This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think undue weight has been given in the article to people whom have no scientific or health-care background, and specifically the Barbara Kay article mentioned comes from someone who either misunderstands, or willfully misconstrues, what "peer-reviewed" means. In fact her article goes out of its way to ignore the fact that Insite is not the only legal safer injection site in the world, and that research on other injection sites (as well as harm reduction methods), done properly, has borne out harm reduction and its advocates. SiberioS ( talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On the same day National Post had the Barbara Kay article, they also had a article named "Insite works" by Anne Mullens [1]. Obviously both articles should be mentioned if any. Anything other would be undue weight to one side of the argument. Steinberger ( talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Barbara Kay writes that Oslo, among other cities have adopted the aim of a drug-free city and rejected any harm reduction initiatives - totally ignoring the fact that Oslo have both safe injection rooms and a needle exchange program. The same level of fact checking applies to the statement that Sweden have "some of Europe's lowest drug-related rates of crime, disease and social problems." The truth is that Sweden have a low number of drug users and a low degree of drug nuisance, but it still has a average amount of problem drug users and drug overdoses (despite the fact that the average problem drug user are injecting amphetamine instead of heroin, witch is less likely to overdose on) and above that a chokingly high mortality rate among drug users; when it comes to drug-related deaths they are comparable to the numbers of people dying each year in traffic. Steinberger ( talk) 06:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
An article in CMAJ by Karr and Wood [2] warns of the worrisome trend of web pages posting as "open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals" and referring to the journal the critic section has as source - the one mentioned in the topic. How should wikipedia handle it? Steinberger ( talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Another article on the journal: [3]
The deletion of the Barbara Kay ref, as explained above, was done because not only is she not qualified at all in public health, but she intentionally misconstrues and misrepresents what the studies actually say, and the whole nature of what peer reviewed research is. There is a much higher burden of proof at work in medical and public health related articles, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is not going to become home to unscientific and non-evidence based cranks. And thats essentially what Kay is. There are, to be sure, moral arguments that can be cited on a given controversial public health topic (such as abortion or contraception or safer sex) but that doesn't mean people who oppose something on a moral ground rise to the level of scientific evidence. SiberioS ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"4700 injection drug addicts were estimated to live in The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver in 2000. [1] The Economist mention the number 8000 in a article in August 2008. [2]"
This text was deleted by user Steinberger as not relevant. Can anybody explain why this is not relevant, please. Dala11a ( talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The removed paragraph had to have had the most convoluted logic ever. First, whilst it is true that daily intravenous administration of any drug has risks, due to scarring, vein collapse, and infection, there are a number of ways to mitigate the risks to acceptable levels, something in fact, that harm reduction promotes. Second, the ethics of a procedure are not merely assessed by whether or not it causes "hurt"; if that were the case, surgeries, by their invasive and damaging nature, would be ethically wrong. But they aren't because the benefit gained is far beyond the pain inflicted in the operation. Same applies here; while continuation of heroin abuse is not ideal, the safe and sterile administration of drugs is preferable over the alternative of spreading disease and risking over-dose. SiberioS ( talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
User Steinberger has several times deleted a relevant source a report by Colin Mangham A Critique of Canada’s INSITE Injection Site and its Parent Philosophy: Implications and Recommendations for Policy Planning The Journal of Global Drug Policy And Practice January 17 2007 So it is obvious done with a purpose. The report has by Collin Magnaham has been used by former Health minister (until end of Oktober 2008). The report points at several problems with Insite for example, there is very little or no evidence of any long term recovery from drug addiction in the project. User Steinberger probably do not like the Magnham report but that is no reason for deleting the source from the article about Insite since the report without doubt has been used by Tony Clements. Anyone who Google about Insite find a lot of articles that mention the Magnham report. Dala11a ( talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the disputed source and the argument above, I see no reason why it should NOT be kept in the article. Having said that, ever source should be properly represented. There's no reason a non-peer-reviewed report should be excluded from a social issues article which also references court cases and news outlets. I've supplied some tagging for folks to work on as well--the article has multiple issues beyond this one reference. Jclemens ( talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Dala11a have cherry-picked a piece from Clements speech in August, attributing its relevance to that he was the Heath minister at the time. I don't find that "A better thing to do is to treat people, to prevent people from going on drugs in the first place." is a particularly relevant quote and I would want Dala11a to motivate why it is? However I think the speech is relevant enough to be mentioned, because Clement said a lot of other things. Most notably he questioned if it's "ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?” This and his general questioning of harm reduction and insite in particular promoted a response and notably a majority of MD's disagrees to Clements stance. CMA's president calling it "Wrong". [8] [9] Steinberger ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
hey, there might be some useful updates to the article in here: [10] 92.225.83.147 ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the Mangham evidence on police numbers in the vicinity of Insite, evidence which is very important to any judgment of the success or failure of the Insite experiment. There is no possibility of undue weight being given to Mangham's evidence as it firstly is either true or not true, and nobody has yet demonstrated that it is untrue (and this evidence is very important to any assessment) and secondly because descriptions of what Mangham says make up less than 9% of the article. His criticisms are factual and important and have their place, though some may not like that.
