Talk:San Marcos Seven/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes on sources

This article about a cannabis organization, who've been inactive for more than two decades, was taken directly from three principle sources. The sources were an article in The New York Times on April 10, 1991, an article in The Austin Chronicle in late 1991 or early 1993, and an article in the San Antonio Express-News in July, 1993.

The Times article is archived on the internet, however the smaller newspapers are not cataloged. I'm actively seeking scans of these, and other news clippings, in order to fill gaps in this article. The San Antonio Express-News published a photo of the tent city, for instance, that would be very appropriate here.

I've made several attempts to contact members of the San Marcos Seven, hoping someone kept a scrapbook, so far unsuccessfully. I live more than a thousand miles from Texas, so it isn't convenient for me to visit a library or historical society to look at microfilm.

This article was created as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration for the purpose of improving it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing information

 Done This article needs photographs. I've found photos of Joe Ptak. But they're more recent, from the era of KIND Radio, another project Ptak launched. A scan of the Express-News tent city picture would be most appropriate. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Need information about the outcome of Joe Ptak's trial, and his sentencing and incarceration. Ptak's trial was held in 1993. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are hard, as they need to be licensed appropriately. If an image obtained by scanning a newspaper article is uploaded to Wikipedia, it will likely be deleted as a copyright violation. Please read WP:IUP. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, according to Wikipedia's image use policy: "Be very careful when uploading copyrighted images, fully describe images' origins and copyright details on their description pages, and try to make images as useful and reusable as possible." A scan of a page from a newspaper that was published before 1997 for the purpose of illustrating an encyclopedia might be considered fair use. However, a photograph in the image may need to meet additional licensing requirements, depending on who owns the photo. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To do

• Find images, and obtain appropriate permissions.
• Locate The Austin Chronicle article(s) from 1991 through 1993 covering Jeffrey Stefanoff's trial and sentencing.
• Cite the above Chronicle story in references.
•  Done Locate High Times article from 1993 in which Joe Ptak is awarded Freedom Fighter of the Month for organizing the encampment. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Find additional sources of information to fill gaps in the narrative.
•  Done Give article balance from a neutral perspective by listing facts, comparing the defendant's trials without editorializing.
•  Done Add section: "Background". -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Done Add sub-section: "Stefanoff's lawsuit". -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Remaining gaps

• Still missing details about Jeffrey Stefanoff's trial and sentencing.
• The Austin Chronicle online archive goes back only to 1995; still need Austin Chronicle citations from 1991-1993.
• Also missing any details about Joe Ptak's trial and sentencing. Why parole, no jail time for Ptak?

-- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Before this is moved to mainspace

Extended content

It is unclear to me if this meets WP:GNG at all. There is no source here where all seven are even named. The 2nd ref added from the Dallas Observer at least contained the phrase "san marcos seven" so there is at least a source for the article name. The page currently contains a boatload of unsourced content, including quotes. Without sources we don't know if the content is a) completely invented or actually copied from somewhere else or is actually a valid summary of a reliable source. About content like this, which the page is full of: "During the trial, no discussion was allowed of Stefanoff's motive for going to the police station with a cannabis cigarette. No discussion was allowed of marijuana's legal history, nor was use of the word hemp or reference to its alternative uses allowed by Judge Wilson." I can imagine that the trial was focused on whether Stefanoff broke law X or not. I imagine that Stefanoff wanted to use the trial to make some big speeches about legalizing marijuana, and the judge didn't let him. So at best this content is drawn from some partisan source; at worst it is OR/WP:EDITORIALIZING by the editor who added it. In either case it is obvious and blatant POV pushing from the POV that Stefanoff should have been allowed to make speeches. This needs a lot of cleanup before it gets added to WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) On the contrary, I think this article is very much ready to be moved over to the main space. And it's been only a short time and required just a small amount of work. Is it perfect? No. Is it finished? No, and it never will be. I resisted marking the To do section as "done," for that reason. Even though I'm done with my part, for now. (And pictures are a nice touch, but they're not necessary in an article; And something will come along, eventually.) About the question: Is it notable? I think that there's no question the article meets WP:GNC requirements. You may doubt that, if you wish. But that would require explaining just exactly how Smart Approaches to Marijuana is a more notable organization of people than the San Marcos Seven. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

