Talk:Insite

Undue Weight

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)

The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

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]

Chuck it. Wikipedia is exceptionally clear about what constitutes reliable sources, and the burden tends to be higher for things of public health and science. While we can certainly include the opinions of individuals such as Barbra Kay, astroturf projects, such as the ones often baked up by corporations and lobbying groups, deserve to be chucked out, especially when they fly in the fact of scientific or public health consensus. Wikipedia can deal with, appropriately, minority view points, but its not a dustbin for cranks either. SiberioS (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Barbara Kay ref

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)

OK, but the last text you deleted was not from Barbara Kay, it was from Margaret Wente so I put it back. Dala11a (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wentes arguments are not that far removed from the same refs that were already chucked out. In fact the way the article originally had it had both Wente and Kay grouped together, and for a reason; they both had similar opinions, both of which willfully misconstrued or misunderstood peer reviewed research. She also borders on slandering the researchers; we wouldn't tolerate such statements on a BLP and we shouldn't outsource it either. I note, however, that you have an axe to grind in regards to drug articles, and no doubt any attempt to remove what are essentially unscientific opinion pieces will be accused of being "censorship".

The funny thing is, the article DOES include criticisms and mention of opposition. The difference is said opposition comes from either legitimate authorities (government, law enforcement, or public health groups) or from stakeholders in the area (such as the mention of the community organizations that initially opposed the site). SiberioS (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is the opposition only "the Bush administration and the ... The Royal Canadian Mounted Police" ? No, that is not true, the opposition includes other types of organization and persons of importance with different reasons for their opposition.Dala11a (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except their opinions don't matter. This is not an area where Joe Schmoe can comment; we don't let creationists run rampant over articles relating to biology.= just because "they have an opinion". Articles relating to science and public health require a higher standard for inclusion than some "guy on the street" approach. Otherwise we would let every cockamamie crank with an axe to grind write whatever they want. SiberioS (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noted that it does not matter who criticize this project. Any additional text about that in this article is censoredDala11a (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article has not had critical comments from the RCMP and or the Bush administration censored, even though if, as you claim, we all had an axe to grind, certainly those would be the first to go. Astroturf projects and various sham "Health" meetings, however, do not pass muster. I'm sure somewhere there is a journal of public health that features an article critical of Insite. In fact, I'll go look for that now, since you seem so bent out of shape on the issue. SiberioS (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "additional text" = other than the RCMP or the Bush adminstration.Dala11a (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant information

"4700 injection drug addicts were estimated to live in The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver in 2000. The Economist mention the number 8000 in a article in August 2008. "

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)

1) It is your original synthesis (a rule I know you heard about before but obviously not understood). 2) When it comes to relevance, it not as obvious. I know. But who, except Barbara Key, have suggested that the goal of the project would lead to a lower, or the same amount of addict in the area where this medical structure is established? To my knowledge, that is not the goal of this project - it is to lower the mortality rate and elevate the health and quality of life for those addicts. Numbers proving or disproving that would be relevant... those you have presented are not. How relevant is a comparison between the numbers of addicts in Downtown Eastside in 2000 and in the whole of Vancouver in 2008 anyway? Steinberger (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1) And what is your evidence for that the very exceptional concentration of injection drug addicts in Downtown East side is not relevant? I have included two sources, one is a 75 pages long detailed report. You referrer to nothing, so who is making his own private original synthesis?

2) The deleted text does not include any conclusions from the numbers, so where is the synthesis you claim?

3) The deleted text say nothing about Barbara Key, the goal of the project etc; that claim is just nonsense.

4) Your theory, real original research, that the extreme concentration of 5000 -8000 injection addicts in the close neighborhood to Insite is irrelevant, is on the same level as the theory that the earth is flat.Dala11a (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1) No, it is not my personal synthesis. And I don't have to prove it. 2) The deleted text suggest a rise in numbers. That is not supported by the sources you present. 3) Sorry, It was Magaret Wente who thought that. [4] 4) What source suggest that there are 8000 in the "close neihborhood to Insite"? The Economist article? I suggest you read it again. They present the numbers for the whole of Vancouver.

