This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
addiction 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.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
health and
physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Social Work 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.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Forcedtoeditforclass (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
BestofLAandBay.
Hmmm. If you look at the kidney dialysis article, it does in fact mention specific organizations, e.g. when it states that "In 1913, Leonard Rowntree and John Abel of Johns Hopkins Hospital developed the first dialysis system which they successfully tested in animals." I think mentioning e.g.
Insite in this article is similar to mentioning Johns Hopkins in that article.
Prezbo (
talk)
20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Which has a contextual relevance in the development of the procedure. Not just selectively dropping names of providers that offer this service, or providers or clinics that were first to offer it in particular city/county/region/ on the west side Mississippi river.
Graywalls (
talk)
20:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Similar to what I said on the other talk page. If dialysis was controversial and legally disputed in the same way that syringe exchanges are, I'm sure the dialysis article would have more information about specific providers offering dialysis in different places. It has a "contextual relevance" in the history of this approach to public health.
Prezbo (
talk)
20:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
To state my point again: I'm sure if there was one agency providing dialysis in the United States, and its operation was the subject of a continuing legal dispute, the Wikipedia article on
Nephrology would mention its name. It would be awkward not to.
Prezbo (
talk)
14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Controversy or not, region by region, country by country name mentions on a high-level article like this is still not
WP:DUE. OnPoint NYC need not appear by name in this article.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems really tortured to me to say that a SIS facility exists in Canada but not mention its name. Why would we do that? You’ll need to start an rfc or do something else to get other opinions in here if that’s the way you want the article to read.
Prezbo (
talk)
19:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I've restored it to the last stable version. @
Prezbo you're the one who newly introduced OnPoint NYC, which, I might point out that is an article you created and I'm of the opinion that it doesn't need to be newly introduced into the general article. Please stop adding it back. This has been discussed and no consensus exists in favor of inclusion. Please respect
consensus building process and stop assuming insertion takes precedence. If you wish to include it, then you'll need to do the leg work to obtain consensus.
Graywalls (
talk)
22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. You are the one who introduced something that is being disputed.
Graywalls (
talk)
22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm starting to have doubt about your adherence to respect consensus building process given the trollish response I got on a similar disagreement
here by you and your comment that you should just make an "executive decision" in
sourcing dispute. What you claim to be "common sense" doesn't prevail over the processes.
Graywalls (
talk)
23:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Prezbo:, if I don't agree with something, I can say I disagree and you could have always try to discuss further, but your
response and the edit summary in particular in July is not indicative of good faith intent to work towards a consensus.
Graywalls (
talk)
06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It is already in
Harm reduction in the United States. I believe the inclusion of specific named organization into the higher level broader article covering the concept is undue when it is already in the one for United States where the existence is more reasonable. It is just creating a coat rack of service providers. The article does not need to name specific safe consumption site that is the first, the largest, or the biggest.. or whatever in each country to fulfill encyclopedic purpose. Prezbo inserted it, and continued re-inserting disputed contents even though consensus hasn't been established for its inclusion. (copied over from WP Medicine)
Graywalls (
talk)
01:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Inclusion of the specific organization does not seem appropriate unless it has been somehow singled out in the medical literature or is involved in a legal dispute with potentially large-scale implications. One article in a local (and rather niche) media outlet does not establish notability.
Also, comments like If this matters to you then take it to an external noticeboard, report me to the teacher, whatever. I’ve stated my point clearly. and I don’t like you, you don’t like me. It’s fine. are rather less than civil.
Has @
Prezbo directly addressed their connection to this organization? I know that harm-reduction is controversial in some circles, but I don't understand how this odd detail has become such an issue.
What I would do is to note the first safe injection sites in the US opened in NYC in 2021. Anyone who wants more details can easily find them through the sources cited. Its coverage in the NYTimes (even if in the local section) and the AP further establish notability. Readers curious to read more about SISs specifically will also find OnPoint directly discussed in that article, to which this one already links at the top of the section.
Please take this for whatever it may be worth. I am unfollowing to avoid being pulled into a debate over what seems to be a small point that should not require third-party arbitration.
@
Graywalls, do you have any objection to saying "As of 2023 there were only two supervised injection sites in the US"? Ideally, when editors object only to name-dropping a notable example, they remove just the name, and leave the rest.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
18:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That is the entire point I was trying to accomplish. I am fine with this suggestion. I do not have a link to the WP hint/guideline, but the idea given is to avoid "such as A, B, C." that name names to not encourage more coats from getting racked.
Graywalls (
talk)
19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
If you only want to remove the name of the specific example, the you should partially self-revert, so that you only remove the name of the specific example, and not 100% of the information about SIS in the US.
Wikipedia:Coatrack articles are articles in which you claim to be writing about one thing, but you spend most (or at least an unreasonably large part) of the article writing about something related. For example, imagine someone writing an article that is nominally about
Lake Wobegon, but when you click through to the article, it tells you very little about that place, and instead focuses on a famous resident, or a single event, or how well the children in that area are educated. That editor has used the place like a "hook" to "hang" a different subject on.
I've implemented what was suggested. I changed the source to Scientific American because a concern was raised that the existing one is a local niche media.