new content

Resolved

Extended content

the following was added toay: Stefanoff was arrested for growing cannabis at his home. He told the jury he used marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder as a Vietnam War Army veteran. He was convicted, in 2000, and mounted an unsuccessful appeal. Later in 2000, at a march and rally at the state Capitol in Austin, Stefanoff encouraged the crowd of hundreds gathered for the event to engage in civil disobedience, like he did, as a way of forcing the end to cannabis prohibition. References The first two sentences are not supported by the source: "Stefanoff was arrested for growing cannabis at his home." " He told the jury he used marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder as a Vietnam War Army veteran. He was convicted, in 2000, and mounted an unsuccessful appeal. " I took those two sentences out. The article also says there were about 300 people here; "the crowd of hundreds" is promotional. Please don't add content to Wikipedia that is not supported by a reliable source and please write neutrally. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Note Please be careful when editing not to delete sourced material, such as the first three sentences: "Stefanoff was arrested for growing cannabis at his home. He told the jury he used marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder as a Vietnam War Army veteran. He was convicted, in 2000, and mounted an unsuccessful appeal." References The information is clearly supported in the references. And secondly, though your criticism of the fourth sentence is rational—neutrality is important—it is oddly curious, because the very first word, in the source, is hundreds. And later in the reference itself the group is described as a crowd. "Later in 2000, at a march and rally at the state Capitol in Austin, Stefanoff encouraged the crowd of hundreds gathered for the event to engage in civil disobedience, like he did, as a way of forcing the end to cannabis prohibition." References I left this edit done by Jytdog because, even though it's curious and possibly not neutral, it is rational. And acceptable, I think the new sentence reads better, even though Jytdog's phrasing might be somewhat plagiaristic of the source: "In 2000, at a march and rally at the state Capitol in Austin that included about 300 people, Stefanoff encouraged people engage in civil disobedience, like he did, as a way of forcing the end to cannabis prohibition." -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC) So really, please do research carefully, and add your contributions to this article. There are plenty of Courthouse, City Hall, and other public records to add to the list. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

7?