As other people have told you. Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe. Just stop! Steinberger (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You remark 4) is correct. I notice that you also see the high concentration of a number of thousand injection addicts in Downtown Eastside as a relevant information.Dala11a (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

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)

Deleting of a relevant source

User Steinberger has several times deleted a relevant source a report by Colin ManghamA 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)

I didn't delete it because I didn't "like" it. I deleted it because I did not like your summary of it and I really don't understand why the findings of a highly disputed report are relevant to this article. The report were mentioned even after I deleted the reference to it and your cherry-pick abstract. I opt for deleting it again really. Why are the findings of the report relevant of mentioning in this article when they are so highly disputed? Steinberger (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to find anything about Insite that is not highly disputed, that something is disputed is not a strong reason for deleting. You used both the argument that it was cherry-pick abstract (text in the article = the sourse) and a personal synthesis (text in the article not equal to the sourse), two obvious conflicting reasons. The critera for including the Magnaham report is very simle, it has been used by the responsible Health Minister, it has become a part of the history of Insite and it is not relevant if you or somebody else think it is good or bad. It has been used and therefore it is relevant. Compare with the article Legal history of cannabis in the United States. That article refer to documents about to The Second Opium conference, the hearings before the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 with Harry J Anslinger, a book by Jack Herer etc etc, totally 50 different sources from different years.Dala11a (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never disputed that the Mangham report should be mentioned, and especially not the connection between RCMP, the report and the Canadian federal governments attempt on closing Insite. What I have disputed is that the content of the Mangham report should be referred to as it is now. And when you say that the program is disputed, that is true. But the research on Insite? I don't think so. Steinberger (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Magnaham report identifies for example a number of hot issues that had very little or no attention or little data behind the conclusions in the reports published in scientific journals. For an interested reader, it is naturally of interest to know, what hot issues is it?Dala11a (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? A "number of hot issues that had very little or no attention or little data behind the conclusions in the reports"? The "hot issue" is that Mangham dislikes the present scientific discourse with its findings suggesting a different path then the one they want to pursue. It's that simple. Steinberger (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"What do you mean" Reply: Mangham is well worth a short abstract and reference because he is pointing to a number of real weaknesses in the project Insite and his report was used by the former Health minister. It is that simple. If the article only includes an abstract of what the supporters believe is the merits of Insite, then the article becomes POV. Dala11a (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clement used the report to say "There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite." [5] and refering to the Mangham report. He didn't go deeper then that into the content of Manghams report. However the report is "fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims" [6]. During the same conference that Clement made that judgment on the science base, questions about the article's trustworthiness were arisen. Clements press secretary later said in reference to that, that "We are going to take all research into account when we make our decision [on the future of Insite]." This was in August. In October 2007 the government lengthened the legal exception for Insite. A strange thing to do if they really believed that Mangham were right. The Mangham report is fraudulent and, with support from sections above, I say that its content should not be mentioned. Steinberger (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed to quote the conclusion in [7], the report you quoted above: "We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area."(Evan Wood (2007-09-07) I agree with this conclusion. Wood E. is one of the authors of the reports about Insite, I guess it is the same person as Evan Wood.Dala11a (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the source again, Mangham, Colin 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 Why??? Dala11a (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See above, and not only this section. Steinberger (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still 1) The section shall include Magnahams report as a source. 2)The section shall also include a very short abstract of the Magnaham report with his own words, for eg. a direct quote from the summary in the report, like “The published findings actually reveal little or no reductions in transmission of blood-borne diseases or public disorder, no impact on overdose deaths in Vancouver … no movement of drug users into long-term treatment and recovery…” . Evan Wood stated, se above, let the readers "judge for themselves".Dala11a (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we disagree, and SiberioS have above also opted against summaries of non-peer review articles. And on the Woods part, readers of scientific journals are not your everyday people. The people wikipedia is intended for. Wood also suggest this affluent scientific readers to read all of the articles, assessing there methodology and see if Manghams critique has merit. So we can't do his suggestion justice here on a wikipedia article anyway. Steinberger (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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)

