As 420 is all about the cannabis culture, as is the Captain Cannabis character, then it would seem proper that the 2 be mentioned simultaneously. There is no vanity involved - simply an effort to set the record as accurate as possible [something I suspect to be very wikipedian]. If you have any evidence that refutes the connection between Captain Cannabis and April 20, or that shows in a verifiable way a previous connection between April 20 and the cannabis culture, then by all means cite your sources. As HighInBC notes at the top "The threshold is verifiablity." It could be argued that pushing as hard you are for the exclusion of pertinent source data is a form of myopia that works against the goal of Wikipedia being an all encompassing encyclopedia free from unwarranted censorship. Verne Andru 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Wait. You are asserting either:

a) That Captain Cannabis is the origin of the term "420". Considering that Captain Cannabis is not exactly a seminal part of cultural history, its article only being created (by the creator of the character) 15 days ago, to prove this you would need to provide some kind of reliable source, like snopes.com or High Times, citing Captain Cannabis as a central part of the term's history. Otherwise your account becomes completely apocryphal, unsourced, and not even widespread, which is at least something the San Rafael account has going for it.
or
b) That Captain Cannabis is merely a notably early incidence of the term in pop-culture. Certainly, given the character's name its link to cannabis is beyond doubt, but, unless the Canadian Copyright authorities are in on the joke, and forgive me for being sceptical about that, the date on which the copyright was granted is merely coincidental, and not an incidence of 420 referenced in pop culture. Without a source to suggest otherwise, the only link Captain Cannabis has to 420 is that he featured in a comic book movie named 420, which makes it no different to the raft of apocryphal "pop-culture coincidences" by which this article was plagued until very recently, and could do without being plagued by again.

