Talk:420 (cannabis culture)

• Archive 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) and before
• Archive 19:38, 24 August 2006 through 19:27, 17 April 2007

I have archived this rather large talk page. HighInBC 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) And I have archived it again. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine Shooting

Also noted that the High School massacre occurred on April 20, 1999 (i've edited it in) — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Captain Cannabis

"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 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)

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)

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...