Talk:420 (cannabis culture)

Questions and Concerns q

MORE EASTER EGGS. Night Stand, the top rated clock application for apple mobile products thumbnail is set to 420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.48.179 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone added the Abraham Lincoln quote again and I deleted it for complete irrelevancy and whether or not you have a source it is probably not true. The world is flooded with fake Lincoln quotes. --Fragility (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Source 9 is questionable at best, no sources are cited for any of the quotes, and there is no evidence that Lincoln said any of that. i am removing it. contact: dankery.jah420.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.133.3 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

someone changed the edit I made so that the article again reads Abe Lincoln said something about "sweet hemp" when there is no single other reference to this quote other than the article that is cited. The author of the cited article has no sources or even explanation for where this quote came from and thus it is unsound to put that in this article as fact. I am changing it again. If you think it should stay please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankerydotjah420net (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "National Pot Day" is one of the largest names for 420. Dont know why that isn't in the article somewhere. Triplejx no seas mamon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.105.27 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm expressing a keen sense of distaste for this article, mostly for its lack of information. The origins and meaning of the term "420" was left in the hands of High Times magazine founder Steve Hagar, with an article he wrote in 2005 called "The Power of 420". Regardless of the lack of information pertaining to its origin, I feel that this page could include a vast amount of information about the cultural effects 420 has had on Stoner Culture since its beginning. What about the values of 420, 420 as time, 420 as a date? The fact this article is semi-protected is irritating to some of us that know a great deal about stoner culture, because there's nothing here that is useful. Unprotect it and let the people learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MahJesus (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100 percent sure by any means, and I don't have any sources for this claim, but I've heard it somewhere that marijuana was originally associated with 420 because of the claim that it has 420 or 421 chemicals in it. It seems to me that the association could be due to 2 scenarios. Either it was a sort of labeling from the authorities in an attempt to classify or refer to this emerging "subculture" or maybe it was due to the fact that this claim is somewhat misleading, that of the 421 chemicals in marijuana, only 61 are unique to marijuana. The chemicals are known as cannabinoids. One of them, delta-9 THC, produces the psychoactive effect and is the focus of most research. The other 360 chemicals in the marijuana plant are found throughout other natural substances. So it seems to me that it very easily could have been jokingly referred to among pot heads, or even proactive decriminalization experts in a way to make public the exaggerated information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.9.17 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read several times that the "legend" of 420 (and what I've read is essentially what is reported here) is just that...legend. Or apocryphal. Or, at best, unverified. I don't know enough to say whether the references cited here are sufficient proof or not. PurpleChez (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In San Francisco there was a popular music venue on Broadway called "The Stone". The address for "The Stone" was 420 Broadway. Many people in San Francisco have attributed this as the origin of the term "420". I think it's safe to assume we may never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.74.86 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20 is the Rastafari equivalent of Christmas Eve. April 20 is the eve of Grounation Day (21 April), the second most important holy day of Rastifari, It is celebrated in honor of Haile Selassie's 1966 visit to Jamaica. (See Wiki entry on the subject). Somewhere around 100,000 Rastafari from all over Jamaica descended on Palisadoes Airport in Kingston, having heard that the man whom they considered to be God was coming to visit them. They waited at the airport smoking lots of ganja, and playing drums (See Wiki entry on the subject). Most of those whom gathered at the airport arrived the day before (20 April). As quoted elsewhere on this page it is very likely that Bob Dylan's 1966 song (recorded two months of the Selassie visit) is about the event.. "everybody must get stoned".... 12x35=420. So 420 appears to come from a religious festival based on important events that actually happened on 20 & 21 April and are of significance to those who believe in the spiritual use of cannabis (Rastafarians). Many 'days of note or celebration' are based on religious events or festivals (e.g.Halloween is the 'eve' prior to All Saints Day, at one time an important Christian holy day of obligation, 1 November) as opposed to being based on the random behavior and habits of drug addled California teenagers. Where did that come from?? Terrza (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Terrza (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the term originated from the arm positions of someone lighting their bong? From the right side a bong smoker's stretched arm and bent arm look like an analog clock's big and small arms at 4:20. Who ever originated it must have always sat on the right side of the couch, if they were on the left they would have said it was 8:40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.247.254 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

i believe the reason national pot day is referred to as 420 is becasue that was the date of the first pro-cannabis rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.183.132 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

LSD

I was reading the protocol of the first LSD-Trip written by Albert Hofmann, the inventor of that drug. He starts his test at 4:20 pm on the the so called "bicycle day". This was 04/19/1943. Does any one of you ever heard of that possible origin of the 420 number? Maybe the kids of that high school choosed that time because it was the time LSD was taken the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.253.186 (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also came across the same potential origin of 420, which I added to the page since it was as good a theory as any of the others presented in the article and readers should be aware of that coincidence at the very least. Unfortunately, it was deleted by another user hours after its posting. I'd be interested in learning why this was done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.251.137 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is, it has very little to do with cannabis, and, without references connecting the two, as anything other than a coincidence... (Ie, did anybody go to the statue at 4:20pm, to take acid?) -- I mean, given that there are only 144 10-minute chunks of time, per day (4:10, 4:20, 4:30)... It's not unlikely that it is just a coincidence. Frankly, I think it deserves to be taken down... Somebody else can put it back up, if they feel it deserves to be there, or if they can provid some sort of reference.