Also, there may be the misapprehension on the part of some that injecting rooms are an internationally accepted intervention. In fact they are not, with only a handful of countries running them when the totality of 200+ UN signatories to the Drug Conventions is considered. Even harm reduction as a principle does not have majority international support - in the 2009 United Nations CND in Vienna, where the international Conventions against drug use were evaluated and opened to changes, the vast majority of the 70 odd countries voting on such changes rejected harm reduction as part of the global drug strategy. Likewise, the United Nations International Control Board, whose job it is to 'police' the drug Conventions, rejects injecting rooms as seen in their many statements against them. The international view is AGAINST injecting rooms. Mangham's comments align with this international majority view and cannot be considered a minority view. Minphie ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Minphie went to WP:RSN with JDGPP and that spurred some action (in the order they where created):
Steinberger ( talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As of I write this, there are two sources cited in the article contesting wither the JGDPP are peer-reviewed. It is impossible (or at least against policy) to ignore that, so we cannot only say are they are peer-reviewed as if those sources are non-existent. In some way, we need to indicate the concerns that they are not. Steinberger ( talk) 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have previously taken the time to carefully demonstrate over on the Harm Reduction Discussion page that the assertion that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is not peer-reviewed has no basis whatsoever in fact, and that the charge has only been maintained by a spurious appeal to the clearly un-evidenced OPINION of commentators who obviously have not asked the relevant question of the journal or read its submissions page. To that end:
In conclusion on this issue I believe that any deleting of the text about Mangham's work by other contributors on spurious objections about peer-review from this point forward will only represent a retreat into absurdity, and I will pursue whatever avenue of Wikipedia recourse appears best.
Over at the Needle Exchange Programme discussion page the reliability of the JGDPP as a source has been firmly established. The second Palmateer review of reviews on the effectiveness of needle exchanges promotes its ‘core reviews’, including the JGDPP Käll et al review, as meeting more rigorous standards than various other discarded reviews not included, clearly discounting this spurious objection. Palmateer does not concur with the spurious objection that the review derives from an unreliable source – no such criticism is entertained by her team. Nor are any NPOV issues stated. The reliability and notability of the Käll et al review is clearly established, and from a source over which there can be no quibbles regarding reliability as Wikipedia defines it. This exposes the objections about the reliability of the JGDPP as fatuous and fanciful.
Citing the criticisms of Mangham's article which coincidentally have derived from the very same researchers whose work he has exposed is equally as invalid. As in the climate change debate there are numerous scientists on both sides of the debate each claiming that the other side is wrong, and Wikipedia editors who claim that one side is more authoritative than the other while deleting text about the opposing view would never be countenanced there, and neither should it be here where there is science on both sides of the debate. Of course these sciences and their protagonists are critical of each other, but claiming the criticisms of one side does not make the critic authoritative for merely having voiced the criticism. Wikipedia's discourse in this situation must necessarily remain dialectical, accurately recording both sides of the debate and allowing the reader to form their own opinions.
The fact that Mangham’s article has been used as a central rationale by the Canadian Government for questioning the reliability of the conclusions of certain researchers is grounds enough for its inclusion. The article is historically notable and must not be deleted. Attempts to water down his critiques by removing relevant and important descriptions smells more of censorship where this has been done by editors clearly sympathetic to Insite or other harm reduction initiatives (which can be judged by looking at their contributions on other harm reduction-related pages). And I am not willing to go on tolerating Steinberger's removals of large slabs of text without any discussion or rationale, and if it continues I will take the issue further as blanking vandalism amounting to censorship. Minphie ( talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I find it odd that the BC Minister of Health is not mentioned. Health is a provincial matter under section 92 of the Canadian constitution. The Federal minister is really just the money man for the provinces; see the Canada Health Act. Argolin ( talk) 09:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have completed changes to the text reflecting the contributions to the debate about Insite by Dr Colin Mangham, whose criticisms of Insite’s research and researchers cannot be dismissed because the Harper government claims reliance on his criticisms for their actions. I have also reshaped the Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) findings on Insite’s research, because these are indubitably important to any discussion of the research. The Expert Advisory Committee section did indeed require some changes from my previous text, which was written for an Opposition/Criticism section which previously existed but which has since been changed to ‘Reception’.
With no reason to remove text from the article based any longer on some kind of imagined consensus against the reliability of the source, I have removed the now superfluous text which contains speculations by the very same researchers criticized in the JGDPP article, which made false claims about lack of peer-review. It is false unevidenced opinion which has no place in Wikipedia.
I have further reinstated the one sentence which explicates the nature of Mangham’s criticisms. This takes three sentences only, which, given the centrality of his work to the government’s rationales for closing Insite, cannot possibly be considered as WP:UNDUE in light of the much more lengthy descriptions of the Insite research which is criticised.
I have changed the Expert Advisory Committee section, which was written for an Opposition section previously, to one that records a summary of their findings. I have particularly sought not to repeat EAC findings which have quite a deal of text devoted elsewhere to them in the article, albeit as findings of the Insite researchers. Minphie ( talk) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) I was referred here from my talk page. I will watch list this page and see if I can be of any help during content disputes. One of the concerns I had last time was there was sockpuppeteering being used to eliminate criticism from harm reduction pages and skew them in one direction and on the other hand other editors were giving undue weight to criticisms and harm reduction articles were approaching battleground levels. I don't think the aggressive editing is quite as bad these days from a cursery glance??? :-) Keep in mind WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and form a WP:CONSENSUS folk. I see a post of mine from another page has been copied and pasted here. The spirit of the old post of mine with regard to NPOV is relevant but be careful using my preliminary views in May 30 to ongoing content disputes.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe we can find a way ahead with descriptions of Colin Mangham’s important report (important because the Harper Government based its rationale for closing Insite on this paper) by more clearly nominating its reason for being written. The Colin Mangham and Garth Davies reviews were both commissioned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the fact that they were later published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is of only incidental import. Thus previous concerns on this talk page about the journal are not relevant to the nature of these RCMP reports which stand in their own right as RCMP reports. The fact that they do not appear on the RCMP website, where they would undoubtedly meet Wikipedia Reliable Sources requirements, is of no account because it is so well established from other documentation that the Davies and Mangham articles in the JGDPP are the RCMP reports referenced by the Canadian government. Mind you, I believe OhioStandard’s concerns about the JGDPP, over on the Supervised Injection Site Talk page, are not entirely accurate. Over at the Needle-exchange programme discussion page we clarified that the latest review of needle exchange effectiveness reviews relies on a JGDPP review as one of its most rigorous reviews reviewed.
