Talk:The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Cannabis Low‑importance

	Cannabis portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Canadian / Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

NPOV dispute edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is pretty clearly taken straight from the back of a DVD or press release. It's not written in encyclopedic style, and poses rhetorical questions in place of facts. The matter is further muddled by the choice of words that make it -- at the very least -- an advertorial for the director. Phrases such as "Follow filmmaker Adam Scorgie as he dives head first," "Adam demystifies the underground market," and "Join Adam Scorgie," are unnecessary and a pretty clear example of a promotion. There's more, but the whole thing needs cleanup. Ndmiami517 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Speedy Deletion edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just like many documentaries on Wikipedia, why shouldn't it get its own page? Read: Burma VJ, The Corporation, Grizzly Man Geoffgs (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've declined the speedy deletion, but only because there are older versions that can be reverted to that are not so blatantly spammy. As it reads at this moment it is just awful, and obviously miles away from the neutral point of view expected of an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also went ahead and reverted to an older version. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic