Talk:420 (cannabis culture)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Refuted urban legends

Why do we have a section for information which is known to be wrong? I don't see the relevence. I would like to remove this whole section, anything in it worth keeping should be moved to the section that asserts fact and provide a citation. This article has alot of original research and this is just one section I am going to fix up. Please let me know your opinions so I can take them into account. HighInBC 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I dunno, it gives an idea of the history and nature of the phrase. We have an article about The Flat Earth Society, and about how people thought that the Earth was the centre of the universe. I dont think that section does any harm, and is a bit interesting, though it does need cleaning up. Jdcooper 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If we didn't then people who thought the obviously wrong stuff was correct would add it as correct. We need a list of commonly held misconceptions. Mathiastck 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People do add obviously wrong stuff and it is removed regularly. The threshold is verifiablity not truth. As for an list of commonly held misconceptions, that sounds like an interesting article. HighInBC 13:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article about The Flat Earth Society is a reference to a large and extended movement. If these 'legends' are notable enough fine, but I don't see notability or what it has to do with the subject at hand. This is the sort of thing you see on a talk page, ideas that came up but were rejected due to lack a validity. I can't understand why it should be in the article namespace.

As for providing history for the phrase, it really only lists misconceptions about it, an actual history is covered in Commonly accepted origin. HighInBC 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'm pretty much in support of all your edits. Maybe re-insert the one about the guy on the quiz show using 420 bids repeatedly, thats a funny one that shows the scale and cultural impact of the phrase (and if you've seen the clip its definitely not just a coincidence). Jdcooper 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I watched that video, and it is obvious to me that he was referencing to cannabis, but how can that be demonstrated. I can't justify a statement by saying "The look on his face made it clear.", however true it is. That is one of the reasons this is such a hard page to keep clean, 420 is almost always used as inuendo in such a way it cannot be proven. HighInBC 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Christ, looking over some of the stuff you removed it hit me just how bad a state this article was in. It had become a compendium of things that involve or include the number or time 420. Great work. Jdcooper 11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have wanted to clean this up for a long time, but I was afraid it would eat me if I started. I think I have the beast on the ropes now, I still need more citations, and other stuff of course, but it has lost it's teeth. HighInBC 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is more completely unsubstantiated information, but I always thought the 4:20 came from the position of the lower segments of a cannabis leaf. I realize that the positions of the two lower segments would actually be 4:40, but hey, when you're high on pot and you don't have a clock handy, you could easily think that one leaf segment on the 4 and one on the 8 would be 4:20. After all, the 8 is "20 'til", so it's not unlikely that some pothead got mixed up and thought the position indicated by the lower leaf segments would have been 4:20 on a clock, when it would actually have been 4:40. Who knows, but with all the other uncited and just plain wrong stuff here, I figured it couldn't hurt to offer my theory, even though I know absolutely nothing about pot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.236.218.36 (talk • contribs) .

Mixing the reefer and wikipedia doesn't work that well :) I thought the 420 thing came from the waldos, as the article says. Dave420 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it came from the nursery rhyme...

Sing a song of sixpence a pocket full of rye, Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie. (a.k.a. a whole lot of cannabis) When the pie was opened the birds began to sing, (royal party getting high) Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king? (ya man!) The king was in his counting house counting out his money, (stoned, wanted to pay for the good stuff) The queen was in the parlour eating bread and honey (munchies) The maid was in the garden hanging out the clothes, When down came a blackbird and pecked off her nose! (paranoia) NjtoTX 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a credible theory for 420 is the birth of Bob Marley's son Stephen on April 20, 1972. No doubt Bob lit up to celebrate. Hamon775557 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely he had heard of 420, SqueakBox 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

it is unlikely the origin, but if you multiply 42, the number "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" claims is the anwser to everything, times the base system most commonly used on the planet made to find the question. 42x10 = 420