The fact that these are both Mounties’ reports then makes superfluous the description of the JGDPP as funded by the US Dept of Justice etc so I have removed the redundant sentence.
Importantly, I have added the factually correct description of the criticism of JGDPP on the page as deriving from the very same researchers Mangham criticized in the RCMP report, albeit later published in the JGDPP. I cannot imagine why this fact would not be relevant to the perhaps damaging claim “posing as a peer-reviewed publication” which may make Wikipedia readers wrongly think is a non-peer-reviewed publication, which just is not true. I believe we need to strive for accuracy rather than convey something that might readily be misunderstood.
Further, I believe that we need to give equal weight to both sides of the debate about Mangham’s work. The Research section starts out with a fairly full description of the Insite research, followed by a few lines describing the RCMP report by Mangham, and then just two sentences of description of his actual critique, which again merits mention because Minister Clement cited it as original rationale for closing Insite. Then follows a full paragraph describing criticism of Mangham. I cannot see any reason why Wikipedia should be privileging his critics so for the sake of balance and neutrality I have added Mangham’s response to these criticisms. Finally, Mangham’s RCMP report must be dealt with under Research because it is a critique or analysis of the research – it certainly is not Reception. Minphie ( talk) 01:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What needs to be done is everyone need to use
review articles found in journals indexed by pubmed. This will solved the issues we are dealing with.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
05:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Having not been able to edit Wikipedia for many months I return to find the entire section on the Expert Advisory Committee's review of the research removed - and on entirely subjective grounds which have no substance. Minphie ( talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The research has been extensively criticised by an international team of medical analysts, [3] who have specifically written to Lancet urging retraction of the study claiming 35% decreases in overdose deaths around Insite due to its presence. [4] [5] The international analysis cites a police crackdown as sufficient explanation for any decreases in overdose mortality. The crackdown with 48-72 added police, commencing 6 months before Insite opened in the four city blocks around its present location and continuing until this day in an expanded 12 block area around Insite, initially reduced indicators of drug use and users in the targeted area by 46% in 2003. Any reductions in crime, public drug use and litter are accorded to policing. [6] Drug Free Australia, which coordinated the analysis, continues to pursue Lancet for retraction of the study, which they say has a track record of reluctant progress on retractions and whose Chief Editor, Richard Horton, is a close colleague of two of the disputed study’s researchers. [7]
The international analysis claims to demonstrate that Insite is statistically capable of saving just one life per annum, that previous estimates of deaths averted naively calculate from artificially inflated overdose rates inside Insite and that cost-benefit studies wrongly assume that the effectiveness of clean needle provision has been scientifically demonstrated when they claim it has not. [8]
Government Expert Advisory Committee
In 2008 an Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) appointed by Health Canada produced an international review of injecting facilities, focusing on studies of Insite and a comparable facility in Sydney, Australia. [9] The EAC found that more than 8,000 people had injected drugs at Insite, with 1,506 of this number accounting for 80% of all visits. Less than 10% used Insite for all injections, with a median number of visits for all clients of eight. With around 400 opiate injections daily mathematical models indicated it could statistically save 1.08 lives per year. [10] While the EAC signalled caution about the validity of these estimates, drug prevention organization Drug Free Australia's 2010 analysis of overdoses in injecting rooms by Dr Robert Dupont, first President of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), found that the estimate by the EAC, which did not record its method of calculation, accords well with the method used by the most comprehensive review of injecting facilities worldwide, that of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), to calculate numbers of lives saved in German consumption rooms. [11]
The EAC further found that the facility reached its target population, that clients rated the service as highly satisfactory and that the facility had increased access to detoxification and treatment. It noted no increases in crime in the area but noted that the journal studies had not controlled for police activity, weather etc. No increases in drug use were found. However, it questioned the validity of assumptions behind journal studies which had calculated estimates of the number of HIV transmissions prevented and also noted that calculated cost-benefit ratios could not be validated unless proper longitudinal studies were completed.
Drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, has calculated that by taking only the 1,506 injectors who most regularly use the centre, who would cumulatively inject somewhere between 6,000 and 9,000 times daily, the less than 500 injections in Insite daily represents at best one injection in every 12 by these clients inside the facility. [12]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)p 117
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
My objections are that DFA reports are not MEDRS and this above from Minphie is presented as research along research done in proper peer-reviewed journals. The letters to Lancet is not peer-reviewed either, but I can take that part. However, the response from the authors they criticise must also be given room. And it does not really matter that Minphie think they are wrong in what they say. And when everything from DFA is stricken, not much is left. And what is, is obtuse in my opinion. Steinberger ( talk) 07:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. This has been a pretty irregular request, or series of requests, which is probably why they've been sitting unanswered for as long as they have. Given that, I'm going to address all three of them at once, since they seem to be the same dispute in essence. I'm going to take some time composing my reply, so please continue to be patient; if I haven't replied in 24 hours, feel free to ping me on my talk page or move the dispute to another rung of the DR ladder; it's probably going to be too complex for another 3O at this point. My intention is to address some content issues that aren't dependent on the result of the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard; that specialized noticeboard will be better-equipped to provide a satisfactory answer to questions of reliability. Conduct issues are right out. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Steinberger, the text I have added is a critique of the Research and is nothing whatsoever to do with Reception. The critiques I cite all come from members of the World Federation Against Drugs which is the World's peak body for drug prevention organizations, albeit released by Drug Free Australia, a member organization. So there is no lack of reliability in the source as per Wikipedia RS policy, nor is there anything UNDUE in giving a critique of equal length (you can do a word count) to the Insite research on a contentious project (the UN Drug Conventions still have not embraced harm reduction into their wording, nor does the UN's International Narcotics Control Board accept injecting rooms as within the conventions). I have not cited Mangham either, despite the material according with some of Mangham's entirely verifiable observations elsewhere - you will see that what I cite comes from Lancet and the DFA document backing the Lancet letter I cite. Minphie ( talk) 06:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Minphie have sought more opinions on this earlier.
He didn't fare very well. Steinberger ( talk) 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added text to the Insite page referring to an ongoing public debate about a study in Lancet on Insite's effectiveness re averting deaths from overdose which has been challenged in a letter to Lancet. I trust that I have described the arguments of both sides as neutrally as possible. User Steinberger has since moved the text, saying that it does not belong to the Research section and I argue that moving the text elsewhere only serves to sanitise the reality on the Research and it is possible that it is being moved for this purpose [24]. We need a third opinion on whether the moved text is about the research on Insite or about its reception. Steinberger is arguing that it belongs with a section in Reception where a prominent Canadian drug preventionist gives her opinions about the research, although she is speaking of issues other than those I am addressing in the Lancet debate about police presence. Your best thoughts on the issue on which section this belongs to? Minphie ( talk) 10:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
What can be considered a credible external link for the article? There are only three listed.
Sepideah OSF ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Sepideah OSF
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Insite. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 0 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Supervised+injection+site+exempt+from+drug+laws+court/5482761/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The very first paragraph reports that the Downtown Eastside neighborhood "had 4700 chronic drug users in 2000."
Great statistic, but it would be really useful to learn whether now, 19 years later, that number has increased or decreased. This would tell us a lot about the effectiveness of the addiction treatment service the site provides.
It's important, because here in Denver we're debating whether to open a similar site.
The lack of a follow-up statistic makes me suspect that the neighborhood has more chronic drug users now than there were in 2000. Perhaps a LOT more. Otherwise, why wouldn't Insite stakeholders proudly report how effective they've been at reducing the number of chronic drug users? 75.163.161.212 ( talk) 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In regards to the reversion of my addition to this article, Grayfell said "(Reverted good faith edits by Gryhm (talk): Source doesn't appear to mention insite. Please cite a source which explains the connection (TW))".
The original source for my edit is the Government of British Columbia Coroners Report on drug overdoses.
Although the report does not specifically say 'Insite' it does reference 'Vancouver Coastal Health Authority' which operates Insite, specifically "Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have had the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths (188 and 164 deaths, respectively) in 2019, making up 65% of all such deaths during this period. 2019: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. has the highest rate of illicit drug toxicity deaths (27 deaths per 100,000 individuals)."
As for operating Insite, I can reference Wikipedia: [2]
"Operation
Insite is operated in tandem by Vancouver Coastal Health and the Portland Hotel Society."
The first Insite location resides in Vancouver, so I believe the addition of overall drug overdose rates in Vancouver and British Columbia are relevant to the article, especially when the rest of the article contains arguments of whether or not drug overdoses have been reduced. I am simply trying to provide statistical data from a credible source on the overall drug overdose deaths in Vancouver and British Columbia. It would be different if I said something like 'Insite has caused an increase in drug overdoses'
Thank you, this was my 3rd wikipedia post ever, so hopefully, I did this right. :)
Gryhm ( talk) 00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Grayfell for responding.
I understand why Wikipedia doesn't count as a source for Wikipedia, that makes sense. I figured it was validated since it hadn't been removed.
If I include this reference directly from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority website: "Vancouver Coastal Health operates, and provides all the funding, senior administrative and health care workers at Insite." [3]
Is that good enough to then reference the Government of British Columbia Coroners Report that concludes in it's Summary on page 1:
• The townships experiencing the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2019 are Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria and Abbotsford. • Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have had the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths (188 and 164 deaths, respectively) in 2019, making up 65% of all such deaths during this period. • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has the highest rate of illicit drug toxicity deaths (27 deaths per 100,000 individuals) followed by Northern Health Authority (22 deaths per 100,000 individuals) in 2019. Overall, the rate in BC was 22 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2019.
This is not an implied statistic, or original research, the report specifically says these exact words, and it's a government document WP:PRIMARY. In other areas of the article it is referencing whether Insite has reduced drug injections and overdoses in the area. Seems like these statistics then apply to the area?
