Talk:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green

Original Reporting notes

• I arrived shortly after 10am, since I was providing the small PA system for the event. 'Stereotypical' disorganised-ness was well-evident, the makeshift pallet stage being assembled, then dismantled to be moved; getting the tent up over the stage was akin to watching The Three Stooges.
• Press were in-evidence from fairly early-on (Glasgo Herald IIRC).
• Had been informed couple of days prior that Glasgow Council attempted to revoke permission to hold the event on the preceding Thursday (17th). Police responded would still be in-attendance and make no moves to disperse, or break up, the event.
• Numbers around noon likely tallied with police official figures of ~150. Were higher later on in the afternoon, with my estimate closer to 200.
• Speaker from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is pictured.
• Also had speaker who claimed cannabis cured his prostate cancer when doctors gave him three months to live.
• Was a bit of a shambles early-afternoon; organiser put water into both generators, leaving no power to stage for nearly two hours. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I arrived, girlfriend in tow, around four. (Trains into Glasgow don't include a Sunday morning service, at least not on that Sunday.)
• I stayed until shortly after the 'official' end, an hour or so later.
• Hard to get a handle on numbers. People were coming and going a lot; some would be away from police long enough to smoke before returning, and some would actually be coming or going. A, um, high of ~200 seems a fair estimate with ~150 being more typical.
• The Facebook page for the event alone notes close to 700 said they were going. IRC discussions between Brian and I came to the conclusion a lot of people might not publicly advertise they were doing such. It has some other deets potentially useful for the article.
• With my camera refusing to work and Brian otherwise engaged, I took Brian's camera for a little wander round the event. The images serve pretty well as their own notes. In addition to the hemp products at the stall I also noted, but didn't picture, a number of people on the Green were drinking cannabis energy drink.
• I also got handed a flyer for Hemp Works Amsterdam, with the flyer talking of George Washington growing the stuff commercially.
• Police Scotland's presence was high-profile, with uniformed officers in high vis watching from all around the crowd. I consistently counted fourteen of them. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Plenty of stuff (of varying quality/interest) from the organisers at their main fb page, here. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sativex cost

Got that from a quick bit of online research; various forums where people with private prescriptions cite low-end figures of £480 for three bottles of the stuff. Tied into figures Chris (organiser) made use of when highlighting the patented tincture. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect that'd be less likely to stick in a reviewer's throat if some sample links to that data were thrown up on talk. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed; this mention from 2012, relating to use for MS, cites the £480 RRP for 3 bottles. There's also this stating: "A month’s prescription of Sativex costs the NHS £560.00." --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

James Duffy

Got his name here. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Police interactions

• This diff is sourced to this thread. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cultivation

• here is sentencing data for the offence if charged south of the border in w:England and Wales, confirming the illegality (the Misuse of Drugs Act is UK-wide legislation although Scotland has a separate court system). Here is a statement on the legal position from a site I never thought I'd visit, an open supplier of seeds. I can confirm it's accurate. Paraphernalia is legal. The plant isn't. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Headline

The headline, although presumably clever, is too vague. I don't know what the article is about before clicking to read the body ("green" could mean any number of things). It could also be argued that Glasgow Green is not notable enough, especially to someone that doesn't know the geography of Strathclyde (it could even be argued that Glasgow isn't notable enough – it doesn't stand alone in AP datelines, for example). Microchip08 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Glasgow is Scotland's most-populous city, Category:Glasgow has numerous precedents for it being standalone and not requiring 'Scotland' as a qualifier.

Word-play headlines are commonplace, but I'm open to suggestions that clarify without being overly-verbose. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Merely appending something to the end would do: Celebrating 'Green' on Glasgow Green in <adjective> cannabis festival? Microchip08 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis society celebrates the green stuff on Glasgow Green? Also throwing out a suggestion made during arrangements for attending, Wikinews 'says high' to Glasgow Cannabis Social Club's annual celebration. The problem with the latter being I can't instantly find where the organisers used their "come and say high" pun. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city Green (after some thought). Shoutout to Chip for coming up with a neutral way of saying 'stoners'. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2566393 [Passed]

Revision 2566393 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Edit during review was with notice to me off-wiki. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2566393 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Edit during review was with notice to me off-wiki. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Discussion elsewhere

This article has been mentioned on an English Wikipedia discussion page at w:Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Wikinews: Where woo is fine.. Microchip08 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in question would have been better worded with "claimed" instead of "explained". One or another of us might have caught that at the time. I'm considering whether it would warrant a mild {{correction}}; the fact that he's trying to make it a big deal doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't matter.

I'd be interested to hear brianmc's view on the matter. --Pi zero (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• This was what the individual stated. Yet again Adam fails at reading comprehension.

The report does not attribute this to Wikinews; we are not saying "Cannabis oil cures cancer", but reporting that an individual stated this did so for them.

I wasn't 100% happy with the word-choice, but felt 'claimed' would have been too-weak a way to word what was said to the crowd. I'm going to refrain from entering the childish debate over on Wikipedia, and would suggest everyone from Wikinews similarly shun this idiocy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the likes of Veriditas are now involved. My one remark over there (which I knew I shouldn't bother with before I made it, really) was, at least, a good thermometer for the situation: if anyone around there could see that Adam is pursuing a vendetta, they might be worth talking to.