420 in film and television

I wouldn't ever know how to actually go about proving which ones are intentional and which ones aren't. My guess is if it is featured specifically. Like an address or time, it is perhaps intention. Especially on face-clocks as the time 4:20 has both hands in the same spot which wouldn't be as cinematically interesting. The Simpsons seem to reference 420 a lot. Also a director or producer probably won't validate the joke of a lowly prop assistant or set crew. There were a few I wasn't sure about, like the wrestling one, but since I don't know a thing about wrestling I'm just going to leave it. Similarly, if you don't know anything about pot smoking or haven't seen the film you should probably leave it alone or demand citation. There's also the issue of drugs playing into these marked coincidences, so it's also argueable 4:20 is just one of 7200 other possible times and stoners just have a tendancy to single this one out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unsigned

Unless the reference has something directly to do with cannabis, or a citation can show a common beleif that it relates to cannabis, then it is not relevent to this article. You should not have to know anything about cannabis culture or need to have watched the movie because the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifibility.

My own, or your own, experiences with these movie and/or drug culture is only relevent to the level that we can find external sources to back it up, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Many of the items you have placed there do not meet WP:Verifiability, which is not an optional policy. I am going to remove the ones that do not demostrate a clear relationship to cannabis. HighInBC 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction was cited. So was Futurama. I am adding them back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unsigned

For one thing, pulp fiction has some clocks that say 420, and others that don't. Also, just having 420 is not enough as the name of the article is 420 (cannabis culture), it must be directly related to cannabis aswell. As for the futurama reference it was already in the article. HighInBC 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

<<it must be directly related to cannabis as well>> Err, that's what 420 means here as indicated by the "(cannabis culture)" after the number, so that the term will disambiguate from other terms representing the actual number 420. If someone wants information directly related to Cannabis maybe they should consult... on the count of one, two, three....The Cannabis article!! Drdr1989 00:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is hard enogh to prove that it warrants posting without any proof. If anyone can explain to how this proof should be provided I will change my opintion on this subject. Ferrelas 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Ferrelas

Well, if somebody can find a citation where the writer or director or even the set dresser stated that this was done as a cannabis reference. The fact is the the number 420 comes up all over. And if there was no way to verify it, then it cannot be included in any article. See WP:VERIFIABILITY for more information on this. HighInBC 22:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, here we go again... just check out the DVD's subtitles. The reference is actually made before the scene itself. If you're high, you'll miss it. Drdr1989 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What you think being high makes one less perceptive. Please dont bring it here, SqueakBox 01:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Don't take it personally. Drdr1989 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Subtitles? Do you mean the dialog of the movie? Or mabye directors commentary? What type of reference? Has anyone else noticed this and published it already? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Quinten Tarintino did the clocks in the Pawn Shop intentionally for a drug reference. Same with Fight Club. Again some off the others that I didn't post are valid as well. Be a critic, Eliminate other people findings, Whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

While what you say may be true, a published source is required to connect clocks saying 4:20 to cannabis. I see Jonathunder has given you a welcome on your talk page, in that welcome you will find links to how wikipedia works. Specifically the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research apply in this situation. Perhaps you can show a link to an interview where Tarintino mentions that it is a drug reference? Thank you for discussing this on the talk page. HighInBC 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show yourself to a video store and buy the DVD. It states so there. Drdr1989 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

States so where? at the video store? on the cover? the directors comentary? An interview? Can you supply a link? HighInBC 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the director's subtitles while watching the DVD. Drdr1989 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it mentions it is a cannabis reference in the movie's directors subtitles then you can add it giving that as a reference. It is essential that you give the reference so that other editors can confirm it. I would add it myself but I don't have access to that particualr reference right now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Will try to get the exact reference copy soon (rather than just say "Pulp Fiction DVD")...unless someone else is reading this and adds it beforehand. Drdr1989 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

University of Vermont

"...and while the protest has gone forward on a much smaller scale, police now arrest any smokers and the tone has changed markedly from that of a peaceful, albeit defiant, protest to one of conflict and division between students, police, and administrators"