Thanks for helping me in my wikipedia expedition. :) Gryhm ( talk) 21:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think undue weight has been given in the article to people whom have no scientific or health-care background, and specifically the Barbara Kay article mentioned comes from someone who either misunderstands, or willfully misconstrues, what "peer-reviewed" means. In fact her article goes out of its way to ignore the fact that Insite is not the only legal safer injection site in the world, and that research on other injection sites (as well as harm reduction methods), done properly, has borne out harm reduction and its advocates. SiberioS ( talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On the same day National Post had the Barbara Kay article, they also had a article named "Insite works" by Anne Mullens [1]. Obviously both articles should be mentioned if any. Anything other would be undue weight to one side of the argument. Steinberger ( talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Barbara Kay writes that Oslo, among other cities have adopted the aim of a drug-free city and rejected any harm reduction initiatives - totally ignoring the fact that Oslo have both safe injection rooms and a needle exchange program. The same level of fact checking applies to the statement that Sweden have "some of Europe's lowest drug-related rates of crime, disease and social problems." The truth is that Sweden have a low number of drug users and a low degree of drug nuisance, but it still has a average amount of problem drug users and drug overdoses (despite the fact that the average problem drug user are injecting amphetamine instead of heroin, witch is less likely to overdose on) and above that a chokingly high mortality rate among drug users; when it comes to drug-related deaths they are comparable to the numbers of people dying each year in traffic. Steinberger ( talk) 06:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
An article in CMAJ by Karr and Wood [2] warns of the worrisome trend of web pages posting as "open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals" and referring to the journal the critic section has as source - the one mentioned in the topic. How should wikipedia handle it? Steinberger ( talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Another article on the journal: [3]
The deletion of the Barbara Kay ref, as explained above, was done because not only is she not qualified at all in public health, but she intentionally misconstrues and misrepresents what the studies actually say, and the whole nature of what peer reviewed research is. There is a much higher burden of proof at work in medical and public health related articles, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is not going to become home to unscientific and non-evidence based cranks. And thats essentially what Kay is. There are, to be sure, moral arguments that can be cited on a given controversial public health topic (such as abortion or contraception or safer sex) but that doesn't mean people who oppose something on a moral ground rise to the level of scientific evidence. SiberioS ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"4700 injection drug addicts were estimated to live in The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver in 2000. [1] The Economist mention the number 8000 in a article in August 2008. [2]"
This text was deleted by user Steinberger as not relevant. Can anybody explain why this is not relevant, please. Dala11a ( talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The removed paragraph had to have had the most convoluted logic ever. First, whilst it is true that daily intravenous administration of any drug has risks, due to scarring, vein collapse, and infection, there are a number of ways to mitigate the risks to acceptable levels, something in fact, that harm reduction promotes. Second, the ethics of a procedure are not merely assessed by whether or not it causes "hurt"; if that were the case, surgeries, by their invasive and damaging nature, would be ethically wrong. But they aren't because the benefit gained is far beyond the pain inflicted in the operation. Same applies here; while continuation of heroin abuse is not ideal, the safe and sterile administration of drugs is preferable over the alternative of spreading disease and risking over-dose. SiberioS ( talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
User Steinberger has several times deleted a relevant source a report by Colin Mangham A Critique of Canada’s INSITE Injection Site and its Parent Philosophy: Implications and Recommendations for Policy Planning The Journal of Global Drug Policy And Practice January 17 2007 So it is obvious done with a purpose. The report has by Collin Magnaham has been used by former Health minister (until end of Oktober 2008). The report points at several problems with Insite for example, there is very little or no evidence of any long term recovery from drug addiction in the project. User Steinberger probably do not like the Magnham report but that is no reason for deleting the source from the article about Insite since the report without doubt has been used by Tony Clements. Anyone who Google about Insite find a lot of articles that mention the Magnham report. Dala11a ( talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the disputed source and the argument above, I see no reason why it should NOT be kept in the article. Having said that, ever source should be properly represented. There's no reason a non-peer-reviewed report should be excluded from a social issues article which also references court cases and news outlets. I've supplied some tagging for folks to work on as well--the article has multiple issues beyond this one reference. Jclemens ( talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Dala11a have cherry-picked a piece from Clements speech in August, attributing its relevance to that he was the Heath minister at the time. I don't find that "A better thing to do is to treat people, to prevent people from going on drugs in the first place." is a particularly relevant quote and I would want Dala11a to motivate why it is? However I think the speech is relevant enough to be mentioned, because Clement said a lot of other things. Most notably he questioned if it's "ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?” This and his general questioning of harm reduction and insite in particular promoted a response and notably a majority of MD's disagrees to Clements stance. CMA's president calling it "Wrong". [8] [9] Steinberger ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
hey, there might be some useful updates to the article in here: [10] 92.225.83.147 ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the Mangham evidence on police numbers in the vicinity of Insite, evidence which is very important to any judgment of the success or failure of the Insite experiment. There is no possibility of undue weight being given to Mangham's evidence as it firstly is either true or not true, and nobody has yet demonstrated that it is untrue (and this evidence is very important to any assessment) and secondly because descriptions of what Mangham says make up less than 9% of the article. His criticisms are factual and important and have their place, though some may not like that.