After sleeping on it overnight, my insight re correction is that any correction wording I can imagine would portray either the correcter or the reader as rather silly. --Pi zero (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could add 'his belief' after explained, although it pushes slightly against being a content edit. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am loathe to entertain the ravings of a yellow-journalism hack such as Cuerden. He's raised this issue in the most-inflammatory way possible; one can assume that's not just another pathetic attempt to rally torch and pitchfork-wielding Wikipedians, but an attempt to provoke a knee-jerk response from people here on Wikinews.

If we are to make a correction, BRS' remarks highlights a possible approach. It strikes me as a willful misreading to arrive at the "Wikinews says cannabis cures cancer" conclusion Cuerden is shouting about; however, if we are to make a change, I would suggest substituting "asserted" for "explained" and moving on. There is no point whatsoever in getting dragged into the sort of debates that are one of the prime drivers behind contributors abandoning Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the story

I'd prefer to see the following tightened up and explained: "The Daily Record reported five arrests were made for minor offences, likely smoking and possession of small quantities of cannabis. Taking a less-sensational — and more accurate — line of reporting, the Monday edition of Glasgow's Evening News stated five were referred to the Procurator Fiscal who is responsible for deciding if charges should be brought." My feeling is that you shouldn't say one paper is more accurate than another this way because it seems crass, and because I'd rather know exactly how this is more accurate, and get some extra background. Remember, some of us are from the U.S. and wouldn't know a w:Procurator Fiscal from a hole in the ground. Also, it sounds like "arrest" is inappropriate, but "arrested" appears lower down in one of the photo legends. Please make it clearer what the inaccuracy is, preferably without even having to mention it. I'm thinking a sentence that begins "Technically,..." might work wonders.

I'd like to see a link to the group's site on Facebook in preference to the en.wiki article about Facebook. The group also apparently has a site at http://ukcsc-scotland.org/ (apparently Glasgow grew into Scotland Cannabis Clubs and then UKCSC?)

I'm more accustomed to the Wikipedia style with little thumbnails that could be expanded worked in with appropriate sections of the text rather than a big slideshow, but I suppose that's how Wikinews does things. In any case though, is there an acceptable way to annotate, say, that the hydroponics dealer is photo #19 in the text about him?

In photo #18, a trumpet player is mentioned, but two people with guitars and/or bass (I'm no expert) stand near him. Is there any way to be more general in the legend (though admittedly you may be dealing with a lack of further information)? I feel like it's a pity that the bands aren't listed, since it would give a good sense of the level of financial backing behind the protest.

Would it be desirable to name and link to some of the companies in the legend for photo #20-#21?

The crowded tent with sign "CBD tent" is interesting. Were they able to distribute cannabidiol, a notable herbal therapeutic mentioned by Sanjay Gupta in "Weed"? Wnt (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wnt.

Our workflow for article production is different from Wikipedia's. The reporter (or reporters, but usually one) writes the article, then submits it for review. A reviewer — who must be independent of article creation (i.e., not a coauthor) — rigorously checks it, and may may minor copyedits but can't do anything major enough to disqualify them as an independent reviewer. If there's a major problem, they mark the article not-ready and explain the problem, and it's the reporter's turn again. Once the article has been published, it usually doesn't get changed significantly. 24 hours after publication, our archiving policy kicks in, and we aren't allowed to make significant changes (just minor copyedits).

You may find WN:PILLARS helpful. --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, phooey. Well, never mind then. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To comment in order;

• We state, point blank, it's more accurate because our reporters were there (in Brian's case all day) and witnessed no arrests. I'm not overly fond of the phrasing on this part, however. In any case it's far too late for substantive changes since news is an archive of what was known at the time.
• I don't understand the fiscal thing. It's linked to Wikipedia and explained in the text ("who is responsible for deciding if charges should be brought").
• I see the problem with 'arrested' at image #16. I'm not sure possession even is arrestable on the first instance.
• We don't ordinarily do links to non-WMF sites in article text. We can stick them in an external links section, which in this case seems reasonable for UKCSC Scotland (that website hurts my eyes, incidentally). It's not a content edit as such and so I've gone ahead and done it.
• Wikinews occasionally does photoessays, where the original photos are the main attraction. (A picture paints a thousand words, etc.) This article follows that style, although the text is somewhat more substantive than a photoessay. One would expect readers to settle down to go through the slideshow, if they're interested. (If they aren't then, well, why are they reading it? :P)
• Caption #18 could possibly have been vaguer. Although, the other figures are really in the background and the focus is the trumpet guy.
• A list of bands, if one could be found or drawn up, would indeed have been cool.
• A fuller list of the products at the stall would also have been neat. I didn't obviously notice cannabidiol, which is not to say it wasn't there.

The feedback is much appreciated, coming from one of those on-scene. Thanks! BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• The two bands which were meant to be on first turned up with a good-deal of equipment, including a huge 300W (RMS) bass amp which kept tripping the circuit-breaker on one of the generators. When the organiser then topped up the two generators with water, and took an age to realise this, those bands had already packed up and left.

I can relatively easily find those bands' names, but not the folks who turned up with only instruments and simply played. Sadly, I didn't have time to take notes of the announcements before they went on; I was sat too-close to the working generator with a pair of headphones on - trying to make them sound half-decent. Had BRS not turned up, I doubt there would've been enough photos to make a photo essay out of the event. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)