I have put the above line back into the article. It was removed by User:JDoorjam because he believed it to be POV, but I am forced to disagree with him. Any observer who witnessed a pre-2002 protest and a post-2002 protest would clearly note radical changes in the way the protest was conducted and the attitudes and behaviors of those involved. Previously, the celebration was a community event, where all elements (protesters, police, administrators) were coexisting peacefully. The protest was very low-key, there was never any violence, and it was relatively quiet (or as quiet as a field with thousands of people can be), and lasted nearly all day. Now, the police form riot lines, march though the protesters with clubs and pepper spray and readied firearms, there is a lot of shouting, people getting pushed to the ground, smokers getting wrestled, handcuffed, and dragged away, and the protest lasts only an hour or so. Basically, it's like a completely different event, and clear physical boundary lines are established between groups-- you are either a cop, with the cop group, an administrator nodding approvingly from the sidelines, or a student in the middle of the hysteria. Instead of a peaceful protest, now it's a fight. This is a very real change and it has nothing to do with your point of view. LearningKnight 18:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The threshold of inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Do you have any reliable citations that verifies this statement? If not then it should not be included. HighInBC 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much uncited material

A have tagged 4 sections as not having any citations. These sections make bold claims such as many people visit the field at or around 4:20 PM just to witness the "fog" of marijuana smoke that hovers over the crowd. and The largest known celebration of this kind. WHo made HighInBC the fu**ing king of cannabis? its chills, its for everyone, not for anal pr*cks.74.99.29.165 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)ME This article suffers from a lack of credibility as it seems to be written entirely from personal experience. I tried briefly to find some citations regarding college 4/20 celebrations, and while I am sure they exist, I did not find any reliable sources right away.

Perhaps somebody else will do better. I am going to move any uncited sections to the talk page tommorow. HighInBC 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The following needs citations before being put back into the article.

---

April 20th events and traditions

Many North American cities and colleges hold pro-marijuana rallies, or at least celebratory marijuana gatherings, on April 20. Many famous landmarks are also targeted for public marijuana use, such as Parliament Hill in Canada. The city of Norwalk, Ohio, located near the intersection of Ohio state route 4 and U.S. route 20, is also thought to hold some sort of April 20th celebration. The authorities' reaction to these gatherings varies from place to place, as shown by prominent examples.

University of California, Santa Cruz

The annual congregation of UCSC students on April 20th gathers thousands each year, with an estimated 3,000 students gathering at the Porter College Meadow in 2006. The gathering attracts marijuana smokers and non-smokers alike; many people visit the field at or around 4:20 PM just to witness the "fog" of marijuana smoke that hovers over the crowd. Generally, these gatherings are peaceful, with bands or DJ's playing live music and students running food-stands under canopies. Authority figures seem to be nonexistent.

University of Colorado

The largest known celebration of this kind has been held annually for the past decade at Farrand Field, Boulder, Colorado, part of the University of Colorado campus, where protestors gather at 4:20 p.m. to smoke cannabis. In 2005, responding to negative press that year, University Police made their first attempt to disperse the gathering. They posted signs saying students were not allowed on the field that afternoon. After the field was overrun by an estimated 2000 or more students, police declined to issue any citations, as with past years. They did, however, turn the sprinklers on in an attempt to disperse the crowd. In another attempt to stop the celebration in 2006, the University put up signs telling students Farrand Field was closed for the afternoon, and even hired event staff to keep students from going onto the field. This, however, was a failed attempt, as thousands gathered around the field, only to storm it at around 4pm. In response, the university videotaped the gathering and are looking to prosecute students who attended it for trespassing. The university has posted pictures on the web in the hope that other students will identify other students in exchange for a $50 reward for each person caught. Following publication of this notice on pro 420 websites such as College Humour many false 'I.D.'s' were submitted, undermining the effectiveness of the University's attempt to catch those involved.

University of Vermont

It was a tradition for many years at the University of Vermont for a very large number of people to gather on the campus green and smoke openly in protest of marijuana prohibition laws. The protest was traditionally tolerated by the police, who would merely observe to ensure the safety of participants and bystanders. On April 20, 2002, however, incoming University President Daniel Fogel ordered campus police to maintain a more strict presence on the campus green. Students were not allowed to stay on the green for any reason and students who attempted to do so were ID'd, searched and detained. Fogel has stated multiple times before and since that he was trying to clean up the "reputation" of the University. Since then, police wearing bullet-proof vests and armed with shotguns have been a staple of 4/20 celebrations on the green, and while the protest has gone forward on a much smaller scale, police now arrest any smokers and the tone has changed markedly from that of a peaceful, albeit defiant, protest to one of conflict and division between students, police, and administrators.

---

Hitler's birthday

It is quite disappointing, a buzzkill even, that April 20th (4/20 in US date notation) is Hitler's birthday. This is merely a coincidence I assume, but an unfortunate since more stoners are so innocuoys, and Hitler obviously was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) September 26, 2006 (UTC)

Buzzkill? hell no. We celebrate! happy (almost(not really)) April 20!!I am Paranoid 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Once you have more than 365 evil people, you are statistically likely to have an evil person having a birthday on any day. Buzzkill, mabye, but think about how pissed off he would be that so many people get high an that day. HighInBC 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is statistically nonsense. That would be like saying a 1000 people pick a random number 1-1000, and then you are statistically likely to have no duplicates and full coverage of 1-1000. Give me a break. Anonymous

The stats of 365 evil people may be wrong, but the point he makes is still correct that BILLIONS of people are alive TODAY, and BILLIONS more have come and gone (like Hitler)... so of course there are evil people for every birthday in the world... Hitler shares his birthday with Napoleon III, Marcus Aurelius (a Roman Emperor), and Carmen Elektra and Joey Lawrence (whoa!)... so of course there are gonna be both good and evil people associated with any date... it just so happens that Hitler is commmonly considered the MOST EVIL person to ever live (at least in modern times) and that sucks that it's on 4/20, but who cares... I never even knew 4/20 was Hitler's birthday until after 4:20 became associated with pot and those 2 pieces of shit from columbine. In fact it's the 4:20 pot association that has stoners getting high and going "yo dude, did you know 4:20 is like Hitler's birthday?" ... so if everyone stops pointing out that 4/20 is Hitler's birthday then it wouldn't even be a topic when it comes to pot. But I like what someone said above, that I'm glad we can take a little of that shitstain of history's life and make it about something peaceful like smoking pot. :) Robk6364 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK its 20/4 anyway, SqueakBox 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

entire radio section uncited

This entire section is uncited, please return them to the article once citations are found: HighInBC 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Occurrences on the radio

Note: All times are P.M. unless otherwise specified.

