Talk:420 (cannabis culture)

In my area --- Phoenix, AZ --- this is known as "National Weed Day" and any references to, or uses of, "420," and even the date of "April 20," are rather inconsequential and barely mentioned in passing. Even today's [April 16, 2020] "Arizona Republic" newspaper (p. 1C) had an article titled "Where to celebrate National Weed Day in Phoenix" {my emphasis} with "420" and "April 20" only mentioned three times.

I put out a monthly informational Block Watch flyer in my neighborhood which includes dates of importantance for that month. To get those dates, I go to the respective month's article here at Wikipedia; and, I did not use the listing of "420 (cannabis culture) (international)" because I did not know what "420" meant --- non-"culture" people that I've talked with had no idea about this use --- and the additional 'tag' of "(cannabis culture)" I took to mean that this was some kind of 'event' for an extremely specialized/'limited' group of people, not for the public in general.

So, to me, the current article title plays to a smaller group as compared to "National Weed Day" which, I think, would play to, and attract, a much wider audience.

If I had seen "National Weed Day," I would'be included it in my flyer.

As such, any thoughts/comments about possibly modifying or changing the article's title?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Reply

I think the title should stay as it is. As non-american I had no idea what this was about and why this number is often banned from mentioning in YouTube chat groups, only that it is supposedly a drug reference. This article gave me the information I searched for in a few seconds also it is about the general use of the number 420 in this context, not especially about "National Weed Day", I probably would not have found this if it was titled as such. I don't know what the average reader will search for though, but imho either "National Weed Day" should forward to here, or be a whole own article (if there is enough relevant information to write about it). --Wulf 21 (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Reply

This is yet another example of Wikipedia's Americentrism, as National Weed Day as a cultural phenomenon is virtually unknown outside the US. In Europe, for example, April 20 is known and reviled as Adolf Hitler's birthday, and it would probably be unthinkable anywhere else to commemorate this day for such a lighthearted reason.

Nuttyskin (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

Have no problem with a redirect for Americans that use slag terms in everyday language .....but there is literally zero sources to support wide usage to validate an article Moxy 🍁 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

An editor recently removed two links to the official Waldos site: an inline reference (the group's first mention in High Times) and an external link at article's end. Most all sources reinforce the claim that the Waldos spurred the association of 4:20/420 with cannabis culture. Given that fact, I believe WP:EL and WP:RS support such uses of the Waldos site. I think the two recently removed links should be restored. How do others view the official Waldos site? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Reply

It's a commercial site that clearly does not meet WP:EL guidelines. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN. Besides, the group's first mention in High Times should be sourced to High Times., not some commercial site peddling t-shirts and memorabilia.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Reply

The paragraph starting with "As marijuana continues to be decriminalized and legalized around the world..." is clearly an advocacy statement. It should be revised or deleted as per WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROMOTION. I'll be editing or removing this shortly unless some discussion pops up here. Nonto4567 (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Reply

I don't see how that's advocacy; it's a factual statement that there is a world decriminalization trend; plenty of references here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Reply

I'm not disputing the quoted fact here, but the context and how it's being used. The quote that follows literally begins, "even if our activist work were complete..."

The purpose of this event may be to advocate for marijuana. But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to advocate for any cause.

The rest of the article is basically neutral, but this paragraph only exists to advocate for the cause.

tl;dr It's not encyclopedic in tone and has no clear purpose in the article. Nonto4567 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Reply

the purpose of Wikipedia is not to advocate for any cause

That is being wilfully disingenuous. The acknowledged purpose for which Wikipedia advocates is democratization of knowledge . Which is why Wikipedia is banned in, e.g., China.

Nuttyskin (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

Nonetheless I've anchored the sentence in 2017, and specifically to the US legalization, since this is the context of the quote. Moreover it is easier to stand up the claim that legalization in the US was progressing rapidly in 2017 than some generic world-wide progress which may have stalled a little by 2025 (or 2030, or whenever this article is being read). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC).Reply