It just stands out, from the rest of the article, especially as the article is referring to cannabis culture, and not acid/LSD culture. MassesOfTheOpiate (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost guaranteed to be nothing more than a coincidence. User: MahJesus —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

Happy 420... This was stolen from ME by SOMEONE, when I was 15 it was written on my bedroom wall after a friend of mine and I got really wasted, I wrote on the wall, "4:20pm, STONED AGAIN!" and it obviously leaked out cause that was 32 years ago...

It has nothing to do with the date ;o) Puff Puff Pass!!! ☺ SR386! (The Bob and Steve Show Still Running Wild in America!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.159.109 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Styx

The reference to "light up" needs to be re-added. It's fully cited and if you check the links you'd see that one of the citations states that it's a "Pot 10 Classic Rock Song" Austin Chronicle. Why was it deleted? 24.99.202.64 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

In Pulp Fiction, all of the clocks are set to 4:20. A reference or coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.254.43 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonadea. You edited a resource and external link from 420(cannabis culture). I was attemting to add a resource/external link due to a definitive history re 420 truths and myths and a history/time-line re marijuana. Some of the site may be promotional re celebrating April 20th 2008 but the pages I tried to highlight are extremely informative especially re 420 and does dispel myths i.e Pulp Fiction clocks all set to 4:20- ( only 4:20 in Pawnshop scene ). The Time-line/history are also very informative. Please can you re look. I made mistakes trying to input the link - it is http://www.fourtwentyday.com/history_pt_1.html ( -PT_2.html for cannabis history . If allowed can you input. Thanks Rocky (Rocky Green (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Ya, they are only set to 420 in the pawn shop scene. And even then, it could have just been 4:20. س (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Another coincidence in a movie about drugs? How's it a coincidence that more than one clock in the scene is set to 4:20? It's a movie scene, someone set those clocks to that time on, do you honestly think any clock there actually works? Stop the ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.58.126 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More than one clock said 420? The thing is that clock generally are set up to match each other. س (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All you need to do is watch the movie and pay attention. Although the watch on Butch's wrist should show a consistant, accurate time of day it doesn't. That sequence in the movie happens in the morning, not in the afternoon. When Maynard calls Zed the time on the clock reads 9:20. As Butch escapes there is a big yellow clock, it reads about 10:07. As Butch is "shopping around" for a weapon at the counter the clock on the wall (the same one that said 9:20) as he grabs the sword reads about 10:07. These are consistant with the time of day this scene takes place in the story. As he walks down the stairs there are three clocks that you can read (one has too much glare or dirt on the front to tell), two of them are at 4:20 the third (same as the one over the gimp's shoulder in the previous scene) is hard to read, it's about 11:50 but it isn't clearly visible like the rest. There are no "happy accidents" in well-directed movies, you are meant to see those clocks read "4:20". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdotcom (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 April 2008

The problem is that watching the movie and noticing a pattern and documenting it is original research, which is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. We are not creators of original research, we document what is available from already published reliable sources. Wikipedia:No original research is one of our guiding content policies. س (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is a movie not a citable source? <ref>Pulp Fiction, Miramax Films, 1994.</ref> Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are referring to the leap from seeing the clocks say 4:20 a few times and making the connection to cannabis culture. What we would need is some interview with the director, etc., confirming the connection. xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"No Original Research" means assertions if published are okay, but observable facts need not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's Birthday

Hitler was born on the 20th of April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somnolence (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1 in 365.2425 people we born on April 20th. That is over 6.4 million people if you only count the living. If you count the dead then it is a lot more. س (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an uneven distribution of births ie more people are conceived during the winter than the summer so that's not quite accurate.

That is true I suppose. Okay, allow for a range of error of 20% and my point still stands. س (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While true it is balanced by the fact that winter in one hemisphere is summer in the other (though true because more people live in the northern hemisphere) and the fact that many people live in the tropics. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people who celebrate 4/20 think it's because of hitler's birthday that it's 4/20, maybe that should be included in the article? --Jim Raynor (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source you can site that makes that assertion? Otherwise it would be original research. س (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of sources. the_undertow ^talk 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe he meant sources that people who celebrate 4/20 think it's because of hitler's birthday. and any self-respecting pothead will tell you hitler's birthday has nothing to do with it. xenocidic (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A Boulder police detective tells incoming CU freshman that 4/20 took off on the CU campus because there was no police presence on Farrand Field (the original location of the Boulder 4/20 event) because on April 20, 1999, there were no police present due to the Columbine massacre that day, which allowed the students to smoke marijuana without getting ticketed. The Columbine massacre happened that day because it is Hitler's birthday. Word spread, and the event grew in popularity every year - until it became what it is today. It seems like indirectly, the coincidence of Hitler's birthday with the 4:20 time of day at least enabled the event to become more popular. 128.138.64.105 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, some people celebrate the day because it's Hitler's birthday - which was an official German Holiday before any pothead was lighting up in honor of this day, and any self-respecting Neo-Nazi would tell you that today has nothing to do with weed. the_undertow ^talk 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You may remember a little thing called the Columbine massacre. Perhaps you've heard of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 June 2008