• Many FM and some AM radio stations in the United States play a Bob Marley track daily at 4:20 p.m., a tradition usually known as Mandatory Marley.
• KZRR 94 Rock in Albuquerque, New Mexico, plays a Pink Floyd song every day at 4:20, which they refer to as the "4:20 Floyd Fix".
• 94.1 KPFA in Berkeley, California, airs "The 420 Report", hosted by Ed Rosenthal, typically on the last Friday of each month at noon. The hour includes cannabis-related news, as well as call-in advice for growers, patients, and people with legal troubles.
• 96.1 The Beat In Colorado Springs Colorado every day has the 4:20 bong hit of the day were they release an unreleased song
• 97.7 Hitz FM in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada airs a cannabis-related song at 4:20 daily, known as the "420 Funny".
• 99.7 the fox, a classic rock radio station in Charlotte, North Carolina has the 420 smoke break every day at 4:20 pm where they play songs by artists who are known marijuana users.
• 100.7 WZXL in New Jersey does a segment called "getting stoned on the ride home" at 4:20 on weekdays, during which a set of Rolling Stones tracks is played.
• DC 101 in Manassas, Virginia plays "Smoke 2 Joints" and asks callers to do bong hits on the air.
• 102.1 The Edge in Toronto, Canada has interesting discussions during 'The 420 Thought', on topics such as "Where is the best place to 420?"
• KMAD 102.5 in Sherman, Texas, plays the track "Mary Jane's Last Dance" by Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers at 4:20 on weekdays.
• 104.1 WMRQ in Hartford, CT, would host the "4:20 Brownie" every weekday, during which a cannabis related tune or popular stoner anthem was played, until they changed formats in September of 2003.
• A radio station in Roanoke, Virginia (96.3 FM) has a 4:20 Smoke Break every weekday at 4:20pm. Their slogan is "Smoke'em if you got'em)
• Classic Rock 104.5 KPUS[1] in Corpus Christi, Texas, listeners have the ability to "roll their own everyday at 4:20." At this time each day, one listener gets to pick three songs to play at 4:20. Bong bubbles are heard in the background between songs.
• 104.9 The Monkey in Seattle, Washington, radio station encourages listeners to call in and do bong rips over the phone at 4:20.
• 105.9 The Rock in Nashville, Tennessee, airs a segment every weekday at 4:20 called the "4:20 Smokebreak." Host Joe Elvis tells listeners, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em." The segment often plays songs related to marijuana.
• KROCK in Edmonton, Canada, does a "Roll Your Own" request segment every day at 4:20.
• The XM Radio station "The Boneyard" reminds everyone that it is 'bong time' at 4:20.
• The radio show 4:20 Drug War News, a short talk segment which promotes legalization of certain drugs, is usually aired at 4:20.
• The Tom Leykis Show has several callers take bong hits simultaneously on the air at 4:20 on April 20.
• In San Francisco, California everyday on 104.5 "KFOG", "Smoke Two Joints" by Sublime is played at 4:20.

---

The word "PEACE" is found in the King James Version of the Bible 420 times total. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.143.118.13 (talk • contribs) 19:20, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, not really relevent to the article though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

420 friendly

Hi - it's hard to find someone who says "420 friendly, that means you can smoke up", but do you think that there is ambiguity about what this (for example) room ad means? http://boston.backpage.com/rentals/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A407813&name=roommates Trollderella 18:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that 420 is used often as a code. Many event are most likely references to pot, even obviously to someone in the scene, however we need to verify it. This article was full of unverified material[2] before and my and a few editors have trimmed it down to verifiable stuff. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not an acceptable source, but it helps... http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=190143 Trollderella 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good start, if you can find that in a publication that qualifies as a reliable source then we can add it. Keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that we will find one, but here is another blog with the same explanation. http://thetreehouseandthecave.blogspot.com/2005/06/420-friendly.html

I agree, that is why alot of slang usage of the term is not in the article because by it is difficult to verify. Unfortunatly many unreliable source do no add up to one reliable source. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But the usage IS verified, the fact that this usage occurs in room ads is all that is being claimed here. Trollderella 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - here we go, how about this, from New West http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/boulder_still_a_bastion_of_hippies_and_radicals_apparently/C82/L40/ Trollderella 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

""But while cigarettes are a deal breaker for some, a number of Craigslist users across the country (Denver and Boulder, Colo.; San Francisco; Boston; and Portland, Ore., to name but a few) say that they are '420 friendly,' slang for marijuana use. References to 420 were nonexistent in other cities, including Little Rock, Ark.; Santa Fe, N.M.; and Boise, Idaho." Who knew Santa Fe was so square?" Trollderella 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that looks good. That is a reliable source supporting the idea that the number 420 is used to encourage cannabis smoker to rent. Thanks, good searching. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Trollderella 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

state bill 420

What about this? http://www.accsocal.com/why.php Trollderella 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the bill was name 420 as a cannabis reference? Or that a bill the just happened to be number 420 was about cannabis? I am note sure what you are asking. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure... It seems an odd coincidence, doesn't it? ;) Trollderella 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has come up before and it was removed because there was not way to verify that this was why they named it that, 420 comes up all over the place. Until this is demonstrated I don't think it should be included. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll move it to an article on SB420. Trollderella 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Snopes comments that the bill was likely named for the pop culture ref - does this change your mind? http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.htm Trollderella 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That one is questionable. We used the snopes article for the San Rafael highschool information, but the article lists Gaura, Maria Alicia. "Snickering Chic Traces Origin to San Rafael.",San Francisco Chronicle. 20 April 2000 (p. A19). as a reference.