Insite is primarily presented as a medical issue and not a social issue and the report is not on social issues related to Insite but a dismissal on the research done on it. There are links to articles on this page to "outlets" like Open Journal, National Review of Medicine, CMAJ and Medical News Today (the latter refers to an article in the Lancet) who all dismisses the report as non-trustworthy. I think it is appropriate to keep it as it is now. With it mentioned, and maybe more elaborate then it is now, but not directly represented with its "findings" summarized. Steinberger (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If others have criticized the source, then include and source those criticisms, don't remove the criticized source--Dialecticalism is a great way to take an NPOV approach to disputed subjects. If you really think the report should be excluded entirely, I'd suggest you take that up at WP:RS/N, but I doubt they'll sympathize. The article is currently only tagged as being included within Wikiproject Vancouver, so there doesn't appear to be any well-established basis for saying that this article is focused on medical rather than social issues. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it further, the Global Drug Policy position paper is in no way an unreliable source. What it IS is a POV-source supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. Trying to eliminate it from the discussion of Insite would be inappropriate censorship. It should be critiqued as POV, unscientific, policy-driven, US meddling, or whatnot. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They give an open presentation of their relation to the U.S. Department of Justice in http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/aboutus.php I thank you for your support.Dala11a (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Clemensts speech in August

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)

It is obvious that you do not understood the third opinion above, see the text about dialektism as a good method to write about a controversial subject. If you want to include comments from CMA's president you don't start with deleting the parts that Mr Clements probably thinks is the most important.Dala11a (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not a motivation for cherry-picking a out-of-context line to present as a central statement. Steinberger (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced that Mr Clements do not see it as a out-of context line, the source clearly say that he was speaking about Insite. Your are replacing Mr Clements opinions with your own opinions about what is significantDala11a (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not substituting my own opinion with Clements. He was speaking about Insite, but in the context of its costs, the alleged "uncertainty" of its effectiveness and, according to him, derailed ethics. So a what he believes to be "better" thing to do should be put in that context. Steinberger (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

update?

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 added a couple of statements from this article. Thanks for the notice. -Gump Stump (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mangham Evidence not WP:UNDUE

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)

Manghams views about drugs may not be in minority - at least in the general public. But his findings are seen upon with great scepticism by the scientific community and to, in that light, give his non-peer reviewed findings more room then other, more reputable findigns in peer reviewed journals is definitely to breach WP:UNDUE (especially WP:VALID) and WP:CHERRY. Steinberger (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Steinberger, I have replaced the text you have removed from the article because your objections above have no relevance to the replaced paragraph on two grounds.

1. The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is indeed peer-reviewed, despite your assertions to the contrary, as can be confirmed with the Editor, Dianne Glymph, who replied to Drug Free Australia’s question by e-mail dated 24 May 2010 with “Yes, each article is peer reviewed. We take submissions from folks we don't know and submit them to peer review and have published some that have passed that process. We have also rejected articles from folks we know that didn't meet our requirements. Please let me know if you have any further questions, Dianne” Anyone could confirm this by e-mailing this editor at dglymph@dfaf.org.
2. Whether Mangham’s views are accepted by a wing of ‘scientists’ who advance one drug policy perspective ie harm reduction or even drug legalisation, is totally irrelevant, because the paragraph I have replaced is not, even remotely, addressing a scientific question regarding Insite. It is addressing a historical observation about police numbers and their increases at the commencement of Insite. Questions of historical events are not adjudicated by science (it can sometimes only be used to support or falsify what a witness or authority has said), but rather by witnesses and the demonstrated veracity or otherwise of what they have said. Science, which deals in the realm of the repeatable, has nothing to do with this fact of policing history. So science or scientists have no relevance to this paragraph, nor is it relevant what some scientists might think about Mangham, which can be well disputed anyway on the grounds of their agendas.Minphie (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This reliable source say the journal is non-peer reviewed. You can e-mail the webmaster at medicalmarijuana.net and have marijuanas health benefits confirmed also. Steinberger (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Minphie, read Wikipedia:Third party sources. Also note that what you are trying to insert already is summarized by Gump Stump [11] elsewhere in the form of this quote: "He [Mangham] also claimed that interviews with area treatment centres revealed no referrals from Insite, and that police presence was deliberately bolstered in the area." Steinberger (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Minphie went to WP:RSN with JDGPP and that spurred some action (in the order they where created):