Ya, some guy comes a long every few days and mentions it, not really news or on-topic. _{1 != 2} 13:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also the birthday of Joan Miró (1893-1983), the creator of a system of artistic "writing" which appears on many of his paintings and represents prophetic statements such as you might be capable of making after serving a few tokes. Also visit the Miró statue in downtown Chicago to learn how to make elegant elongated chesspieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

how does this comment along with the attached citation not apply???? April 20th (4/20) is also the birthday of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler who is thought by many to have been an avid marijuana user [1] http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978185750 the wikipedia Verifiability policy CLEARLY states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "thought by many." The source clearly takes a justifiably humorous approach to the subject, as there is not evidence whatsoever so support the notion that Hitler was an avid user, or even an occasional user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"thought by many" was an attempt to show that it is not universally accepted. a google search of "hitler 420 marijuana" turns up "about 109,000 hit". it is clear that the relationship is WIDELY discussed even if often only for the perceived need to claim no relationship and sometimes to show a relationship even if it is considered humorous. How in the supposed free speech of wikipedia can this be addressed in the article without the threat of being blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't add it again unless you can develop a significant consensus to do so. All that a Google search proves is that they are mentioned in the same page (which makes sense, because they are coincidentally on the same day). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

please define "significant consensus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

also, a google search for "hitler" and "Marijuana" together turns up 8,490,000 results. there is obvious talk about a correlation, even if it the need of people to deny it. Banning information about this link is tantamount to censorship and contrary to the purpose this wiki was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Google search != reliable source. Enforcing WP:Verifiability and WP:UNDUE is not censorship. If you want to publish your opinion, make a blog. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

the fact that there is even a talk topic about proves that it IS indeed relevant and the massive amount of internet traffic about the subject is indeed verifiable by definition. there should be an added topic on the page discussing the issue as it does exist, is relevant and contributes to the topic. PROHIBITING it's inclusion therefore is indeed censorship based solely on one administrators opinion on what that particular administrator WANTS included in the topic, and what he does not desire to be in the topic. According to Wikipedia, the definition of censorship "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor." [2] . in this case, you are the censor. the intent of this project is to include all relevant and verifiable information. this is purely objective and not what "should" or "shouldn't" be included. Millions of websites discussing the matter is indeed verification that it is a related topic. In the future, please do not allow you opinion to cloud your judgement. --68.35.201.93 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can wikilawyer here till you are blue in the face. As I said before, don't add it again unless there is a consensus to include it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

once again, how do YOU define consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikilawyer" defined as "when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping at conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution." how is this not what you are doing to posts on this page? Unilateral censorship cloaked as defending policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.93 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumour has it that the Neo-Nazi movement, looking at any possibility for support, created the buzz around 4/20 or 4:20 as a way to trick counterculture people into helping make a holiday of their hero's birthday. It makes a lot more sense than the San Rafael high story which really is grasping at straws because 4:20 is just a random time with no meaning given and the story doesn't even make sense- why was this a repeat meeting? If the prior was the case then its architects certainly were successful. In any case it is notable enough to merit inclusion, even if only to mention the controversy. Batvette (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't do "rumors." Without a reliable source, it's not going to be added, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody's already offered sources. So which shifting argument are you standing on, sourcing or concensus? Or do you want to make up another reason? Seems to me several editors offered sourcing and valid reasons why it should be mentioned, can you offer reasons within wiki policy it shouldn't? Batvette (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

420 Campaign

Information about the 420 Campaign was removed on 27 March on the grounds that it was "off-topic and promotional." These claims seem unfair. I'm returning the section to the article on the grounds that various marijuana groups have recently employed the 4/20 date as one for consciousness-raising and political activity. Hiplibrarianship (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than taking the name for their cause I see no connection. All of the linked citations referred to the cause and made no reference of 420 other than naming the campaign. While I am sure the campaign has embraced 420, it does not really seem they they have much to do with the term. I have also embraced 420 in my personal life, but that does not mean I am relevant to the article. س (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about "embracing 420" -- it is about the use of the number in cannabis culture. Marijuana reform efforts (by various groups) that take place on April 20 (or encourage political action to take place on April 20) clearly fits within the scope. The naming of the campaign is tied to the April 20 date itself, specifically because that date has increasingly been associated with cannabis culture observances. The use of the 420 number/date could not be more clearly connected to cannabis culture than in the name and focus of the 420 Campaign. The section was deleted by vandalism on 15 April, and I am restoring it to the article. — Hiplibrarianship (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that other than the fact that they have chosen to associate themselves with 420 that there is not much else. I will however defer to the opinions of others in this matter and see if any further consensus forms. س (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lovecraft