The links given as references are not references. The first one shows that there was indeed a coincidence (but only a coincidence) in the date that the canadian copyright folks gave you your copyright, the second, as far as i can see, incorporates an account of history claiming that it is from this coincidence that the term originates, essentially saying that you invented the term 420. Stop me if any of this is incorrect? I am not sure, from the debate so far, whether you are arguing for a) or b), for which I also apologise, but either way you are going to need a third-party, more conclusive source for the inclusion of Captain Cannabis in this article to satisfy wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise the alternatives are original research, vanity or hoax, none of which can stay. Jdcooper 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• What I am asserting is that Captain Cannabis was registered with the copyright office on April 20, 1977 and that copyright document and other materials have been in the public domain ever since. Based on this, the Captain Cannabis copyright is the oldest connection between cannabis and the April 20 date. That is a point of fact complete with a citation. Whether you consider this to be merely coincidental is moot. The threshold point for Wikipedia is that it is a verifiable point in fact, complete with credible citation, that goes to the core of the article it has been added to. The citation is arguably much more credible references than any web link which can be changed by anyone to anything. You, or anyone else, can call the Canadian department of Consumer Affairs, quote the numbers given and get verification from a legitimate government body about the authenticity of that document and the facts I'm attesting to. The inclusion of it more than satisfies Wikipedia guidelines. I'm trying to make this entry as complete and factually correct as possible. Verne Andru 07:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I am by no means disputing that your copyright was registered on that date. I am disputing that it is relevant or notable. People had got stoned on April 20th before 1977. These are "connections" between cannabis and the April 20 date. Unless the origin of the term itself is that it derives from the date when that character was registered, what makes Captain Cannabis any more notable or relevant than any other cannabis-related thing? It might be the oldest, but if it is not the origin then so what? The link was not deliberate, it was contingent entirely on the speed or otherwise of the Canadian copyright department, it does not reflect an example of people celebrating the date, it is an uninteresting coincidence. By which I do not mean "I do not find it interesting", I mean "1/365th of things happen on April 20th, explain how this is an interestingly different scenario, given that Captain Cannabis is not famous". Jdcooper 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless a previously published reliable source has associated the date of copyright with the 420 tradition, then there is no way to verify it is not just a coincidence. I don't think it should be included unless an existing sources finds a connection. Remember, 1 in every 365 things happen on April 20th, and a good number of those are pot related, it does not mean it is associated with the 420 phenomenon. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The 420 phenomenon? Everything 420 is the 420 phenomenon for goodness sake! If you understood 420 you'd understand that. And you Jdcooper - first you post that Captain Cannabis is notable but needs citations, then when I put up a credible citation you start arguing something different altogether. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia [1]. Captain Cannabis is part of the cannabis culture and is the earliest documented connection between the cannabis culture [that has existed outside California for thousands of years and does interconnect] and the April 20 date. To consider it mere coincidence is nonsense. Wikipedia policies and guidelines [2] state quite clearly that articles should take a NPOV - something I have done and I submit you have not. I further submit you are consistently redefining this article arbitrarily and to suit your predisposition to what you feel should or should not be included. The Captain Cannabis character is part of the cannabis culture [he's been written up in High Times, Skunk Magazine and Weed World], is celebrating his 30th birthday this year and is the only, I repeat the ONLY, documented connection between April 20 and cannabis. If you are unable to conduct yourselves in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies of avoiding bias and respecting other contributors, I recommend you put this matter before The Wikimedia Foundation office dispute resolution office [3] so an unbiased body can properly determine the proper course of action in this matter. Verne Andru 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Ack. Firstly, bear in mind I am not the same person as User:Joopercoopers, it is a bizarre coincidence that two people with such similar names are editing on the same article, but still, we are not the same. Secondly, 420 is defined in our article as "a term used in North America as a discreet way to refer to cannabis and, by extension, a way to identify oneself with cannabis culture". This implies deliberate agency on the part of the user of the term, using 420, 4:20, or 4/20 to identify themselves with cannabis culture, (a la "420 friendly", smoking weed at 4:20pm or smoking weed on April 20th respectively). Those examples are all legitimate 420 references. Having a copyright, cannabis-related or not, granted on April 20th is not a 420 reference. It is a 420 coincidence. At The Pit and Pendulum in Nottingham, two pints of John Smith's cost £4.20, and all the staff smoke weed. The cannabis link is there, the 420 link is there, but the deliberate agency connecting them which would be necessary to establish that as a 420 reference is not. It would be different if the price was set at £4.20 deliberately, and there was a reliable source to back that up, or if you received your copyright on April 20th deliberately, by asking for it to be approved on that date. Without a deliberate link like that, there is no relevance to the inclusion of Captain Cannabis at all. The character may have been mentioned in those magazines, but i highly doubt that anyone has suggested ever that the character is the origin of the term (though please correct me if i am wrong on that point). What you are in fact saying is that Captain Cannabis is notable because it was the first coincidence of its kind. However, it was still a coincidence, and Wikipedia is not a compendium of coincidences, conspiracies and what ifs. "is the only, I repeat the ONLY, documented connection between April 20 and cannabis." is incorrect, since a coincidence is not the same as a connection. Please understand that you are not being treated with disrespect, merely with due process, and i apologise if you feel otherwise. Jdcooper 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a long standing consensus on this page not to include things that are not verifiably more than a coincidence. Look at the older revisions and you will see pages of such stuff that has been removed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The inclusion of Captain Cannabis is verifiable point of fact worthy of inclusion in this, or any other encyclopedia. My citation predates any of the other citations by at least 20 years. The character had local radio coverage at the time of its creation. I have complied fully with the policies of Wikipedia on this matter and submit you have a bias. We appear to be in the middle of an edit war and I will be taking the matter to Dispute Resolution. I request you leave the page as-is until this issue is resolved. Verne Andru 09:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The existing consensus is that it should not be included, and you have a clear conflict of interest. I welcome your turning to dispute resolution, but your citation does not demonstrate anything more than a coincidence. This article does not document 420 coincidences. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The inclusion of Captain Cannabis is verifiable point of fact that has existed for 30 years. You have nothing to substantiate a claim of "coincidence." Verne Andru 09:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The fact that the copyright for your character was approved on the date April 20 and the fact that "420" is a euphemism for cannabis did not cause each other. That is what makes this a coincidence. Captain Cannabis was neither the origin of the term, nor a reference to the term, until the recent release of the movie named "420", making it the same as any other recent reference to cannabis, all of which have been recently removed from this page as cruft. The relation between Captain Cannabis and 420 has not existed for 30 years, because the original "relation" was actually a coincidence. Please stop disrupting the article, your edits fall under Wikipedia:Vanity, and continuing revertion of good faith edits by other editors fall under Wikipedia:Vandalism. Jdcooper 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO it shouldnt be included. Please dont imagien you'll get your way by edit warring as that isnt howe it works here, SqueakBox 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Verne Andru has earned himself a 24 hour 3RR block. I have also made a report at WP:COIN to ask an independent review. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-18 420 (cannabis culture), High and Cooper are named, SqueakBox 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw, I doubt anything will come of it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The big day

Would be good to see this article on the front page for Friday. Any ideas? SqueakBox 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I plan on taking pictures of Victoria, BC's rather large yearly 420 celebration and posting them here. We usually get over 300 people at city hall. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked into what must be done to get an article on the front page. Seems as if there's a formal review process (and waiting list) to be the featured article. "In the news" also has some strict criteria (including "story of an international importance") before items are candidates for inclusion. There may be a chance to include the article for "On this day" consideration, though an editor last year did not take kindly to an unsigned 420 request. — Hiplibrarianship 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I as planning on a picture for this article, not the front page. This is a rather obscure holiday, not really suited for the main page(yet, give it 10 years hehe). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

April 20th

"The big day", as alluded to above, is fast approaching, what does anyone reckon to s-protecting it for the duration of that day, to avoid the tedious furore we had last year? Jdcooper 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection should not be used preventively. We can always just revert at the end of the day. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of vandalism and reverting this past weekend, semi-protection was granted on 14 April (expires on 21 April). — Hiplibrarianship 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But yet theres so many reasons why they can't legilize it. the main one is that the government won't get any profit for the pot being sold...

Cannabis got hit with a 420 yesterday and what I recommend is we keep a close eye on all the cannabis articles during this day. I fail to understand the last comment as were it legalised in a country like America the potential taxes would be huge, SqueakBox 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it coincidence that the students who supposedly keyed the term, 420, met at the Louis Pasteur monument, and Louis Pasteur completed his first test on pasteurization on April 20th? Perhaps they decided on 4:20 as a time to smoke due to the monument possibly mentioning 4/20 on it. Any thoughts?