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
• Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
• Talk:Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

Steinberger (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

JGDPP and peer-review

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)

Any talk about the unsubstantiated beliefs of two other sources re whether JGDPP is peer-reviewed or not is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about unsubstantiated beliefs but about evidence. The evidence is very, very clear as previously demonstrated in the discussion above:

The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is indeed peer-reviewed, despite your assertions to the contrary, as can be confirmed with the Editor, Dianne Glymph, who replied to Drug Free Australia’s question by e-mail dated 24 May 2010 with “Yes, each article is peer reviewed. We take submissions from folks we don't know and submit them to peer review and have published some that have passed that process. We have also rejected articles from folks we know that didn't meet our requirements. Please let me know if you have any further questions, Dianne” Anyone could confirm this by e-mailing this editor at dglymph@dfaf.org.

These two sources have not checked their facts. They obviously have not asked the Editor, who is the one who knows, seeing as they daily disseminate their articles to reviewers. Wikipedia will suffer if unverified beliefs are given sway over solidly verified fact.Minphie (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrably false objection that journal is not peer-reviewed

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:

1. I had previously reproduced an e-mail from the journal’s editor, Dianne Glymph, here stating very clearly that the journal is indeed peer-reviewed. There is no higher authority on this question than the journal’s own editor and any assertion to the contrary is simply absurd.
2. The attempt in the Reliable Sources Forum and various discussion pages to elevate commentators’ or protagonists’ opinions above the testimony of the journal’s own editor are rationally vacuous and would not be entertained in any forum elsewhere, so why is it even advanced at all on Wikipedia?
3. The attempt by a contributor here to elevate the unedified opinion of two researchers, Wood and Kerr, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, where they asserted that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice “POSES as an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal”, thereby claiming that the word of this medical association has more credibility than the journal’s own editor and webpage’s own statements fails on two grounds a. nothing is more authoritative than the journal editor’s own word b. the contributor failed to note that the two researchers he quotes as authoritative are the very researchers whose work is being criticised by Colin Mangham in the JGDPP – hardly a case for a neutral point of view by these two. This appeal to their ‘greater credibility’ on drug policy issues is akin to someone quoting the UK Tories’ views against the UK Labour party’s social policies as authoritative, rather than merely being an opposing view in a conflicting argument.
4. The final fall-back position for another contributor, where he/she says here about the journal’s own indisputable claim to be peer-reviewed - “ I really read it as a token to mislead the unsuspicious, then something that should be taken for real. Steinberger (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)” is an appeal to suspicion. If suspicions are not valid content for any Wikipedia page because they are not verified, it is abundantly clear that suspicion can never be used as an excuse to delete properly evidenced text.

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.

Reliability of the journal as source established by Needle Exchange article

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)