While this is an interesting theory, it seems like original research. It has been here in the past and was removed due to lack of citation. Can it be shown that an existing reliable source sees this as connected to the cannabis culture term 420? س (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the following passage, of seemingly original research, since it lacked a citation:

An older origin for the term may have been from "In the Walls of Eryx" by H.P. Lovecraft, where the main character has been influenced by a "mirage-plant", loses his perception of time, then looks at his watch to see that it "was only 4:20."

I understand that the "mirage-plant" is assumed to be cannabis, but there is no source for this claim. — Hiplibrarianship (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradley or Pasteur?

There seems to be an inaccuracy in the first paragraph: it mentions the "Bradley Elementary" statue, whereas (as implied by the picture at the bottom of the article -- why at the bottom I wonder???) it should be the Louis Pasteur statue... CielProfond (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just someone posing, it has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. س (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 20 2008, G4 TV interviewed the "Waldos" and they confirmed most of what is in the article, including shots of The Actual Pasteur Statue: http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/21343/The_Waldos_Truth_Behind_420.html?videoCategory_key=8 (might be good as an External Link?) 199.214.26.9 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. س (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Stills?

Is there any reason for the bizarre mention of Stills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewssoul (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources

None of these are appropriate where they were formerlly located as External links. However some looked reasonably reliable sources and may prove to be useful if anyone wishes to improve the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

potential source list

• The Power of 420: Transforming the universal code into a collective consciousness for stoners. Karen Bettez Halnon, originally published in High Times, May 2003.
• Capitalist buzz builds around stoner ‘holiday’. Mike Stuckey, MSNBC, 16 April 2008.
• High Holy Day for Potheads. Wired News, April 20, 2001.
• 420 Campaign: Strategy for Legalization archive of related articles
• What 420 Means: The True Story Behind Stoners' Favorite Number. Huffington Post article filed by Ryan Grim 4/20/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.207.172 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is here no criticism section in this article? Not everyone thinks this holiday is actually much of a holiday or even a good holiday or if it even helps the 'legalize marijauna' crowd. That and they chose a rather terrible day, Hitler's Birthday, to host it. Thats not wat its about sure, but its not exactly much of a booster to yor efforts if you use the day of the birth of the worst dictator in history as a day to celebrate getting high. And in case yu're wondering, yes I do think 4/20 is a stupid holiday and there should be some kind of criticism section in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.96.7 (talk • contribs) 14:07, October 2, 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because no criticism exists in reliable sources? –xeno (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, or perhaps no one bothers to look because they don't want to look like a NARC for putting up a criticism section. Christmas, Halloween, Easter, they all have something of a criticism page, even if its not about the Holiday itself but the reasons we celebrate it and the customs and traditions involved in it. Commercialization for Christmas, how religious groups view Halloween, if anything there should be some article by Anti-Drug or Anti-Marijuana advocates who denounce 4/20, perhaps even Jews who find the fact that people could have fun on Hitler's Birthday offensive.

Not a good idea, in my opinion (and it has nothing to do with the fact that I really love weed). Unlike Christmas or Halloween, or any other holiday for that matter, 420 isn't an official holiday, but rather an unofficial celebration (like Bicycle Day is for acid), there isn't a specific way of celebrating it (unlike Halloween with the costumes and Xmas with the tree and shit), it's not an official rule that celebrations most include getting stoned and protesting, so there's nothing to criticise, really. I think you're just trying to shove a bit anti-weed propaganda into the article. "They chose a rather terrible day, Hitler's Birthday" - you make it sound as if it was chosen because of that reason, knowingly... they didn't choose "Hitler's birthday", they chose a date that is (coincidently) also Hitler's birthday.
Plus, I'm Jewish and you can rest assured that I'm not offended by this coincidence, and if someone is offended, he's a fucktard. —Saltywood ^(talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who would find the fact that people could have fun on Hitler's birthday offensive? Are we supposed to mope all day? Anyway, it seems that it was a number that was sulected and the celebration on the date came because it corresponded to the number. Stuart 68.161.121.165 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it originated around the time of 4:20, not a date of 4/20. Secondly, the two events are coincidental, there is no relationship between the annual celebration of 420 and Hitler's birthday. Thirdly, if properly citied criticism exists, it belongs in the article.--Pchov (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

but is it really coincidential? 95.208.187.120 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand

I have tried to add information about the international spread of 420 and how it is now being picked up by University students in New Zealand, but it keeps getting deleted. Please leave this information as it is relevant and interesting to people who are interested in the growth of the 420 phenomenon. I have re-added this information and provided some of the most specific references available. Please do not delete this information, if you have issues with how it is presented change it constructively. If the sources I have provided aren't satisfying, try Otago Daily Times, TV One New Zealand and TV 3 New Zealand for further corroboration. Thanks 139.80.33.95 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It will continue to be deleted until it is properly supported by published reliable sources. Read our policy: WP:V. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the information about New Zealand with a reliable source that the original author seems to have missed. Both TV One Close Up and Critic Te Arohi Magazine are reliable unbiased sources. The references provided verify the history of the 'protest' mentioned in the article (TV One) and that the frequency of the protest is now twice weekly (Critic, about halfway through the article). Hopefully this will be satisfactory to both parties, otherwise a third opinion will be sought. Cheers. Otepoti history (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the factual information for the New Zealand group, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the group still meets and that the arrest of the leader was at an unrelated event that was not a 420 meeting. Read the articles cited to verify these facts. The recent edits made to try and change the story appear to be an attempt to slander the New Zealand group and to give the impression that they no longer meet and that there was some sort of successful police intervention, both of which are untrue and this is abundantly clear if you actually read the cited articles. The editor who suggested that this was resolved ages ago is right, it was and then someone made these malicious changes recently, I was simply reverting them. The editor who made the malicious changes has been repeatedly shown to have POV and COI issues when it comes to edits regarding the New Zealand 420 group

"420" is older than 1971!

The story in the article which states that the term "420" originated in 1971 cannot possibly be true. Why? Because, in 1966, Bob Dylan released a song called "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35," featuring the well-known refrain, "Everybody must get stoned." The numbers in the title, 12 and 35, when multiplied together, yield a product of 420 -- and Bob Dylan would NOT have done this by mistake. Therefore, the "420" term is at least as old as 1966, and quite possibly a LOT older. If anyone can find out where it really came from (and when), please revise this article accordingly. RobertAustin (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. Got a source? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Not everything that Bob ever said is fraught with multiple layers of significance. PurpleChez (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't believe Bob Dylan was ever highly involved in cannabis culture and that song itself was an ironic satire of it. If the term was wide spread enough at that point to be known by someone outside the culture then there surly would be some other source. There are all kinds of coincidences in popular music. For example, have you ever tried playing Dark Side of the Moon in time with The Wizard of Oz? Stuart 68.161.121.165 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you should suggested that Dylan wasn't involved in cannabis culture. Bob Dylan told High Times magazine's Larry Jaffe that he didn't know "who first turn him onto pot", but "a lot of pot was smoked". He also talked in an interview in Playboy in 1963 about how Rainy Day Women DID talk about marijuana, and its being banned from radio airwaves. There was even talk of Dylan turning The Beatles onto pot. This to me is just as much of a connection of "420" to pot as there ever will be. --MahJesus —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

It is just the same number. There needs to be a documented connection. Seriously the number 420 comes up all over, that does not mean it is connected with this cultural phenomenon. Looking at things and finding connections is original research which is normally all fine and well, but Wikipedia does not accept original research. ⚗ Dr. StrangeBong ⚗ (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people thinks it's younger than 1971. I hear people saying it's from Smokin'_(Boston_song). This is just in casual talk, and that the group of kids claiming in 1971 are just full of it. Can't find any die hard sources. Xmzx (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To expect concrete information regarding something that has been illegal and underground is unreasonable and useless. The entire discourse revolving around marijuana has been laden with subtext and specific language and terminology not mentioned in concrete sources out of fear of governmental retribution. I seriously suggest we remove that section from the introduction and into the body of the article where any issues can be documented and addressed. OhYeah098765 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that 'Rainy Day Woman' was the original source of 420. It should at the very least be mentioned in the main article. Another one to be looked into: reportedly the inventor of LSD-25 took the first documented trip in human history at 4:20pm sometime during the 1950s. This comes from an older Rolling Stone article with the exact date etc; I will get the source if anyone considers this a valid theory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.43.247 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.asp
This article should be expanded debunking some of the most common misconceptions. For years, I thought 420 was the penal code for a marijuana offense in California. Not so. Of course it needs better sources than a Snopes page, but I don't have the time right now.--Muboshgu (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been consensus in the past that there was no point in listing all the ways that 420 did not come about. There are literally hundreds and they are not well documented by independent reliable sources. Chillum 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to the article that there are many stories surrounding the origin of 420. Thepillow (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

420 is the police code for Marijuana use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.12.147 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

420 is a police radio code for "Juvenile Disturbance". A search of Bay Area police radio codes, including San Francisco which is near San Rafael, will verify this. Therefore, Snopes is plainly wrong in stating, "420 is not police code for anything". Many arguments follow therefrom, that 420 must refer to the time of the day. This is conclusory and should not be stated as fact, given the existence of a police code that refers to both juveniles and highjinks. Further research, not false assumptions, is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaternearyou (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to research and present reliable sources to support new content. Chillum 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That origin story is a complete myth. And also Bob Dylan turned The Beatles on to pot.-Lemmonn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.52.208 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the best version of the story yet - someone with more time should disect this and enter it all: [3]

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/what-420-means-the-true-s_n_188320.html (they need credit, of course): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcbaker (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Contents of article removed, link is above.