Extended content

The Daily Times article says: "A man who smoked marijuana at police facilities last March in a stunt to gain support for marijuana legalization has been sentenced to four months in jail. Joe Caddy, 30, of San Marcos, was one of nine protesters who gathered March 12 .... Plea bargains were struck with six of the protesters and two other trials are pending, said Hays County District Attorney Marcos Hernandez Jr." so - seems that we should be talking about nine people, not seven. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Please read the article. All nine are mentioned in the Civil disobedience section. And they're talked about, at length, in the NYT source. As this article expands, a section can be added re how the group was named. (It's an an interesting story, in itself; they didn't name themselves; San Marcos Seven was derogatory, coined in the media, dismissing them as relics of the 60s (akin to the Chicago Seven from two decades before them). Oh. Thanks, by the way. Catching the fact that the outcome of Stefanoff's appeal, after his 2000 conviction, isn't mentioned in the reference is, indeed, very close scrutiny on your part. However, the outcome is mentioned in other sources. And it could be considered to be accepted knowledge, since that's easily found in Court records. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC) About the last bit - that is not how Wikipedia works. There are some things that are "sky is blue" but whether somebody lost or won an appeal is not that kind of information. If you want to add factual content to Wikipedia and have it "stick", it must be cited to a reliable source. If you establish a pattern of adding unsourced content to mainspace, you will end up getting blocked or banned. (There is context here - people add incorrect information to Wikipedia all the time - sometimes in good faith but mistaken, sometimes in bad faith, intentionally trying to create mistakes to see how long they will last, or just because they are bored. The way the community provides this service to the world - these hopefully good articles - is by following the policies and guidelines. Which means only adding content to Wikipedia that you actually have a reliable source for, and citing that source, and being sure that the content you add is truly NPOV.) You won't get resistance from anybody if you edit well, and even if you do get resistance your edits will gain consensus. Bad edits will get removed and even if you are argue for them, the arguments will fail. You can avoid all that by editing well. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Not a problem. And ditto back at you, both the good and the bad: You make good points. I'll go back and restore the sentence and add the citation, above. That's just a minor detail, not a big deal in the piece, overall. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC) we appear to have a conflict between the NYT which says of one of the nine: "Another was talked out of his plan by a friendly deputy, who reminded him that with the arrest he would be found in violation of his parole for another offense." which mean would only eight that did anything arrest-able; 7 for pot and one for drinking (which appears to be a Class C misdemeanor not Class B which is more serious per this). But the Kerrville article reporting on the 1st trial outcome says " Plea bargains were struck with six of the protesters and two other trials are pending". That means that nine were charged with something. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC) NYT is only one of the sources. Most of the others tell the story a little differently. That's why it's important to find consensus among multiple sources. Over-relying on a single source is forgetting that sources themselves, even reliable ones like NYT, can have errors. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC) do not ever remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced content. especially not about living people. Finding more sources and building the content up, citing as you go, is the way to work. The article is in draft space and can be developed this way, until it is solid. But waving your hands at sources that are not cited is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Agreed, However, right now there are six fairly reliable sources that are cited online, not just one. And there are two additional fairly reliable, lengthy sources that aren't in digital form noted, above, on the talk page. Remember, according to WP:GNG, "[s]ources do not have to be available online." (And, too, I remind you, that's why there's a To do list, above.) -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC) What matters are the actual refs cited. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Also, please be careful not to rely too heavily on a single source, for information. Even trustworthy sources can make errors. Often once an error is made, it gets repeated by other sources, complicating the problem. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Avoid relying too heavily on a single source When a reliable source makes a mistake, often it gets repeated. This should be avoided. In order to have only facts, please use caution. Review multiple sources and double-check their accuracy. Court records are usually reliable, but even there can be typos and other mix-ups. The story of the San Marcos Seven is especially prone to this, receiving broad media coverage, telling and retelling the events. For example important note: a tenth activist, Brett Stahl, is sometimes confused as being part of the San Marcos Seven, because of unclear news stories. Head shop owner Brett Stahl, a FIJA activist, was also arrested for having cannabis at the police station, separately from the San Marcos Seven, when he went there to buy tax stamps for it. And Stahl was part of the Hemp City encampment. He even embarked on his own hunger strike outside the prison, in support of the protesters. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

Unclear to me what encyclopedic value there is to these quotes

Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings told a New York Times reporter, "They are just old hippies going through a change of life. They're still looking for a cause." But according to Mike Kleinman of the Texas chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, "It's a witch hunt. Marijuana is not a dangerous drug. No one's died from it. Not like cigaretts or alcohol."

References

It is unclear what encyclopedic value these quotes have. I have moved them here for further discussion. Sometimes articles on events like this have sections on "Reception" or the like. Generally those sections just become kind of boring places for predictable "For" and "against" content. anyway, this is the place to discuss whether these quotes belong in the article and if they do, where they would go. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dialog

Not all the published quotes between participants in this campaign and elected officials will pass collective scrutiny by this group. However, I think the consensus of the news coverage, at the time, was that it was a dialog. The protesters were quoted saying they were trying to get a response from Texas Governor Richards, and maybe even get the attention of President Clinton. So I think some of the quotations are relevant. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thing that is apparent and prevails throughout the sources, and perhaps can only be reported neutrally by letting the participants use their own words, is the general tone of laughter at the protestor's motives by administrators, in contrast to the seriousness of the activists, willing to sacrifice their freedom for something they believed in so strongly that they were willing to go on hunger strikes. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think many of the secondary sources, themselves, recognized the quotes' significance and found the quotes important. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