The journal that it is published in does not appear legitimate. It is not indexed in pubmed. Read comments here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have again reinstated citations and text related to the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. It has been established elsewhere that the journal is most-definitely peer-reviewed, that it is treated as a reliable source for one of the most authoritative reviews on needle exchange (see Needle Exchange Talk) and that contributors to the journal share hundreds of PubMed articles between them, making it compliant as WP:MEDRS. Added to this is that the relevant injecting room articles are largely not addressing medical data, but rather discussing data within a psycho-social context, which makes WP:MEDRS superfluous. Furthermore deletions of sections on the Expert Advisory Committee, which are not relevant to criticism of JGDPP, should be treated as blanking vandalism - censorship, if it continues. Minphie (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It have been properly established elsewhere that JGDPP does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal (here). It is in no way WP:MEDRS. And while some think articles might be usable to cite in some circumstances anyway (when called for in the specific case, while not giving its findings undue weight - as I read Timidguy and Whatamidoing), what circumstances is not properly settled just yet as it seems. Under all circumstances using anything in JGDPP should be properly discussed and motivated in the specific case. Such as in this article, where Magnham's findings are briefly refereed to as his article is used by Clements. Steinberger (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the BC Minister of Health?

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)

Changes to previous text on EAC and Mangham

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’.

Colin Mangham’s Criticism of Insite Research

1. I believe we are all agreed that Colin Mangham’s criticisms of the Insite research must remain on the Wikipedia Insite page – it is a rationale concerning the evidence base given by the Harper government for closing the facility. Further, the fact that the section on Mangham has remained on the page is testimony to its importance.
2. DocJames has continued to remove text which contains one extra sentence than the incumbent text on the rationale that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is not 1. peer-reviewed[[13]], 2. compliant with WP:MEDRS[14] and 3. In keeping with the ‘consensus’ from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[[15]]. All three rationales are demonstrably invalid.
   1. It has been carefully proven, via recourse to an e-mail from the JGDPP’s own Editor, that the journal, and especially Mangham’s article, is peer-reviewed. Recourse to the uneducated guesses of two researchers who are criticized by Mangham amounts to elevating the opinion of two disputants over the facts established by direct communication with the journal’s editor. I have given a first warning that if this rationale is used again to remove text I will take recourse for blanking vandalism – censorship. This is my second warning.
   2. The appeal to WP:MEDRS has absolutely no place in this discussion, because the sentence specifically describing Mangham’s criticisms are about law and order and referral to rehabilitation, neither of which are remotely medical. I have pointed out a number of times before that addiction is universally considered to be chiefly psycho-social, therefore issues within that domain, ie law and order or rehab, are not adjudicated by medical research or commentary. And as it happens, the appeal to WP:MEDRS has already been shown here to be without any foundation anyway, so I would expect no more use of this false rationale.
3. DocJames and Steinberger have appealed to the results of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, claiming some kind of imagined consensus. But in fact there are THREE separate discussions seeking third-party input found on that Noticeboard, with certainly no third-party consensus established in the first two, and a way ahead suggested in the third, which I have indeed followed.
   1. The first commenced 9 March 2011 here has no consensus with the only third-party input apart from those in the dispute coming from ItsmeJudith and TimidGuy. Neither agreed, with TimidGuy suggesting that “It seems like a reliable source” and “I don't see why this source couldn't be used in WP” while ItsmeJudith said “It doesn't look like a normal academic journal because it isn't published by one of the publishing houses that handle journals”. The only other inputs were myself and Steinberger, the disputants.
   2. The second commenced 5 June 2011 [16] had only the third-party input of TimidGuy. OhioStandard was not a disinterested third-party by any call, being one of the disputants, who blanked my text here on precisely the same false rationale as used by DocJames and Steinberger. So the only third-party comment by TimidGuy, that “I don't know of a guideline that would proscribe it” was positive for the journal, not negative. Certainly no negative consensus here.
   3. The third commenced 8 June [17] contained third-party input affirming the journal as a reliable source for the issue discussed.