Thanks for that, though the link is enough. We don't really have the correct copyright license to be posting the whole article. People can look at the link and use it as a source they see it fit. Chillum 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20th

Is there any connection with this number and Adolf Hitler's birthday? 勇敢な要素 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its purely a coincidence. Outback the koala (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco

Hey yinz guys how come there ain't a mention of San Francisco in this here wiki? Golden Gate park is filled with folk smoking that marijuana every 20th of April. Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.137.24 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

UC Santa Cruz

I've been a student at UC Santa Cruz for almost two years now and I know for certain that 4-20 is celebrated at UCSC. 76.126.21.16 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'd like to try to get a few people together to help me rewrite this article. It's really not helpful or informative at the moment, and continuing to add on sections about specific regional and collegiate celebrations is really making this thing look sloppy. I mean, frankly, it's so bad, even I'm making jokes about how lazy potheads are. I don't really think I can/want to tackle this thing on my own, but if anyone else out there wants to help me out, I think we could really make something better than this junk. Any takers? --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

The information about the Philippines seems not really relevant. I think the statement made about this country is valid for many countries, so why mention it specifically for this country? Furthermore, it lacks a source. I'm removing the statement. Feel free to reverse if you disagree (with argumentation please) Thepillow (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kurtdh, 20 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please edit the following sentence " The teens would meet after school at 4:20 p.m. to smoke marijuana at the Louis Pasteur statue."

This is factually incorrect. The teens would meet after school at 4:20 p.m. to attempt to find a plot of marijuana plants that a Coast Guard service member supposedly abandoned. It just so happened that they would smoke marijuana on their way to locate the plot. Please correct this. Thank you. Source follows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/420-meaning-the-true-stor_n_543854.html

Kurtdh (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro as well as the first section Drug Term Meaning Origin are almost exactly the same, they just sight different sources. Maybe someone can clean this up. The intro is well written and quotes a real source, then the first sectioin is a repeat with the claims of a different source but no actual link—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.78.252 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned up the wording to match sources. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 sources

Some 2010 sources referring to 420:

• CBS News
• ABC News
• The Associated Press
• NBC Bay Area
• MTV

Relating to Colorado:

• Marijuana Rallies Planned To Mark "4/20"
• 4/20 at CU-Boulder: Pro-pot crowd gathering on Norlin, police issuing tickets

--Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

4:20 4/20 420

Although there are apparently multiple ways to express the term; I suggest that the article at least be consistent in the one it selects. Some are even in quotes while others are not. "420" and '420'. --JimmyButler (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - 4/20 leads to April 4th not April 20th

Can someone with confirmed privileges redirect this link to April 20th? This is the second sentence in the article. Farley13 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.100.245.194, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} At the top, [4/20] is sometimes referred to as "Pot Day". The link goes to april 4th, it should be april 20th.

81.100.245.194 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Already done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

TV coverage 2010

The cable TV channel G4 "celebrated" 4/20 by playing Half Baked (among other stoner comedies) and even going to every commercial with a "Happy 4/20" title card. The Colbert Report also observed the day.

This isn't much in terms of information for the article, but it does show that 4/20 has been getting a little more mainstream every year. Maybe something to keep in mind for a future section? - tbone (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1971. Sorry kids.

The fact that "420" was concieved in 1971 is false. Source: The 13th Floor elevators recorded "Slip inside this house" in 1967. A reference to "4 and 20" is in the lyrics. psycodelia rocks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_Inside_This_House http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog3/slipinside.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.188.209 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Four and twenty birds of Maya" are the lyrics in question. It's WP:SYNTH to assume there is any relation to that line and the current usage. See this page for an explanation of all of the lyrics (including that line). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Especially given that it is obviously a reference/homage to the "four and twenty blackbirds" of the old nursery rhyme. --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur?

What the hell is a picture of a statue of Louis Pasteur doing on this page? Is there a purpose? Cowik (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How about reading the first paragraph about the origins of the term before posting this question? --89.15.9.65 (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012

 Done

Please consider a revision to the last sentence of paragraph two under origin:

He would go on to attribute the early spread of the phrase among Deadheads.[7]

This doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps he attributes the early spread of the phrase to Deadheads, or he popularized the phrase among Deadheads. who were responsible for the term spreading beyond the readership of high times. Or some other intention of the author.

Thanks!