In order to facilitate this discussion, I will compile a list of published quotes that I've found, below. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• "I walked up to the police station, and I lit up a joint and then I walked inside and took a big puff of it and told the lady I was there to support the legalization of marijuana." - Joe Gaddy
• "They are just old hippies going through a change of life. They're still looking for a cause." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "We have a little time warp here in parts of Hays County." - Criminal District Attorney Marcos Hernandez, Jr.
• "They're doing this because they want to smoke their grass. These people are extremely good actors if they can sit there with a straight face and tell me that's not what they're going for." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "It's a coincidence that you can get high with something that also can save the planet." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "I have no special strength. I'm not crazier than anyone else. If a 20-year-old hometown girl can stand up to the government in this way, then everyone else can." - Angela Atkins
• "I wonder how many people get sentenced to four months for a first-time possession of marijuana?" - Joe Gaddy
• "I did it to make a point. The only way I know how to fight the law was by breaking it. I had no other recourse other than to break the law." - Joe Gaddy
• Court testimony: "I told all the officers exactly why I was there. ... As a citizen of the United States, I have the right to address the government if I think something is wrong. ... I told them the Constitution was written on hemp paper." - Joe Gaddy
• Court testimony: "If there are bad laws, we can change them. ... Y'all are my judges here, so it's important to me for you to understand that I did not break the law out of malice." - Joe Gaddy
• "I think there may be some hypocrisy in that alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. I had a child killed by a drunk driver. But (Gaddy) broke the law. It is our duty as jurors to apply the law." - Jury foreman Ivy Hjomevik
• "We tell older people we're not living in the 60s. You're all living in the 50s." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "This is a hunger strike until Ann Richards will at least give me the time of day." - Joe Gaddy
• "I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana and I am opposed to changing any law that would make marijuana more accessible to the general public. While you believe this is a noble cause, I cannot support you." - Texas Governor Ann Richards
• "I walked into the San Marcos police station to smoke a joint, asking for legalization to save the planet for environmental reasons." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "I really believe in what I'm doing. When I walked into that police station the first time, I had a vision of what the world could be like. It was a religious experience." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• Court testimony: "My intent was to save the planet, clear and simple." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "Don't we have more important things to think about?" - Assistant District Attorney David Watts
• "The DA asked for 120 days and they gave him 180, knowing there are 16 families depending on him to get food to them. It's a witch hunt. Marijuana is not a dangerous drug. No one's died from it. Not like cigaretts or alcohol." - Texas NORML Secretary Mike Kleinman
• "Everybody knows you can smoke pot to get high. What we want to do is get the word out on these other uses." - Hemp City organizer Brett Stahl
• "The sheriff said I could stay here as long as I was passive and nonviolent." - Hemp City organizer Brett Stahl
• "It was really heavy, getting people to camp out in front of the jail. A lot of people said, 'I can't stay here. It makes me too paranoid.'" - Hemp City organizer Vicki Hartin
• "It's got to start somewhere." - Hemp City protester Richard Harbour
• "I don't agree with what they are doing, but as long as they are not hampering sheriff department operations, people coming and going, it might be a nuisance but it's nothing to take action on." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "It's not very pretty, but they're not causing any trouble. I don't agree with what they're doing, but this is the United States of America, and they can do it as long as they're not breaking any laws." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "As long as he's on some sort of fast, he's not eligible to earn any time for good behavior." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "We have a president who's never inhaled and a sheriff's candidate (Stefanoff) who hasn't exhaled since 1974." - Hays County Sheriff Paul Hastings
• "We're living under more draconian laws than existed during Prohibition. Every 45 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for marijuana." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "Walk in the police station, and turn yourselves in. If we put every one of you into the courthouse, it's over." - Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff
• "We didn't want to be dismissed as a bunch of potheads. I didn't smoke it, I don't smoke it. I brought in a pinch of pot, put it on the counter, and said this should be legal." - Jody Dodd

References

-- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to use quotations to have content describing what happened. In general we summarize sources and provide an encyclopedic overview of article topics. WP is not a newspaper. You are not speaking to the mission - to provide readers with articles summarizing accepted knowledge. That's all we do here. (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING which is part of What Wikipedia is not, which is the policy that describes what WP is for, and what it isn't for. See also the WP:NOTADVOCACY part of that policy) Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm merely making the case that some of these quotes are significant. And a few of them are necessary in order to outline the narrative in a neutral way. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

you have not made any case that any quotes are necessary. please do, if you think they are. Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think others besides you and me can have an opportunity to weigh-in also. The two of us could go back and forth forever. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided any argument for including any specific quotes in this article, that anyone can use to evaluate whether quotes would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Slanted?