Depends entirely whether one believes in coincidence/synchronicity etc, SqueakBox 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there an independent reliable source that makes such a connection? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 20: Stoners celebrate Hitler's birthday. Cracks me up every time. --77.56.253.252 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Request

Good afternoon! After reading over the article, the sources for the San Rafael story, and the above conversation regarding Captain Cannabis, I am responding to your request for mediation.

Please keep in mind that it is not my job to tell you who is "right," unless Wikipedia policy is exceedingly clear about that.

Unfortunately, going in, I do not believe this is a dispute that can be mediated, because it appears that Verne Andru is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy in adding this information repeatedly. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am mistaken, the following are true:

• Verne Andru asserts that Captain Cannabis was the origin of 4/20 because he cannot find an earlier reference. This is original research. Even if we cannot ourselves find a reference earlier than 1977, Wikipedia policy does not allow us to do our own research.
• Citing a source linking Captain Cannabis to the date is not enough to demonstrate that the use of the date began with the comic. You would have to cite sources explicitly stating that Captain Cannabis was the origin of the term. You would have to cite enough sources to convince a massive group of people who, as far as I can tell from reading this discussion and the article's sources, have been assuming the San Rafael story for years, and with good reason- it's extensively documented.
• Captain Cannabis has its own article. Its notability is coming under fire. If the notability of the comic can't be readily established, it will be very difficult to establish that it had such a major and long-lasting effect on culture at large.
• According to the Captain Cannabis article, Verne Andru created Captain Cannabis. It is inappropriate for him to be adding information on his creations to Wikipedia (WP:AUTO). --Moralis (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Verne, I realize that you probably feel like you're coming under attack from someone who's supposed to be a mediator, and for this I apologize. The issue, for me, is this: a mediator's job is to help bring a dispute to consensus. You came to me asking for a judgement, and that isn't my job, unless I'm citing Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, I also can't in good conscience try to convince all of these people that Wikipedia policy is wrong on these points.

Captain Cannabis will be an appropriate addition to this article if you can find a valid source that asserts the comic as the term's genesis. Until then, perhaps it would be appropriate to add a reference to the comic in a "cultural references" section, but Wikipedia policy is clear that you can't claim it as the origin of the term.

If I have missed an underlying dispute, I would be more than happy to mediate that, if you all feel like you need it. Please also understand that none of what I've said is a binding judgement, nor am I acting under any authority. I will be closing the Mediation Cabal request, as the request was not appropriate- we are not judges nor is there any authority vested in us by the Wikipedia community- but, as I stated above, I will still be happy to assist you folks in any way I can. --Moralis (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I think you have addressed most of the issues. There is still the claim by Verne Andru the verifiable date of the copyright itself is relevant to the article without making any further claim of connection. Mediation may be helpful in settling that matter. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Moralis for taking the time to look into this matter and providing you very thoughtful summary. A few corrections and observations for the record:

• Moralis err's in assuming that I was/am advocating Captain Cannabis is the source of the 420 term. It is not nor have I ever asserted such. The Captain Cannabis copyright certificate is the earliest documented and verified connection between cannabis (the culture) and April 20th, which is referred to as 420 within the culture. That is all, albeit significant.

• I was making what I perceived to be corrections to vandalism by other editors who were continual removing of data pertinent to the article. Your suggestion that Captain Cannabis be added to a cultural references section supports my efforts to seek its inclusion.

• The 420 movie/comic book has been written up in High Times Magazine (The Buzz section February 2007), Skunk Magazine (Cool Stuff section Volume 2, Issue 8), Weed World (issue #66) and Playback (March 2007) making it a relevant part of the cannabis culture and weighs in favour of its inclusion in a cultural references section.

• Moralis states, "…perhaps it would be appropriate to add a reference to the comic in a "cultural references" section…"

Based on that suggestion and that of SqueakBox to bring the matter here, I would like to submit the following in an effort seek a consensus for the inclusion of the Captain Cannabis citation as per Moralis suggestion. To the best of my knowledge, the arguments raised so far against inclusion include:

• It is not notable.
• It would change the scope of the article
• It is a mere coincidence
• It falls under “vanity”

On the first point, the “consensus” has shifted from Captain Cannabis being notable but needing a citation to its complete exclusion. As I will demonstrate further on, it is a notable to enhancement of the scope of the article and will keep the article factually correct with the most current data available. I take the position that Moralis, being new and impartial to this discussion, is arguing that Captain Cannabis is indeed notable and should be included, weighing in favour of inclusion.

With respect to the “scope” of the article, I can find no documented reference that spells any limitation to what the article is or is not. However, based on the first citation “The Power of 420: Transforming the universal code into a collective consciousness for stoners.” I believe we can find some guidelines. Within that article, Karen Bettez Halnon states:

“Stated otherwise, 4:20 time gives legitimacy or a sense of truthfulness to pot-smoker reality.”

“It was variously described as a "time to unite with all smokers," a "smoker's club," and a way that "brings users together for smoking, community, and solidarity." Smokers repeatedly claimed that 420 created a "common bond" among "friends" and "fellow smokers." They know that when they light up at 4:20, thousands, if not millions, of others are doing the same for the same reason.”