Jman53705 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the content was added by someone whose series of edit summaries include "fix LOL sorry enjoying the day" - so perhaps s/he will be able enter a more coherrent explanation of what the source says at a later date. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

pls fix statment at will - all can see the source.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(not everyone, some nanny monitors dont really care for that source) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

sources says "One reason is because San Rafael is the home to the Grateful Dead and 420 spread for many years within the Deadhead community before it appeared on the Hemp 100 in HIGH TIMES".Moxy (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

4:20 am

why is 420 limited to pm on this information site? 4:20 also happens in the early morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.60.231 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You personally can celebrate WHENEVER you want! The content in the article however, needs to be supported by reliable sources that make the claim. If you have one, present it and the content can be added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

well, not legally. It's just the date itself, really. Have fun in prison, by the way! Joesolo13 (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Usage of 4:20

I think there is plenty of room on this skimpy 420 cannibis culture page to include alternative mentions to the specific word "420." Especially on a page the concerns itself with the etymology of a word. While it's obvious that 420 originated in recently modern times, the use of the word predates that and would make for a noteworthy section to this article. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is any, actual reliable sources that discuss previous uses, fine. But you cannot just go scrounging around to find mentions of 420 that happen to have close proximity to something maybe druggie in nature and make such a connective claim yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss the point again. I'm not claiming it's related to drugs! You are making that case. I am not. I am making the case, that this article has room for usage of the word PRIOR to it being taken over by the 420 culture. Like I said before... a page concerning itself with etymology, should pay attention to previous instances and not just a static state of the modern usage of said term.

Why would we cover non cannabis culture usage of a term in this article about the usage of the term in the cannabis culture? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the term is related. If someone wants to learn more about the word 420... where do you go? To this article. If it's not 100% related it is at least in part, and it may be that there is room on this skimpy page to discuss preorigin usage. Especially if enough sources exist to show evolution in the etymology or paralleling unrelated usage. In plain terms, for research! For anyone wanting to know more about the usage of 420.Leitmotiv (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT. Until you bring a third party reliably published source that has aleady made the research connections to the subject of this article rather than your personal interpretation of primary sources, "other usages" are NOT going into this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm well familiar with those pages. I cited HP Lovecraft and his preusage. I did no original research since I did not suggest the term was related to cannabis culture. You did however. You also knee-jerked undid my edit. Understandably of course. By the way relativity in this case would mean that someone directly related to the coining of the term would be a primary source. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You DID do original research. You are asserting based on your interpretation of the primary source that a random passage in Lovecraft is related to the use of "420" in cannabis culture simply by including it in the article when there is NOTHING in the original source to connect it to that topic.

or you are doing a WP:COATRACK of including something entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article.

Either way, its not acceptable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I did not assert that it's related to cannabis as noted by the headliner "PREUSAGE" meaning before it was used as the modern cannabis term. I reiterate that the only person here asserting that it's related to cannabis is you as exemplified by your undos.

2. It is not COATTRAK, I've already said it's etymologically related. Usage of the term 420 PRIOR to cannabis culture exists, and would be worthy of documentation on a page that frequently makes usage of the term. Etymological reasons are PERFECTLY acceptable if cited. I cited a secondary source defined by the fact that it is not directly related to the origination of the term... making it suitable. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. Either you are saying it is related to the topic of our encyclopedia, in which case you need a third party source to make that claim, OR it is completely unrelated to the topic of our article in which case we have no use in mentioning it. You cannot say "Its not related so we should mention it." - -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A third source in this case, is some source that is not related to the title of the article, or the origination of the term 420. Since we're discussing prior "usage" of the term, citing the actual usage would be very beneficial, especially since I made no claims as to what the preusage was "really" about. Only you make the connection to cannabis. I am not. I am making etymological connections of a related nature, but not of the "origin" nature for the cultural term. By the way... it can be a mixture... not black and white as you're suggesting. I propose that a section on this page titled "PRE-USAGE" is perfectly acceptable and is partially related to the 420 cannabis culture page by the definition that it shares the same term. The different uses may not mean the same thing, but it's definitely noteworthy enough to warrant a separate section on the same article. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with TRPoD. It's original research (from a primary source) to suggest/mention anything that is purely coincidental with term (Hitler's birthday, the Bob Dylan song, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if you are intentionally misreading our policies or have just been overindulging on the holiday. A third-party source is someone other than the primary source (in this case Lovecraft) who has made the connection between Lovecrafts mention of the time 4:20 and the subject of this article: the use of the term 420 in drug culture. the third party cannot be YOU. It must be a previously published source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

/* April 20 observances */ addition of the Willie Nelson Status unveiling in Austin, TX

Just curious how the addition of the unveiling of the Willie Nelson status in Austin on 4/20 at 4:20 in observance of 420 was removed by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) because "we are an encyclopedia not a travel brochure for pot fests." What makes that observance inappropriate while others are listed. I'm not trying to be confrontational on the issue, I'm curious. I suppose it should have merely been listed as one of the cities in which observances have taken place with a reference to the news source? Thanks pobrien (talk)