Resolved

Extended content

Hammer of Thor, please explain how the content that you removed here, is "slanted": the sheriff informed them that the penalty would be lower if they smoked in the parking lot. One of them was on parole and when informed by the sheriff that getting arrested would send him back to prison, declined to participate. Another didn't bring enough marijuana to be arrested, but was arrested for public drunkenness. In my view this shows something very typical in civil disobedience, which is cooperation between protestors and police. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I'm open to returning some of this content as the article expands, I like simply summarizing with the word "cooperation" or "cooperative" or some such brief phrase. The details are irrelevant. I agree that this article should mention what was very much prevalent throughout all the sources: This was a very "civil" act of civil disobedience. The details (about drunkenness of someone who was associated, for instance) are insignificant here. At least for the time being. And I think that the article would have to expand a great deal before they'd be needed. I also must point out that the entire section was paraphrased from one person's point of view, the sheriff's. His side of the story, and paraphrased from a single source, a New York Times piece. I would support a summary phrase about how "civil" the the whole thing was, if neutral from a broader range of sources. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Your comments about the reliability of the NYT article are irrelevant in Wikipedia; it is an extremely reliable source. You can take that to RSN to challenge it and you will get shot down with fire. There are only nine people who participated in this and we have sources that say what happened with all nine. You have provided no policy or guideline based objection to this content. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Are you still interested in restoring some of this content, from the NYT source, to the Civil disobedience section? I'm comfortable with adding: The civil disobedience was cooperative between protesters and police. Two of the nine protesters were not arrested for marijuana possession. One of them didn't bring enough marijuana to be arrested. And one of them was on parole and was talked out of getting arrested by a sheriff's deputy. That's a neutral summary, in my opinion. Any objections? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog: ? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Nope. Your original objection makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

remaining BLP violations

Resolved

Extended content

There are people who are living or recently dead who are discussed by name in this article. The article cannot be moved to mainspace until there are reliable sources for anything said about a living or recently deceased person. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog: Thank you for all your help editing this article. I LOVE your last edit, in the After 1991 section. I couldn't have gotten this article ready for WP without you. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC) the article as it stands now, like this, is OK to move to mainspace. If you insist on adding back the unsourced content about people, it will need to stay here. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

unsourced

Resolved

Extended content

per WP:PRESERVE moving these things here until they can be sourced" first this: Angela Atkins, Jody Dodd, Daniel Rodrigues Scales, Bill O'Rourke, Then this: The four who pleaded guilty were given deferred adjudication and ordered to do community service work. Then this: During the trial, no discussion was allowed of Stefanoff's motive for going to the police station with a cannabis cigarette. No discussion was allowed of marijuana's legal history, nor was use of the word hemp or reference to its alternative uses allowed by Judge Wilson. After delivering the maximum sentence, the jury for Stefanoff's trial filed out of the courtroom quickly, without looking at anyone, according to The Austin Chronicle. Texas NORML Secretary Mike Kleinman said, "The DA asked for 120 days and they gave him 180, knowing there are 16 families depending on him to get food to them." Stefanoff, 38, delivered meals for the San Marcos Area Food Bank, and was committed to a long list of other community activities. and also this: He ended his hunger strike on the twentieth day of his incarceration at the Hays County jail. He was given intravenous nutrient injections against his will at the prison infirmary, three weeks into the fast, and elected to end his strike after receiving the following two-sentence letter from Texas Governor Ann Richards: "I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana and I am opposed to changing any law that would make marijuana more accessible to the general public. While you believe this is a noble cause, I cannot support you." and this: An article in the San Antonio Express-News, accompanied by a photograph of the protest camp, which was decorated with banners and American flags, stated that the demonstrators regard hemp as a "miracle herb" with great potential as a source of fuel, fiber and medicine. --Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) More sources According to WP, sources are not required to be available online. But that's all right, there's no hurry, the material can be returned to the article when proper citations for the off-line sources are done. But the information that's important, below, should be returned to the article without further delay: Angela Atkins, Jody Dodd, Daniel Rodrigues Scales, Bill O'Rourke, References The four who pleaded guilty were given deferred adjudication and ordered to do community service work. References -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Those booking sources do not link them to this event. Using them as refs to do that, is WP:OR. And all the Kerrville ref says is "Plea bargains were struck with six of the protesters" - it says nothing about community service or "deferred adjudication". Do not misrepresent sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Here's another source that mentions they were sentenced to do community service work. I've restored that bit of content. References I'm not sure what the issue is that you have with the phrase deferred adjudication. By definition, deferred adjudication is a plea bargain. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Jody Dodd, Daniel Rodriguez Scales References -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Angela Atkins An article in the San Antonio Express-News, accompanied by a photograph of the protest camp, which was decorated with banners and American flags, stated that the demonstrators regard hemp as a "miracle herb" with great potential as a source of fuel, fiber and medicine. References -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Now sources have been located and most of the important information here has been restored to the article, I'm marking this section resolved. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Status?