“However, whether or not the smokers I talked with actually knew of the veracity of Waldo's claim, it made little difference in their indifference to determining 420's true origin. One expressed the typical view: "The actual meaning of 420, or where it came from, seems unimportant to me compared to the feeling of 420. That is the true meaning." Another was of a similar opinion: "Most people do not desire to know where 420 came from, but rather enjoy it for its cultural importance." A third explained, after reviewing a number of possible theories: "While some of these reports are more believable than others, they all represent how important the number is to the marijuana community."

April 20 at 4:20 PM is the "pot-smokers' holiday," also variously described as the "hippie New Year," "national smoke time," "national pot-smoking day," "the holiday," "pot appreciation day," "the ultimate session," or "a day of tribute to the scene."

The sense of worldwide "we-ness" and the friendships established and renewed at 4/20 celebrations are due largely to the fact that April 20 is a public forum for the fight for legalization. A smoker explained: "It is an exercise in solidarity, all of the pot-smokers coming together to smoke and the police being utterly powerless to do anything about it. I think this is the most valid expression of 420, as it puts the recreational use of marijuana in full view of the public, which is perhaps the first step towards gaining legitimacy."

“Most important, as pot-smokers' holiday, 420 creates an intense sense of group belonging among friends, strangers, and crowds, and across geographical boundaries. Sociologists call this "collective consciousness," or a kind of mystical, spiritual, or extraordinary sense of belonging, where the group exists as a reality greater than itself.”

Based on the foregoing, I argue the current Wikipedia article is too narrowly focused on a few incidences and fails abysmally to capture the essence of 420 as it relates to the cannabis culture and its present “scope” is in serious need of a review. I submit making the additions I am recommending will help to address this shortcoming.

As far as the April 20 1977 copyright date being mere coincidence, I submit this is something can neither be disproved nor proven, rendering that argument void of substance.

But if we take the position it is just a “coincidence” [one with odds that are statistically astronomical] and in consideration with Ms. Karen Bettez Halnon learned research into the “collective consciousness for stoners,” I submit the connection between the Captain Cannabis character, it’s copyright date of April 20 and that dates connection to the 420 cannabis culture is a significant manifestation of the collective consciousness asserting itself independently of any singular individual, making it significantly notable to the topic at hand.

As far as this being “vanity” driven, Wikipedia policies do not preclude anybody from writing on any topic providing it is done from a NPOV. I submit my arguments, language and conduct in this matter has been neutral, albeit assertive. As one close to this project I have first hand information that is germane to this article. Not everybody in the world is connected to the internet, nor in contact with Wikipedia, so to include only those select few who are severely hampers Wikipedia in its efforts to establish itself as a reliable source of encyclopaedic data.

I submit that the inclusion of Captain Cannabis copyright to this article is necessary to maintain the encyclopaedic integrity of Wikipedia. It is something that occurred 30 years ago, is properly cited and is notable.

Based on the foregoing, I seek a consensus for the addition of Captain Cannabis to the 420 Cannabis Culture article in a secondary “cultural references” section. It is my position that inclusion will significantly enhance that articles correctness while broadening it’s scope to be in line with the meaning of the 420 phenomenon as demonstrated in the cited research already accepted and attached to that article.

If a consensus can be drawn for inclusion, I would suggest the following language is in line with Moralis and assumes a NPOV that should be acceptable to other editors and in line with Wikipedia guidelines:

Cultural References

April 20, 1977 - The Canadian Copyright Office issued a Certificate of Registration for the Captain Cannabis character on this date. 420 is the title of the feature-length film and comic book series incorporating the Captain Cannabis origin story.

I thank you for your consideration in this matter - Verne Andru 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Lots of good points, and I pretty much agree with your extrapolation of the main arguments against inclusion. Now that it has been boiled down to adding Captain Cannabis in a culture reference section the argument can be made simpler and clearer.

• • The Captain Cannabis movie "420" is indeed, indisputably a cultural reference to the term 420. The initial issuing of the copyright is not. As ironic and improbable a coincidence it was, a coincidence it was. The odds were not astronomical as you say, I am sure that between all the countries that issue copyrights, there have been thousands of cannabis-related copyrights issued, meaning there are, statistically-speaking, likely to be multiple cannabis-related copyrights issued on April 20th over the years, with none of them counting as cultural references. I am sorry to labour this point, but a collection of coincidences pertaining to a certain number is not encyclopaedic. A similar example is the Beatles' song Come Together, which people used to keep adding to this article because its length was 4 minutes 20 seconds. Although the song is undoubtedly unifying in nature, and fits in with cannabis culture quite comfortably, meaning the mistake of these editors is entirely forgiveable, the length of the song is not a "cultural reference" to 420 in the same way as, for example, the name of the recent Captain Cannabis magazine is, it is merely coincidence, and as such does not warrant addition to this article.

• • Regarding a "Cultural References" section to the article: We had one before, as you can see from looking at the article history. It was removed by a joint decision of User:HighInBC and User:Joopercoopers, because, ostensibly:
    1. It was unmaintainable, and a magnet for vandals, idiots and marijuana's answer to conspiracy theorists.
    2. It was almost entirely unsourced.