While in this case the information is about a 2004 bill when none of the sources used for that article is later than 2002. This is a tought one to call for me. I will go and get a third opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request at third opinion[3] and someone should come along and add some insight. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

North America centred

I have never heard of this before coming to this article which makes me think it is a North American thing unknown in the UK, Europe and other parts of the world. if this is the case it needs mentioning, SqueakBox 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a mostly north american thing, but I am not sure how this can be verified. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, would the onus be on the article to show that it was common elsewhere? Since all the refs come from North America, would it not be reasonable to assume this unless there was evidence that it existed elsewhere? Trollderella 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One would need to cite that it happens elsewhere, if it made that claim. Likewise if it claims to be north american only then it would need to cite that. I beleive it is left unsaid right now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't think it's a little misleading not to mention that no reported sightings of the term outside North America have come to light? Or at least, that all of the references on the page come from North America? Trollderella 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not misleading. We are not an exhaustive source, just becuase we have not found it does not mean it does not exist. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but we would not be claiming that is does not occur, simply pointing out that we have no evidence that it does. Trollderella 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We avoid self refrences, meaning we don't use ourself as a source, and we try not to refer to ourselves in articles. Using the fact that we at wikipedia have not found something as the basis of a statement does not work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of surfing and it appears to have spread, eg www.uk420.com is a cultivation site, so I ahve added that it it originated in North America, it certainly never was around in my many years in British culture from the late seventies, so I, puit that in the article and asked for a citation, SqueakBox 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Having said it spread I suspect if you put an ad renting a room in the UK and put 420 on it nobody would have a clue what you were on about, that was certainly the case 5 years ago, SqueakBox 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, existing citations already support it has north american origin. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

In relation to the bill name, the Snopes article speculates that the bill's number "likely" was chosen for that reason. That's entirely possible, but it appears to be entirely the writer's speculation rather than anything that's sourced, and I don't see how any of the articles Snopes cites could possibly support that conclusion-they were all written before the bill was even in the works! Given that, I'd say a different source, which specifically states that the bill was done that way for that reason and gives some insight as to how they know that, is needed. Seraphimblade 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I tend to agree. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This short article should be merged into the more generalised Cannabis culture, also small. My reasons are preferring less rather than more articles as encyclopedic and it would, IMO, remove some of the badly sourced edits that are daily removed from the problem, SqueakBox 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both this article and the Cannabis culture article has alot of room force well soruced growth in the future. I don't think a merge is needed, removing unsourced info is always helpfull though. Hip makes a good point that 420 is a less global culture than general cannabis culture. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for the articles to remain separate. 420 is a North American phenomenon, the cannabis culture entry should be retained for more widely shared aspects of stoner sociology. Hiplibrarianship 05:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in article?

How does the accepted origin of the term, dating from 1971, concur with Bob Dylan's stated claim (in 1978) that his song Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 references the term, since the latter dates from 1966? Shock, horror! Could Dylan have said something misleading?! It would seem worth a mention.Leberquesgue 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it out - the ref does not mention it at all. (*In a 1978 interview Bob Dylan admits his song "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" references smoking marijuana. The reference to 420 is found when you multiply the numbers in the title. 12 x 35 = 420 [4]) Trollderella 02:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark 4:20, could be a possibility of origin

Mark 4:20 "Plant the seed and it shall grow." ref. Rastafari movement#Ganja --Anonymous 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anonymous. This is most likely the origin of 420 and should be included as a possible origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.63.54 (talk • contribs) 21:34, January 21, 2007 (UTC)

You need to find a source to corroborate that. 420 has nothing to do with Rastafari, SqueakBox 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, that would really need a source(Wikipedia does not use itself as a source), otherwise it is just one of hundreds of coincidences. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Could it have something to do with Senate Bill 420 (in U.S.) regarding medicinal use of marijuana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.215.214 (talk • contribs) 2:17, January 31, 2007

Ummm that would also need a source. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

420 like marijuana itself comes from India?