Extended content

@Jytdog: You've been following the construction of this article. I have not read all of the above sections. I don't see any more 'citation needed' tags. Based on your recent edits, do you think the draft is now appropriate to move into the main space? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @Another Believer: The errors added by Jytdog, such as "Three" people went on hunger strike should be corrected before this article is moved to the main space. There are several other instances of unrelated content, in violation of WP standards, added by the editor Jytdog. And legal jargon added by Jytdog should be restored to common English. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) i noted above, here, that with my edits last night (took out the BLP violations and other unsourced content, and everything in the article is now verified) it is good to go as far as I am concerned. I'm fine with your and Brianhe's changes. I just fixed what i think HoT is referring to with "jargon"; don't know what they mean by "unrelated". According to HoT the number of hunger strikers isn't accurate but the sources we have only describe three hunger strikers. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, I am also curious why "three hunger strikes" is wrong. @The Hammer of Thor: What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with me moving this draft to main space? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Update: Seems more than 3 people went on a hunger strike. I removed the sentence from the lead since it's not necessary for the lead. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Speculation about "Red Ribbon Week" is unrelated content. And worse, it's speculation. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) It is in the source, and gives a reason why the sentence was so harsh. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @The Hammer of Thor: The article may not be perfect, but are you now comfortable with moving the draft to main space, or allowing me to do so? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC) No. That's not how WP sourcing guidelines work. The phrase "may have been influenced by the fact that" is leading. It's not balanced by other speculations, like the article on a whole. The "fact" is a fact. And the newspaper is a good secondary source for that fact. But the newspaper is the primary source of the speculation. And that speculation is not backed up by any secondary sources. Other sources speculate that the jury might have been intimidated by the judge, citing jurists who were quoted as saying that they agreed the law should be changed but thought they had no choice but to convict. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC) More errors, in the section about the prison hunger strikes, Gaddy and Stefanoff are mixed up. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Very confusing sentence about President Clinton! And very misleading, possibly even slanted, part about hunger strikers camped outside the jail, one of whom got his name in the paper. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC) @Another Believer: I'd say it's good to go, as soon as the corrections above are made and the information in "more sources", above gets restored. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Exactly what other sources speculate that the jury might have been intimidated by the judge, citing jurists who were quoted as saying that they agreed the law should be changed but thought they had no choice but to convict? If you are going to say something is in sources, cite them. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time, including yours. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC) The Kerrville source quotes a juror who said "I think there may be some hypocrisy in that alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't I had a child killed by a drunk driver...But (Gaddy) broke the law. It is our duty as jurors to apply the law." Nothing about intimidation. Not a thing. Second time you are misrepresenting sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Right on. Please assume good faith, @Jytdog: -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC) My comment has nothing to do with your good faith or not. Instead of these childish tit-for-tat retorts, please start learning how to edit Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC) @The Hammer of Thor and Jytdog: Do either of you object to moving this draft to the main space at this time? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC) it is still fine. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC) It's fine to move, as it has been all along. Though I have some objections to non-neutral tone, that can be addressed in the main space. And I think the article needs one or two quote boxes in order to let the events speak for themselves, or at least to balance the editorializing. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"Judge Warner"

Resolved

Extended content
Does "Judge Warner" have a first name? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC) fixed. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Done, thanks! I marked this section as resolved. I wonder if the judge's name should be redlinked? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Resolved