Also, there may be the misapprehension on the part of some that injecting rooms are an internationally accepted intervention. In fact they are not, with only a handful of countries running them when the totality of 200+ UN signatories to the Drug Conventions is considered. Even harm reduction as a principle does not have majority international support - in the 2009 United Nations CND in Vienna, where the international Conventions against drug use were evaluated and opened to changes, the vast majority of the 70 odd countries voting on such changes rejected harm reduction as part of the global drug strategy. Likewise, the United Nations International Control Board, whose job it is to 'police' the drug Conventions, rejects injecting rooms as seen in their many statements against them. The international view is AGAINST injecting rooms. Mangham's comments align with this international majority view and cannot be considered a minority view. Minphie ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Minphie went to WP:RSN with JDGPP and that spurred some action (in the order they where created):
Steinberger ( talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As of I write this, there are two sources cited in the article contesting wither the JGDPP are peer-reviewed. It is impossible (or at least against policy) to ignore that, so we cannot only say are they are peer-reviewed as if those sources are non-existent. In some way, we need to indicate the concerns that they are not. Steinberger ( talk) 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have previously taken the time to carefully demonstrate over on the Harm Reduction Discussion page that the assertion that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is not peer-reviewed has no basis whatsoever in fact, and that the charge has only been maintained by a spurious appeal to the clearly un-evidenced OPINION of commentators who obviously have not asked the relevant question of the journal or read its submissions page. To that end:
In conclusion on this issue I believe that any deleting of the text about Mangham's work by other contributors on spurious objections about peer-review from this point forward will only represent a retreat into absurdity, and I will pursue whatever avenue of Wikipedia recourse appears best.
Over at the Needle Exchange Programme discussion page the reliability of the JGDPP as a source has been firmly established. The second Palmateer review of reviews on the effectiveness of needle exchanges promotes its ‘core reviews’, including the JGDPP Käll et al review, as meeting more rigorous standards than various other discarded reviews not included, clearly discounting this spurious objection. Palmateer does not concur with the spurious objection that the review derives from an unreliable source – no such criticism is entertained by her team. Nor are any NPOV issues stated. The reliability and notability of the Käll et al review is clearly established, and from a source over which there can be no quibbles regarding reliability as Wikipedia defines it. This exposes the objections about the reliability of the JGDPP as fatuous and fanciful.
Citing the criticisms of Mangham's article which coincidentally have derived from the very same researchers whose work he has exposed is equally as invalid. As in the climate change debate there are numerous scientists on both sides of the debate each claiming that the other side is wrong, and Wikipedia editors who claim that one side is more authoritative than the other while deleting text about the opposing view would never be countenanced there, and neither should it be here where there is science on both sides of the debate. Of course these sciences and their protagonists are critical of each other, but claiming the criticisms of one side does not make the critic authoritative for merely having voiced the criticism. Wikipedia's discourse in this situation must necessarily remain dialectical, accurately recording both sides of the debate and allowing the reader to form their own opinions.
The fact that Mangham’s article has been used as a central rationale by the Canadian Government for questioning the reliability of the conclusions of certain researchers is grounds enough for its inclusion. The article is historically notable and must not be deleted. Attempts to water down his critiques by removing relevant and important descriptions smells more of censorship where this has been done by editors clearly sympathetic to Insite or other harm reduction initiatives (which can be judged by looking at their contributions on other harm reduction-related pages). And I am not willing to go on tolerating Steinberger's removals of large slabs of text without any discussion or rationale, and if it continues I will take the issue further as blanking vandalism amounting to censorship. Minphie ( talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I find it odd that the BC Minister of Health is not mentioned. Health is a provincial matter under section 92 of the Canadian constitution. The Federal minister is really just the money man for the provinces; see the Canada Health Act. Argolin ( talk) 09:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have completed changes to the text reflecting the contributions to the debate about Insite by Dr Colin Mangham, whose criticisms of Insite’s research and researchers cannot be dismissed because the Harper government claims reliance on his criticisms for their actions. I have also reshaped the Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) findings on Insite’s research, because these are indubitably important to any discussion of the research. The Expert Advisory Committee section did indeed require some changes from my previous text, which was written for an Opposition/Criticism section which previously existed but which has since been changed to ‘Reception’.
With no reason to remove text from the article based any longer on some kind of imagined consensus against the reliability of the source, I have removed the now superfluous text which contains speculations by the very same researchers criticized in the JGDPP article, which made false claims about lack of peer-review. It is false unevidenced opinion which has no place in Wikipedia.
I have further reinstated the one sentence which explicates the nature of Mangham’s criticisms. This takes three sentences only, which, given the centrality of his work to the government’s rationales for closing Insite, cannot possibly be considered as WP:UNDUE in light of the much more lengthy descriptions of the Insite research which is criticised.
I have changed the Expert Advisory Committee section, which was written for an Opposition section previously, to one that records a summary of their findings. I have particularly sought not to repeat EAC findings which have quite a deal of text devoted elsewhere to them in the article, albeit as findings of the Insite researchers. Minphie ( talk) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) I was referred here from my talk page. I will watch list this page and see if I can be of any help during content disputes. One of the concerns I had last time was there was sockpuppeteering being used to eliminate criticism from harm reduction pages and skew them in one direction and on the other hand other editors were giving undue weight to criticisms and harm reduction articles were approaching battleground levels. I don't think the aggressive editing is quite as bad these days from a cursery glance??? :-) Keep in mind WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and form a WP:CONSENSUS folk. I see a post of mine from another page has been copied and pasted here. The spirit of the old post of mine with regard to NPOV is relevant but be careful using my preliminary views in May 30 to ongoing content disputes.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe we can find a way ahead with descriptions of Colin Mangham’s important report (important because the Harper Government based its rationale for closing Insite on this paper) by more clearly nominating its reason for being written. The Colin Mangham and Garth Davies reviews were both commissioned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the fact that they were later published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is of only incidental import. Thus previous concerns on this talk page about the journal are not relevant to the nature of these RCMP reports which stand in their own right as RCMP reports. The fact that they do not appear on the RCMP website, where they would undoubtedly meet Wikipedia Reliable Sources requirements, is of no account because it is so well established from other documentation that the Davies and Mangham articles in the JGDPP are the RCMP reports referenced by the Canadian government. Mind you, I believe OhioStandard’s concerns about the JGDPP, over on the Supervised Injection Site Talk page, are not entirely accurate. Over at the Needle-exchange programme discussion page we clarified that the latest review of needle exchange effectiveness reviews relies on a JGDPP review as one of its most rigorous reviews reviewed.