The edit summary referred to the general content of my edit rollback. The Willie Nelson statue content was included in that roll back and not re-added because link is to a facebook page, not a reliable source. Sorry I didnt specify in the edit summary itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

The top picture of people gathering on 4/20 is UCSC but is labeled Porter College. Article is locked until 10/12/12 so I cannot make change. Could someone please correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.149.30 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

sorry, UCSC is the BOTTOM picture, Porter is the top picture. 12.200.149.30 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Usage outside North America

It says 420 is used "primarily in North America and the United Kingdom", but at university in the UK I've never heard the term. It is also not used in the article Cannabis in the United Kingdom. The 420 article only cites references for the US, I've deleted the mention until more info is provided. I suspect it is used by a few people in the UK but is not commonly known, so it's therefore accurate to say it's used "primarily in North America". Gymnophoria (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

there is coverage of the 4/20 day events in a couple of places in New Zealand. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

Please Change This:

Origins The earliest use of the term began among a group of teenagers in San Rafael, California in 1971.[2][3] Calling themselves the Waldos,[4] because "their chosen hang-out spot was a wall outside the school,"[5] the group first used the term in connection to a fall 1971 plan to search for an abandoned cannabis crop that they had learned about.[4][6] The Waldos designated the Louis Pasteur statue on the grounds of San Rafael High School as their meeting place, and 4:20 p.m. as their meeting time.[5] The Waldos referred to this plan with the phrase "4:20 Louis". Multiple failed attempts to find the crop eventually shortened their phrase to simply "4:20", which ultimately evolved into a codeword that the teens used to mean pot-smoking in general.[6] High Times editor Steven Hager wrote "Are You Stoner Smart or Stoner Stupid?" in which he called for 4:20 p.m. to be the socially accepted hour of the day to consume cannabis.[7] He attributes the early spread of the phrase to Grateful Dead followers, who were also linked to the city of San Rafael.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)

To This:

The Bebes are a group of athletes from San Rafael, CA, who went to San Rafael High School in 1970. They lived in the same neighborhood called Peacock Gap, which was a golf course, surrounded by houses. They were well known for their prank phone calls and recordings. Brad Bann aka The Bebe was the leader of the group and was joined by all of his friends, whom he ordained and named as well. There was Dave Dixon aka Wild Du, his brother Dan Dixon aka Puff, Dave Anderson aka Hello Andy, Tom Thorgersen aka Thorgy, Bone Boy, Blue, The Mead, Turkey & The Worm.

The Waldos are a group of non athletic guys from San Rafael, CA, who went to San Rafael High School in 1970. They were known for being uncoordinated and goofy, which is why The Bebe nicknamed them all Waldos. There was Steve Capper and David Reddix who have gone public with their names, Patrick, Larry, Jeff, John and Mark, who have not gone public as of yet. While these guys may have been responsible for promoting 420 across country, there is no question that they did not coin the term and have been dishonest with the world from day one. True credit goes to The Bebe and his brotherhood of Bebes.

Brad Bann aka the Bebe coined the term 420 and the Waldos carried the term across the U.S. on tour with the Grateful Dead. I took the torch in 1993 and promoted 420 to the world via my website/s, reaching over 20 million people a year, totaling over 420 million people worldwide. Now there are billions of us.

Sources:

Here is the full article. http://www.420magazine.com/2012/10/the-true-origin-of-420-setting-the-record-straight/

Here is the press release on PRWeb. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10013410.htm

The420guy (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

not done at this time. PR web is as you stated, a Press Release regurgitation site. It is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So there is one source for this story- which is one guy saying that he believes one group of people over a different group of people. Do you have other sources that support the Bebes claim? Otherwise per WP:UNDUE we go with the most widely accepted version. 11:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The above text is simply a copy and paste from here.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism... but is the topic(s) needed

Have removed some plagiarism that was just added. That said the source (as see-able below) does cover a topic that is not covered here and may have some valuable information. What do others think should we cover the myths and/or related songs of this topic - as was being introduced with the copyrighted text?Moxy (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mike Edison (12 May 2009). I Have Fun Everywhere I Go: Savage Tales of Pot, Porn, Punk Rock, Pro Wrestling, Talking Apes, Evil Bosses, Dirty Blues, American Heroes, and the Most Notorious Magazines in the World. Faber & Faber. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-86547-903-6.

Was just writing something I was going to post here - but as per the norm TheRedPenOfDoom has jumped in and saved the day again..... :-)Moxy (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure of the value of extending a section of "things that have been falsely attributed to the 4:20 culture" - that seems like WP:BEANS for an article that already requires a disproportionate share of upkeep. But I do think that showing that there are alternate opinions about the authenticity of the Waldos story is required per WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)