Extended content

In this diff: an age for Stefanoff of 38 was added; that is not in the source provided (Observer). Please stop adding unsourced content to this article. "While incarcerated, the activists went on hunger strikes" was added. This is kind of OK for the two who were jailed, but at least one protestor also went on a hunger strike. The content was taken out in this diff by Another Believer, in order to resolve the dispute we were having about how to discuss the hunger strikes in the lead, and Another Believer noted that they removed it above, in this dif. Removing it wasn't at all "sloppy" as the edit note stated. If you want to restore this Hammer of Thor, please propose language so we can agree on it. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Another Believer is a very good editor; It wasn't his edit that was sloppy, when Another Believer removed Jytdog's edit, that was either careless or intentionally slanted. The source of Stefanoff's age is cited in the references (The New York Times). Never remove sourced material. I believe that Jytdog has good intentions, but he just doesn't look before he leaps. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC) You didn't that source or any source; I did not remove sourced content. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Corrections to the information and the appropriate citations have been made. Thanks. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

@Jytdog and The Hammer of Thor: You two are most familiar with this article's sourcing. Would either of you object to upgrading this article to C-class status? Seems more advanced than start-class, unless either of you feel there are still major content gaps present. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but I don't care about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sure, just trying to get a sense of this article's quality based on its primary contributors. I'm not too concerned, either, but wasn't sure if either of you were trying to make incremental steps towards GA status. No worries! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what status class means; I'm just hoping to make the article honest, and informative, and interesting---the best it can be! -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Appeal court decision

Resolved

Extended content

Hammer of Thor - about this: Stefanoff appealed his conviction and in 1998 the appeal was dismissed. References Two things: this is a primary source and per every policy and guideline, WP strongly prefers that content be built from secondary sources. One of the big reasons, per WP:OR, is that it is easy to misuse primary sources. For instance, by giving UNDUE weight to something, or simply misunderstanding it. which is what you did here. This decision is not the result of Stefanoff appealing his conviction. Perhaps you can find a secondary source about this that will explain what the decision was actually about and will show that this deserves any WEIGHT in the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (the decision is actually the result of an appeal by the county and the sherrif, which the county and sheriff (more or less) won. They were appealing a district court rejection of their request for summary judgement dismissing a case. The case they wanted dismissed, was a lawsuit by Stefanoff against the county and the sheriff personally for refusing to release him early for good conduct. Nothing in this decision concerns Stefenoff appealing his conviction - the source doesn't support the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)) Thank you. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Is it fair to say Stefanoff filed a lawsuit against the county and the sheriff personally for refusing to release him early for good conduct and in 1998 he lost the case? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC) That would be accurate. It is still pretty much UNDUE without a secondary source discussing it. (I don't think the content about the other appeal is good either) Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks. In the Backgound section, there are a lot of details about a case that was refused to be heard by the Supreme Court, in Stefanoff and Ptak's favor. The original source (The Austin Chronicle) just said they "won one Supreme Court case that allowed them." I don't know whether all the details are necessary, though it's important to be accurate here. And so I agree to leave it because I think it's important, in this article, establishing a history of litigation before the San Marcos 7 demonstrations even happened. Stefanoff's lawsuit is significantly more relevant here, because it's in response to the conviction resulting directly from the protests. Without additional references, I'm content to simply mention the outcome. I'm placing the information in the After 1991 section, for now, because that seems most appropriate for wrapping up events following the demonstrations. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, I added the stuff about what actually happened with the "supreme court" case because the Austin newspaper did a shit job and printed promotional, distorted bullshit, and you added that to Wikipedia. I would be fine with removing discussion of the "supreme court" thing from this article. That content is about the newspaper not marijuana legalization in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) It's fine like it is now. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Joint v. cannabis cigarette

@Another Believer: I'm not sure which way to go on this one. Joint seems slanted to me. The original source (NYT) used marijuana cigarette, which I updated to cannabis. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, just seems "joint" by definition is a cannabis cigarette, so I figured just link to the actual WP article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine either way. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinions, but personally on WP I always use the term cannabis cigarette to be less slang-y. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit needs to be reviewed

Resolved

This edit needs review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed. Thanks. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)