420 is Indian slang for "swindler" and refers to Section 420 of the Indian penal code. This phrase is used often in India and is widely recognized (although not connected to pot....) A hugely popular Bollywood Indian film from 1955 was called "Shri 420". Wikipedia has an article on the film itself

Swatkind 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Swatkind

4 + 20

A Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song on the album Déjá Vu was writen by Stephen Stills and released on March 11th 1970, this could be a posible origin?? any one else agree?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.233.122 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

• Is this a new record for spuriously-relevant addition suggestions? Not only does that have nothing to do with cannabis, but it doesn't even have anything to do with the number. Or am I being slow/crap at maths? Jdcooper 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Collie Buddz

• IMHO, the lyric is an overt reference to cannabis use, in a similar way as some of the other lyrics we have quoted in that section, I don't see any reason why that example shouldn't stay. Jdcooper 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page

We should get this article onto the main page for 20th April, dont you think? SqueakBox 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Listy

This article seems mostly comprised of lists of pop-culture references - can we convert some to prose? --Joopercoopers 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to reduce cruft in this article, it is a full time job as can be seen by the history. Converting the list to proper encyclopedic text would be a great improvement. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the lot - the problem is structural putting a 'can you think of any pop culture references to this topic' heading is just going to invite cruft, and is it really adding anything? I've removed this too:-

"One piece of evidence supporting an origin of the term from the time 4:20 is the fact that the term is always said "four twenty" in line with common U.S. terminology for time, rather than being pronounced "four-two-zero" or "four hundred and twenty"."

Clearly the corollary to this is that the phrase is simply easier to say as 4:20 than the other alternatives, it's unsourced and pure speculation. --Joopercoopers 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article looks better every time it is trimmed to the nub. This is how I found it: 420 (cannabis culture 19:15, August 24, 2006, now that is crufty. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

4:20 p.m. (or even a.m.) is also a popular time to consume canabis - there are so many other times that are popular, that even if it is sourced, it's simply not notable. --Joopercoopers 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we really treating the "High Times" article as a Reliable source? I think we should remove it, some of the other sources are a little dodgy too--Joopercoopers 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of the source should be measured against how controversial the claim is. 4:20 pm is I think notable because a) while people smoke at other times, this is the only time labeled as a specific time to smoke and b) it is the subject of the article.

I will work on more citations for the whole time of day thing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rverts this as unsourced. --Joopercoopers 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it out until it is sourced. It is true though, I will find sources later, then re-add it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, you guys are doing a great job of hacking this article down. I was so depressed watching this article, it was so poor i didn't know where to begin. Keep up the good work, but don't remove *everything*, eh?  ;) —Fudoreaper 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article now looks much better. well done! SqueakBox 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Context

Now that all the crap has been exorcised (which don't get me wrong is an ace development), shouldn't there be at least a sentence indicating how widespread the use of this term is, in a way substituting the stupid lists. Something like "Discreet references to cannabis via the use of the term are extremely common throughout North American culture, especially in hip hop and rock music, or whatever.", (obviously rewritten in non-hungover English) something to indicate the notability of the term. The list was a cruft-magnet, for sure, but removing the pop-culture references with no mention of them in their absence means the article doesnt really assert notability of the term at all. Or maybe it does, what does anyone reckon? Jdcooper 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actual origin of name

The actual origin of the phrase "420" comes from the market price of an oversized back of Funions, which currently cost $4.20