Graywalls (
talk)
04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This still doesn't make sense to me, but it's now three against one, so c'est la vie.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
addiction 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.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
health and
physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Social Work 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.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Forcedtoeditforclass (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
BestofLAandBay.
Hmmm. If you look at the kidney dialysis article, it does in fact mention specific organizations, e.g. when it states that "In 1913, Leonard Rowntree and John Abel of Johns Hopkins Hospital developed the first dialysis system which they successfully tested in animals." I think mentioning e.g.
Insite in this article is similar to mentioning Johns Hopkins in that article.
Prezbo (
talk)
20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Which has a contextual relevance in the development of the procedure. Not just selectively dropping names of providers that offer this service, or providers or clinics that were first to offer it in particular city/county/region/ on the west side Mississippi river.
Graywalls (
talk)
20:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Similar to what I said on the other talk page. If dialysis was controversial and legally disputed in the same way that syringe exchanges are, I'm sure the dialysis article would have more information about specific providers offering dialysis in different places. It has a "contextual relevance" in the history of this approach to public health.
Prezbo (
talk)
20:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
To state my point again: I'm sure if there was one agency providing dialysis in the United States, and its operation was the subject of a continuing legal dispute, the Wikipedia article on
Nephrology would mention its name. It would be awkward not to.
Prezbo (
talk)
14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Controversy or not, region by region, country by country name mentions on a high-level article like this is still not
WP:DUE. OnPoint NYC need not appear by name in this article.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems really tortured to me to say that a SIS facility exists in Canada but not mention its name. Why would we do that? You’ll need to start an rfc or do something else to get other opinions in here if that’s the way you want the article to read.
Prezbo (
talk)
19:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I've restored it to the last stable version. @
Prezbo you're the one who newly introduced OnPoint NYC, which, I might point out that is an article you created and I'm of the opinion that it doesn't need to be newly introduced into the general article. Please stop adding it back. This has been discussed and no consensus exists in favor of inclusion. Please respect
consensus building process and stop assuming insertion takes precedence. If you wish to include it, then you'll need to do the leg work to obtain consensus.
Graywalls (
talk)
22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. You are the one who introduced something that is being disputed.
Graywalls (
talk)
22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm starting to have doubt about your adherence to respect consensus building process given the trollish response I got on a similar disagreement
here by you and your comment that you should just make an "executive decision" in
sourcing dispute. What you claim to be "common sense" doesn't prevail over the processes.
Graywalls (
talk)
23:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Prezbo:, if I don't agree with something, I can say I disagree and you could have always try to discuss further, but your
response and the edit summary in particular in July is not indicative of good faith intent to work towards a consensus.
Graywalls (
talk)
06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It is already in
Harm reduction in the United States. I believe the inclusion of specific named organization into the higher level broader article covering the concept is undue when it is already in the one for United States where the existence is more reasonable. It is just creating a coat rack of service providers. The article does not need to name specific safe consumption site that is the first, the largest, or the biggest.. or whatever in each country to fulfill encyclopedic purpose. Prezbo inserted it, and continued re-inserting disputed contents even though consensus hasn't been established for its inclusion. (copied over from WP Medicine)
Graywalls (
talk)
01:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Inclusion of the specific organization does not seem appropriate unless it has been somehow singled out in the medical literature or is involved in a legal dispute with potentially large-scale implications. One article in a local (and rather niche) media outlet does not establish notability.
Also, comments like If this matters to you then take it to an external noticeboard, report me to the teacher, whatever. I’ve stated my point clearly. and I don’t like you, you don’t like me. It’s fine. are rather less than civil.
Has @
Prezbo directly addressed their connection to this organization? I know that harm-reduction is controversial in some circles, but I don't understand how this odd detail has become such an issue.
What I would do is to note the first safe injection sites in the US opened in NYC in 2021. Anyone who wants more details can easily find them through the sources cited. Its coverage in the NYTimes (even if in the local section) and the AP further establish notability. Readers curious to read more about SISs specifically will also find OnPoint directly discussed in that article, to which this one already links at the top of the section.
Please take this for whatever it may be worth. I am unfollowing to avoid being pulled into a debate over what seems to be a small point that should not require third-party arbitration.
@
Graywalls, do you have any objection to saying "As of 2023 there were only two supervised injection sites in the US"? Ideally, when editors object only to name-dropping a notable example, they remove just the name, and leave the rest.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
18:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That is the entire point I was trying to accomplish. I am fine with this suggestion. I do not have a link to the WP hint/guideline, but the idea given is to avoid "such as A, B, C." that name names to not encourage more coats from getting racked.
Graywalls (
talk)
19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
If you only want to remove the name of the specific example, the you should partially self-revert, so that you only remove the name of the specific example, and not 100% of the information about SIS in the US.
Wikipedia:Coatrack articles are articles in which you claim to be writing about one thing, but you spend most (or at least an unreasonably large part) of the article writing about something related. For example, imagine someone writing an article that is nominally about
Lake Wobegon, but when you click through to the article, it tells you very little about that place, and instead focuses on a famous resident, or a single event, or how well the children in that area are educated. That editor has used the place like a "hook" to "hang" a different subject on.
I've implemented what was suggested. I changed the source to Scientific American because a concern was raised that the existing one is a local niche media.
Graywalls (
talk)
04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This still doesn't make sense to me, but it's now three against one, so c'est la vie.