• • And as such, was not conducive to maintaining the quality of the article. However, with the removal of this section, I feel that an aspect of the article was lost, since it no longer covered the whole scope that it should when describing this term. In short, it needs at least some examples of the term's usage to demonstrate the significance and cultural impact/popularity of the term. I am happy, and indeed have requested before that a very limited "cultural references" section be replaced into the article, since there now appear to be at least four editors watching this article fairly carefully, and any vandalism could be quite quickly and easily dealt with. I am proposing a list of about 4 or 5 carefully chosen legitimate, sourced cultural references to 420 be included as examples to further demonstrate use of the term and improve the article's coverage of the topic. With this in mind, I am absolutely content for Captain Cannabis to be included, so long as the reference listed is the 420 movie, and not the date of issue of the copyright. Would this be acceptable to you? Jdcooper 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of reaching a consensus, yes, that would be acceptable albeit not ideal. I would prefer, if a consensus can be reached on this addition, that someone other than myself make the addition to the article. Verne Andru 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references section

I agree that a well-maintained cultural references section would be a good addition to the article. (But until the 420 movie featuring Captain Cannabis has been produced, I think the comic book is the appropriate item for inclusion here.) I've created a first attempt in the article. Reactions welcome. — Hiplibrarianship 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Verne Andru 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fine by me, can probably be improved but all in good time. Jdcooper 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we are almost at a reasonable point. "420 is the title of a comic book series[9] featuring the alternative superhero Captain Cannabis" seems relevant and supported by citation. Since the title of the comic book series is 420, there is no doubt that it is related. However the copyright date of the original comic, which predates the regular usage of the term, and has not been shown to be related, is still off topic. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than that small point I would say the addition of the cultural references is an improvement. But it really should be called "Cultural references", not "Selected Cultural References". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if that was the case, what grounds would we have for removing the inevitable additions of "Random Rapper has a song called "420 is my life i smoke every day" on his 1994 album Nobody Cares"? Assuming said rapper is notable, there are presumably thousands of verifiable cultural references and the article would get out of control again. At least if we say its selected we have grounds for keeping an artificial lid on it? Jdcooper 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to set our standards on the talk page. I suggest that we set the bar at requiring an independent reliable source to mention the connection between the item and 420. This standard seems in line with our verifiability policy. Of course by that standard we would need to remove all that section except for "Noting that "the national weed smoking day is 4/20," rapper Method Man named his (2006) album 4:21...The Day After".

Requiring an independent reliable source demonstrating the connection and notability seems to be the way to go. We don't really know if it actually is a "Cultural reference" until some part of the culture refers to it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I submit that taking such a position is contrary to Wikipedea policies and spirit. My understanding is that as long as an addition is done in a NPOV, has verified citations and can reach a consensus it passes the threshold test for inclusion. It also seriously limits the value of Wikipedia as a whole as only a select few people world-wide are willing or able to participate here.

I would like to suggest that a line be added to the bottom of the "cultural references" section indicating that any new submissions must first pass muster here in the 420 discussion page. Verne Andru 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you should read WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, it says "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". It is very much within our practice to ask for independent reliable sources for facts.

We should not add a line at the bottom of the sections stating the criteria, that is what the talk page is for. To be frank, this is already our standard, read WP:V and WP:RS and you will see that primary sources, and amazon listings are not considered reliable sources. Even if we put Wikipedia policy aside for a second, an amazon listing does not demonstrate that something is a cultural reference, an independent reliable source would however demonstrate it had some effect on culture. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability needs proving as well, SqueakBox 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeak is very much right about notability. This is how we determine the notability of a book: Wikipedia:Notability (books). Another measure of notability is the if you are truly notable, you would not need to write about your character yourself, somebody else would have added it. Do you think that Stan Lee comes here to put tidbits about his comics on Wikipedia? No, but others do, why? Because those comics are notable. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the "notability" of 420/Captain Cannabis, the article Wikipedia:Notability (books) specifically states it does not apply to comic books but is a useful guideline. It requires the book be subject to multiple published works to which I've already cited the 420 movie/comic book has received editorial coverage in High Times Magazine (The Buzz section February 2007), Skunk Magazine (Cool Stuff section Volume 2, Issue 8), Weed World (issue #66) and an extensive review in Playback (March 2007). The book/project has also been covered by talk radio shows in Canada and the US. The book has an ISBN number and is registered with the Library and Archives Canada. The book is referenced to it's Amazon.com listing merely for completeness. The books are available through multiple retail outlets in Canada and the US. Verne Andru 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It does appear I misread that guideline, you are right that it does not apply to comic books. There is still the general Wikipedia:Notability criteria though. It says in a nutshell "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject". If you have citation to independent reliable sources then please put them in the article as citations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If we examine the "scope" of the "420 phenomenun" as expressed in the cited and accepted materials we find:

“Most important, as pot-smokers' holiday, 420 creates an intense sense of group belonging among friends, strangers, and crowds, and across geographical boundaries. Sociologists call this "collective consciousness," or a kind of mystical, spiritual, or extraordinary sense of belonging, where the group exists as a reality greater than itself.”

In my view this argues the case that the plethora of "coincidences" are, in fact, a salient and defining aspect of the "420 phenomenun." I maintain my argument that the current Wikipedia article is too narrowly focused on a few incidences and fails abysmally to capture the essence of 420 as it relates to the cannabis culture and its present “scope” is in serious need of a review. Accepting the draconian suggestions forwarded by [User:HighInBC] would further detract, rather than add, to the value and correctness of the article IMO. Verne Andru 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Draconian? You need to understand this is an encyclopedia, we don't record everything, and we don't do original research. While we do record the opinions of reliable sources we do not let those opinions dictate how we make decisions on inclusion. I did not make up these ideas of independent reliable sources and notability, you will see from the AfD on Captain Cannabis that these ideas are long standing in the community. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovecraft reference

H.P. Lovecraft reference in "In the Walls of Eryx"?--Lovecraft seems to have made a reference to marijuana and 420 in this short story, written in 1936 and published in 1939:

"I had encountered at least one of those curious mirage-plants about which so many of our men told stories. Anderson had warned me of them, and described their appearance very closely--the shaggy stalk, the spiky leaves, and the mottled blossoms whose gaseous dream-breeding exhalations penetrate every existing make of mask...Although everything was spinning perilously, I tried to start in the right direction and hack my way ahead. My route must have been far from straight, for it seemed hours before I was free of the mirage-plant's pervasive influence. Gradually the dancing lights began to disappear, and the shimmering spectral scenery began to assume the aspect of solidity. When I did get wholly clear I looked at my watch and was astonished to find that the time was only 4:20. Though eternities had seemed to pass, the whole experience could have consumed little more than a half-hour."

It seems much more likely to be a 420 reference rather than the 420 origin--the story is full of in-jokes, which supports the idea of an intentional reference; and it is not one of his popular works, so how influential it could be on the marijuana smokers of America is dubious.

The "4:20" could be arbitrary, a coincidence, but of all the times he could have picked, it seems unlikely. Consider that if this story had been written in 1986, rather than 1936, nobody would doubt it was a clear, in fact heavy-handed, 420 reference.

If it is a reference, it undermines a 1970s origin for the "420 phenomenon." I don't doubt the San Rafael stories, but they may be mistaken about originating the term 420--one of them may have received the term without fully and completely disclosing its origin to his fellow stoners. They may have popularized the term without really understanding its origin, which happens all the time with urban legends.

So, while I don't find claims that Lovecraft originated the "420 phenomenon" persuasive, I do think he made a 420 reference in 1936, and that this reference undermines the assumption that the "420 phenomenon" has its origins in the 1970s. I don't want to put it into the article without running it past the talk page, because a San Rafael true believer might just revert it because it undermines the favored origin story. Silarius

Thanks for sharing - great information that is worthy of inclusion IMO. From reading the article on the origin of 420 cited on the page, it suggests that most people involved in the culture don't really care where it started, or who started it. They are more concerned about the phenomenon itself and the level of cultural connectedness it represents. My 2 cents. Verne Andru 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The big question is, is there an independent reliable source that has made this connection? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is! We had one on the previous incarnation of the article. There's an article somewhere where Maynard James Keenan proposes the Lovecraft poem as the origin of the term. I will find it if i can. Jdcooper 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original paragraph from this article about Lovecraft's thing:

• *H. P. Lovecraft's short story, In the Walls of Eryx, which contains the line, "My route must have been far from straight, for it seemed hours before I was free of the mirage-plant's pervasive influence... When I did get wholly clear I looked at my watch and was astonished to find that the time was only 4:20." Lovecraft describes these "curious mirage-plants" as having a "shaggy stalk", "spiky leaves", and "mottled blossoms whose gaseous, dream-breeding exhalations penetrate every existing make of mask." This theory for the origin of 4:20 was postulated on the official website for the band Tool.[4]

Discussion of scope

In line with the WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS policies and guidelines I propose we discuss the nature of the scope of the article and make a decision. This is in reaction to about 2 and a half years of additions that end up getting removed. I propose we limit inclusion to this article to "items that have had their relevance and notability verified by at least one independent reliable source". Comments please. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In order for the article to be relevant, substance must take precedence of janitorial duties. Life is messy and this topic - 420 Cannabis Culture - is a mere reflection of one of the messier. As stated above, if we examine the "scope" of the "420 phenomenun" as expressed in the cited and accepted materials we find:

“Most important, as pot-smokers' holiday, 420 creates an intense sense of group belonging among friends, strangers, and crowds, and across geographical boundaries. Sociologists call this "collective consciousness," or a kind of mystical, spiritual, or extraordinary sense of belonging, where the group exists as a reality greater than itself.”