The fact that these are both Mounties’ reports then makes superfluous the description of the JGDPP as funded by the US Dept of Justice etc so I have removed the redundant sentence.
Importantly, I have added the factually correct description of the criticism of JGDPP on the page as deriving from the very same researchers Mangham criticized in the RCMP report, albeit later published in the JGDPP. I cannot imagine why this fact would not be relevant to the perhaps damaging claim “posing as a peer-reviewed publication” which may make Wikipedia readers wrongly think is a non-peer-reviewed publication, which just is not true. I believe we need to strive for accuracy rather than convey something that might readily be misunderstood.
Further, I believe that we need to give equal weight to both sides of the debate about Mangham’s work. The Research section starts out with a fairly full description of the Insite research, followed by a few lines describing the RCMP report by Mangham, and then just two sentences of description of his actual critique, which again merits mention because Minister Clement cited it as original rationale for closing Insite. Then follows a full paragraph describing criticism of Mangham. I cannot see any reason why Wikipedia should be privileging his critics so for the sake of balance and neutrality I have added Mangham’s response to these criticisms. Finally, Mangham’s RCMP report must be dealt with under Research because it is a critique or analysis of the research – it certainly is not Reception. Minphie ( talk) 01:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What needs to be done is everyone need to use
review articles found in journals indexed by pubmed. This will solved the issues we are dealing with.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
05:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Having not been able to edit Wikipedia for many months I return to find the entire section on the Expert Advisory Committee's review of the research removed - and on entirely subjective grounds which have no substance. Minphie ( talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The research has been extensively criticised by an international team of medical analysts, [3] who have specifically written to Lancet urging retraction of the study claiming 35% decreases in overdose deaths around Insite due to its presence. [4] [5] The international analysis cites a police crackdown as sufficient explanation for any decreases in overdose mortality. The crackdown with 48-72 added police, commencing 6 months before Insite opened in the four city blocks around its present location and continuing until this day in an expanded 12 block area around Insite, initially reduced indicators of drug use and users in the targeted area by 46% in 2003. Any reductions in crime, public drug use and litter are accorded to policing. [6] Drug Free Australia, which coordinated the analysis, continues to pursue Lancet for retraction of the study, which they say has a track record of reluctant progress on retractions and whose Chief Editor, Richard Horton, is a close colleague of two of the disputed study’s researchers. [7]
The international analysis claims to demonstrate that Insite is statistically capable of saving just one life per annum, that previous estimates of deaths averted naively calculate from artificially inflated overdose rates inside Insite and that cost-benefit studies wrongly assume that the effectiveness of clean needle provision has been scientifically demonstrated when they claim it has not. [8]
Government Expert Advisory Committee
In 2008 an Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) appointed by Health Canada produced an international review of injecting facilities, focusing on studies of Insite and a comparable facility in Sydney, Australia. [9] The EAC found that more than 8,000 people had injected drugs at Insite, with 1,506 of this number accounting for 80% of all visits. Less than 10% used Insite for all injections, with a median number of visits for all clients of eight. With around 400 opiate injections daily mathematical models indicated it could statistically save 1.08 lives per year. [10] While the EAC signalled caution about the validity of these estimates, drug prevention organization Drug Free Australia's 2010 analysis of overdoses in injecting rooms by Dr Robert Dupont, first President of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), found that the estimate by the EAC, which did not record its method of calculation, accords well with the method used by the most comprehensive review of injecting facilities worldwide, that of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), to calculate numbers of lives saved in German consumption rooms. [11]
The EAC further found that the facility reached its target population, that clients rated the service as highly satisfactory and that the facility had increased access to detoxification and treatment. It noted no increases in crime in the area but noted that the journal studies had not controlled for police activity, weather etc. No increases in drug use were found. However, it questioned the validity of assumptions behind journal studies which had calculated estimates of the number of HIV transmissions prevented and also noted that calculated cost-benefit ratios could not be validated unless proper longitudinal studies were completed.
Drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, has calculated that by taking only the 1,506 injectors who most regularly use the centre, who would cumulatively inject somewhere between 6,000 and 9,000 times daily, the less than 500 injections in Insite daily represents at best one injection in every 12 by these clients inside the facility. [12]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)p 117
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
My objections are that DFA reports are not MEDRS and this above from Minphie is presented as research along research done in proper peer-reviewed journals. The letters to Lancet is not peer-reviewed either, but I can take that part. However, the response from the authors they criticise must also be given room. And it does not really matter that Minphie think they are wrong in what they say. And when everything from DFA is stricken, not much is left. And what is, is obtuse in my opinion. Steinberger ( talk) 07:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. This has been a pretty irregular request, or series of requests, which is probably why they've been sitting unanswered for as long as they have. Given that, I'm going to address all three of them at once, since they seem to be the same dispute in essence. I'm going to take some time composing my reply, so please continue to be patient; if I haven't replied in 24 hours, feel free to ping me on my talk page or move the dispute to another rung of the DR ladder; it's probably going to be too complex for another 3O at this point. My intention is to address some content issues that aren't dependent on the result of the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard; that specialized noticeboard will be better-equipped to provide a satisfactory answer to questions of reliability. Conduct issues are right out. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Steinberger, the text I have added is a critique of the Research and is nothing whatsoever to do with Reception. The critiques I cite all come from members of the World Federation Against Drugs which is the World's peak body for drug prevention organizations, albeit released by Drug Free Australia, a member organization. So there is no lack of reliability in the source as per Wikipedia RS policy, nor is there anything UNDUE in giving a critique of equal length (you can do a word count) to the Insite research on a contentious project (the UN Drug Conventions still have not embraced harm reduction into their wording, nor does the UN's International Narcotics Control Board accept injecting rooms as within the conventions). I have not cited Mangham either, despite the material according with some of Mangham's entirely verifiable observations elsewhere - you will see that what I cite comes from Lancet and the DFA document backing the Lancet letter I cite. Minphie ( talk) 06:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Minphie have sought more opinions on this earlier.
He didn't fare very well. Steinberger ( talk) 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added text to the Insite page referring to an ongoing public debate about a study in Lancet on Insite's effectiveness re averting deaths from overdose which has been challenged in a letter to Lancet. I trust that I have described the arguments of both sides as neutrally as possible. User Steinberger has since moved the text, saying that it does not belong to the Research section and I argue that moving the text elsewhere only serves to sanitise the reality on the Research and it is possible that it is being moved for this purpose [24]. We need a third opinion on whether the moved text is about the research on Insite or about its reception. Steinberger is arguing that it belongs with a section in Reception where a prominent Canadian drug preventionist gives her opinions about the research, although she is speaking of issues other than those I am addressing in the Lancet debate about police presence. Your best thoughts on the issue on which section this belongs to? Minphie ( talk) 10:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
What can be considered a credible external link for the article? There are only three listed.
Sepideah OSF ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Sepideah OSF
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Insite. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 0 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Supervised+injection+site+exempt+from+drug+laws+court/5482761/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The very first paragraph reports that the Downtown Eastside neighborhood "had 4700 chronic drug users in 2000."
Great statistic, but it would be really useful to learn whether now, 19 years later, that number has increased or decreased. This would tell us a lot about the effectiveness of the addiction treatment service the site provides.
It's important, because here in Denver we're debating whether to open a similar site.
The lack of a follow-up statistic makes me suspect that the neighborhood has more chronic drug users now than there were in 2000. Perhaps a LOT more. Otherwise, why wouldn't Insite stakeholders proudly report how effective they've been at reducing the number of chronic drug users? 75.163.161.212 ( talk) 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In regards to the reversion of my addition to this article, Grayfell said "(Reverted good faith edits by Gryhm (talk): Source doesn't appear to mention insite. Please cite a source which explains the connection (TW))".
The original source for my edit is the Government of British Columbia Coroners Report on drug overdoses.
Although the report does not specifically say 'Insite' it does reference 'Vancouver Coastal Health Authority' which operates Insite, specifically "Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have had the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths (188 and 164 deaths, respectively) in 2019, making up 65% of all such deaths during this period. 2019: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. has the highest rate of illicit drug toxicity deaths (27 deaths per 100,000 individuals)."
As for operating Insite, I can reference Wikipedia: [2]
"Operation
Insite is operated in tandem by Vancouver Coastal Health and the Portland Hotel Society."
The first Insite location resides in Vancouver, so I believe the addition of overall drug overdose rates in Vancouver and British Columbia are relevant to the article, especially when the rest of the article contains arguments of whether or not drug overdoses have been reduced. I am simply trying to provide statistical data from a credible source on the overall drug overdose deaths in Vancouver and British Columbia. It would be different if I said something like 'Insite has caused an increase in drug overdoses'
Thank you, this was my 3rd wikipedia post ever, so hopefully, I did this right. :)
Gryhm ( talk) 00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Grayfell for responding.
I understand why Wikipedia doesn't count as a source for Wikipedia, that makes sense. I figured it was validated since it hadn't been removed.
If I include this reference directly from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority website: "Vancouver Coastal Health operates, and provides all the funding, senior administrative and health care workers at Insite." [3]
Is that good enough to then reference the Government of British Columbia Coroners Report that concludes in it's Summary on page 1:
• The townships experiencing the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2019 are Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria and Abbotsford. • Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have had the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths (188 and 164 deaths, respectively) in 2019, making up 65% of all such deaths during this period. • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has the highest rate of illicit drug toxicity deaths (27 deaths per 100,000 individuals) followed by Northern Health Authority (22 deaths per 100,000 individuals) in 2019. Overall, the rate in BC was 22 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2019.
This is not an implied statistic, or original research, the report specifically says these exact words, and it's a government document WP:PRIMARY. In other areas of the article it is referencing whether Insite has reduced drug injections and overdoses in the area. Seems like these statistics then apply to the area?
Thanks for helping me in my wikipedia expedition. :) Gryhm ( talk) 21:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)