In my view this argues the case that the plethora of "coincidences" are, in fact, a salient and defining aspect of the "420 phenomenon." I maintain my argument that the current Wikipedia article is too narrowly focused on a few incidences and fails abysmally to capture the essence of 420. 420 means many different things to many different people. The "origin" is consistently shown to be the least of peoples concerns, yet it is the point given pride-of-place in the article. I submit focus should be placed on adding value to the article over custodial concerns. This is a high maintenance topic and everyone should accept that fact and put systems in place to address it. Verne Andru 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Verne, I would love it if the article was expanded beyond the origins and a smattering of cultural references. You are welcome to add to it, once you provide independent reliable sources for that information. I have great hopes for this article improving, tomorrow there will be an article in the newspaper on the rally we are having today at 4:20, I hope to add information from that article. You could do something similar where you are. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Per all four of those policies you cite, HighInBC, I agree. Cultural references for inclusion should need 1) a deliberate link to cannabis, 2) a deliberate link to the number 420, the time 4:20, or the date April 20, 3) an independent reliable source demonstrating the causal link between the two links (ie. "April 20th is a national pot-smokers holiday, that's why named my album 4/21... The Day After"). I am sure one of you can put these 3 guidelines in more understandable terms, as I am very tired and barely coherent, but nonetheless there is my two penneth. Jdcooper 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If I may again quote from the first citation:

• “However, whether or not the smokers I talked with actually knew of the veracity of Waldo's claim, it made little difference in their indifference to determining 420's true origin.

• One expressed the typical view: "The actual meaning of 420, or where it came from, seems unimportant to me compared to the feeling of 420. That is the true meaning."

• Another was of a similar opinion: "Most people do not desire to know where 420 came from, but rather enjoy it for its cultural importance."

• A third explained, after reviewing a number of possible theories: "While some of these reports are more believable than others, they all represent how important the number is to the marijuana community."

The essence of the "420 phenomenon" is that it is bigger than any one definition. In order to properly address this article, one must get beyond predispositions and librarian-isms and embrace the bigger cultural phenomenon that is happening independently and spontaneously. To do otherwise would do a disservice to the article. And while I appreciate your suggesting I make additions High, I fear I run the risk of you accusing me of acting self-serving, so I must humbly decline. Verne Andru 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your strong feelings about the concept of 420, but that's really not wikipedia's aim. This is an encyclopaedia, not a culture and lifestyle webzine. Wikipedia doesn't really do abstract. We cannot go beyond, as you say, librarian-isms. We can't write up "essences" of things. In short, "Wikipedia : neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts." We don't do op-ed. Jdcooper 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that. I am not expecting anything more or less from Wikipedia than as clear a representation of the article at hand as is possible. The recent additions to the article have gone a long way to saving the article from the sterile and narrow focus it had when I first encountered it. I submit that if you continue to refine and add to the article along recent lines, it will more closely come to represent a proper encyclopedic presentation of the topic while maintaining a high scholarly standard - something I trust we are all striving for. Verne Andru 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While we do record the opinions of reliable sources, we do not let them lead us in inclusion decisions. We make our own decisions on that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification from the Mediator

Please understand that I was not necessarily advocating recreation of a "cultural references" section as a solution to your dispute- only that if such a section were created, Captain Cannabis might be suitable for inclusion in it. At this point, it looks to me like such a section has been problematic for most of you in the past. It might be a cleaner solution to stick a disambiguation notice, or even a disambiguation page if that's necessary.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, those are the incidences of "This article is about the use of 420 as a date or time. For the comic book, please see Captain Cannabis.

I would also like to reiterate that Captain Cannabis' being considered for deletion kind of throws a wrench in the works here. If the article is deleted, 420 (comic book) is almost certainly not appropriate for inclusion in this article, either- though it'll be a judgement call. --Moralis (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have 420 (disambiguation), if a comic book by the name of 420 can demonstrate it meets inclusion standards it can link from there. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Moralis. The consensus appears to support supplemental sections such as a "cultural reference" section. I believe it adds considerably to the value of the article and should remain even though it provides an additional level of maintenance. Verne Andru 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We have no problem with a cultural references section, as long as the items it contains have independent sources demonstrating notability and relevance to the article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Captain Cannabis/420 article/item indeed passes the Wikipedia threshold test for being deemed notable and is highly relevant to the article [5] and I look forward to a speedy resolution to this matter. Verne Andru 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable, maybe, I am note sure about that. I will respect the judgment of the closer of the AfD on that matter. If the AfD finds that the character/comic is notable then I agree that as it is mentioned now is relevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dylan

I noticed one significant thing missing from this page - The Bob Dylan song "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35." Note the lyrics, the whole song obviously is about smoking marijuana - "Well you should not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned!" I had always attributed the '420 phenomenon' to this song. Do the math - 12 times 35 = 420. Too much of a coincidence...and it was released in '66 well before '71. Perhaps the "creators" attributed on this wiki page created it from this song? - Abzoeller

Has a reliable source made this connection? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The maths bit sounds far fetched to me, SqueakBox 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of rubbish we were trying to avoid (no disrespect to the proposing editor, only to the theory) when we got rid of the first "cultural references" section. We spent endless hours on this page debating Hitler's birthday, the Columbine shootings, that fucking Dylan track and umpteen other hare-brained theories. Yes it is a coincidence. Massively far-fetched. The number of songs that have been written about weed, and the nature of being stoned, conspiracy theories and wishful interpretations like this are going to propogate themselves horribly. Its Nostradamus or The Bible all over again. Jdcooper 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish? That is not the only Dylan song that mentions 420. The ballad of frankie lee and judas priest "there were four and twenty windows, with a womans face in every one." And there's even the Crosby Stills and Nash song, 4+20. There must be something special about those numbers, not necessarily marijuana use, but 420 is significant.

It mentions getting stoned not 420. If it were a modern song it might be related but way back then it clearly wasnt. Anyway you need to source such a claim, SqueakBox 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about 420 in relation to cannabis, for other uses of 420 see 420 (disambiguation). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

4/20

happy 420, everyone!!!! we will make this a day not to remember!24.144.137.244 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy 4/20--Dalenkwint 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew word

The Hebrew word עשנ (Ayin-Shin-Nun), means "Smoke", and adds up to 420 by Gematria.

Don't delete that. It's perfectly valid to the article.

You need a reliable source that demonstrates its connection with cannabis culture, and please don't vandalize my userpage or you will be blocked. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

SFPD code: Moved from WP:RPP

{{Editprotected}} Dunno if this is the right place, but I am requesting the protected 420 page be edited to correct the following: "...420 has never been verified as the police dispatch code for anything in any locale.[8]"

In fact, 420 IS San Francisco Police Dept radio code for “Juvenile Disturbance”. This is awfully close to the urban legend that 420 means juvenile delinquency. While explanations as to origins of the term vary, it seems incorrect for wiki’s page to state that “420 has never been verified as the police dispatch code for anything in any locale”. This should be corrected to include that 420 is an SFPD radio code. Reference link: [6] User:theaternearyou via - Alison^☺ 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Done and done, nice work! Jdcooper 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But has a reliable source made this connection? The citation provided does not support a connection to cannabis culture. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is an interesting new wrinkle to the 420 urban legends universe, it seems more of a footnote to me. — Hiplibrarianship 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is any connection, or if it is a coincidence, but there is another slang use of "420" in India. Char Sau Bis is Hindi for Four Hundred and Twenty. It apparently came from the Criminal Code system of India that was initiated by English Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay in the 1800s during British rule of India. "420" or Char Sau Bis was the code for "counterfeit." It became a slang word for a person who is a criminal or otherwise has a bad reputation. They are called Char Sau Bis.

Urban legends

Should we really be documenting the theories that have been shown to be incorrect? Discussions about this in the past have reached a consensus not to do so, Talk:420_(cannabis_culture)/Archive_1#No_need_for_coincidences_in_this_article, and Talk:420_(cannabis_culture)/Archive_2#Refuted_urban_legends. There have to be 20-30 different origin myths, none of which are exceptionally more popular than the others. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, again, but i feel this is likely to be a perennial problem everytime there is renewed interest in the article. Just have to rule with an iron fist of policy, i suppose. I'll take that section out. By the way, out of interest, are you in that photo, or did you just take it? Jdcooper 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Items need independent sources

• Ontario's Highway 420 serves as the site of an annual cannabis rally

• Highway 420 Cannabis Rally site

• "The Legend of 420" is a story featured in the stage production The Marijuana-Logues

• [http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Logues/dp/samples/B000667GO6/ref=dp_tracks_all_1/102-8908878-1444129?ie=UTF8&qid=1177021462&sr=8-2#disc_1 Marijuana-Logues cast recording]

• NORML launches its daily "AudioStash" podcast at 4:20 every weekday

• "NORML Launches Daily "AudioStash" New 30-Minute Podcast Available At 4:20". NORML. June 15, 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-19.

These items need to have independent reliable sources, for a couple is should be easy, for others perhaps less easy. I have moved them here from the article. I have placed the primary sources next to them as a possible starting point. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Verne, that is all it takes. I will try to dig up that High Times issue later from the local club. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is really starting to shape up. It actually has a decent references section. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is looking good. I guess I'm a bit unclear about the independent requirement. In all three cases above (Highway 420 rally, Marijuana-Logues, and NORML audiostash) the citations are to primary sources. Are primary sources insufficient? — Hiplibrarianship 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to maintain a NPOV, we need sources independent of the event. For example, we might go to "Jim's weed advocacy group"'s website and it might say they were the first to use 420, or that their rallies have over 5000 people, but unless an independent source confirms this we have to take it with a grain of salt. After all, there are hundreds of the "Best furniture stores", if you believe the advertising. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New sources

The recent April 20th celebration brought out some new sources, I hope they can lead to some additions to the article:

*kpix tv: '420' Enthusiasts Honor Cannabis On High Holiday - done this one, just a little factoid about The Grateful Dead Jdcooper 04:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Santa Barbara Independent: 420 Fun Abounds This Weekend
• The Eureka Reporter: Police report '420' citations
• Globe Gazette: The real dope on '420'

I will be going through these later, please beat me to it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

first one looks like it ought to have some useful stuff.

• The Eureka Reporter: Police report '420' citations

just a list of arrests, not too useful

• Globe Gazette: The real dope on '420'

mostly cites wikipedia. nothing we don't already have. —ptk✰fgs 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Longer and More Awesome

Didn't this article used to be a lot longer and more awesome? Timan123 16:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, it used to be longer, but had no sources or discrimination of information. You must be thinking of a different article. Jdcooper 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I am sure Timan hasnt got the wrong article but I agree it was an unsourced mess rather than the awesomeness s/he describes, SqueakBox 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well the old article I remember was a lot longer and with more interesting information, but I suppose it wasn't up to wikipedia's standards. Timan123 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Of course if we were to keep it up to our exacting standards I am sure we could make it more awesome, SqueakBox 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)