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)

It was agreed that this ref was not to be used http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php Regardless you definitely do not have consensus for its inclusion. A personal email from said editor is not reliable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't defer an opinion, such as you do with OhioStandards, on the ground that he is a "disputante". And the third RSN-disussion was on a very specific study published in JGDPP. The third-parties, using your terminology, said it could be mentioned very briefly in the NEP article. They did not, in any way, issue you a carte blanche for using any JDGPP articles elsewhere. Steinberger (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Steinberger & DocJames, as I have said above we have been through all this before 13 months ago on the Harm Reduction Talk page with precisely the same issues involved. LiteratureGeek advised at the time re Drug Free Australia's analysis of Safe Injection Sites[18] see Section "Support for Safe Injection Sites a Minority World View", which was being disputed by Steinberger and sockpuppet Figs Might Ply, that,

Steinberger, this article is not a pure medical article, infact it is not even 50 percent medical article in my view. It has significant, political, social as well as medical implications and involvement. WP:MEDRS, only applies for when talking about specific medical statements.... Why is this article so biased in favour of harm reduction when there is extensive controversies throughout the world? Can anyone enlighten me? I do not know who is most or least to blame for this but the article is not balanced.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

REAL Women of Canada seems to be notable enough for a criticisms section as it has its own wikipedia article and is a non-governmental organisation (NGO), although admittedly I am sure better quality sources could be found. Drug Free Australia document seemed comprehensive and from my brief look the organisation seems to be notable. This source, is a government source but was part of the revert, certainly a reliable source for a criticisms section. This source, is another reliable source but was also reverted. I have got about half way through reading the large revert of text you performed and much of it seemed to be fairly cited. For example, one source did say it costs $3,000,000 per year for their injection room and they also estimated that they save just one life per year. That is a huge amount of money and not statistically significant outcome, 1 life saved, a very valid criticism, why did you revert it? It was not WP:SYN or original research and Health Canada is not a partisan source as claimed. Almost all sources it can be argued are partisan, the idea of WP:NPOV is to report all of the notable viewpoints and allow the facts to speak for themselves. I could think of a lot of drug and alcohol services who could do immense benefit to society with 3 million dollars.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You should not be mass reverting these content additions but rather if other views exist then add them for balance. If the content section gets too big then we can always split it off into a new article called harm reduction controversy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to be reverting text that is evidenced and from reliable sources as defined above. Again, you will have seen that there is no possible rationale for excluding Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice as well, seeing as an e-mail from the Editor has been reproduced categorically stating the journal is peer-reviewed, along with her e-mail address and the request that she be contacted directly by anyone wanting to revert text on that basis so they can confirm it for themselves. Given the issues discussed above there is no justifiable rationale for reverting text for this article. Minphie (talk) 21:51, 25 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)

Steinberger, you have again inserted 'unreliable medical source' beside text describing Drug Free Australia's criticisms of Insite, despite this being an issue that we resolved more than 12 months ago. At that time you sought input from the Reliable Sources noticeboard re Drug Free Australia's analysis of the Sydney injecting room, (see Section Drug Free Australia here which concluded that DFA was a reliable source) which had been produced by 4 PhDs (one well [PUBMED] published medico-epidemiologist, one well [PUBMED] published addiction medicine practitioner, two social researchers of which one is also a well [PUBMED] published medico) and one other welfare professional, each described here and which was frequently cited by Australian Parliamentarians, media and Parliamentary Inquiries. The later 2010 analysis by Drug Free Australia cited in the Insite page, which includes analysis of both the Sydney and Canadian injecting centres, had even broader international input from Dr Robert Du Pont, First President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) (120 Pubmed articles), Neil McKeganey (64 Pubmed articles) and other PhDs. This latter analysis has also been liberally cited by State Parliamentarians in October 2010. I am concerned that your use of the tag 'unreliable medical source' is used moreso to denigrate the rather important Drug Free Australia observation in the eyes of Wikipedia readers moreso than improve Wikipedia. I am also again concerned that you have reverted text without a stated rationale either here or in the Edit Summary. Minphie (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Minphie. They never said that DFA was a reliable source for medical facts (that is, the impact on public health of yada yada). It was said that it was reliable source for the policy positions of a notable group, at least so on matters where they are stakeholders. It was for example recommended that one should cite the government statistics and research reports DFA get their figures from directly rather then relying on DFA. It was also recommend that when they are cited, it should be done with attribution and qualifiers identifying them as a advocacy group. And when it comes to PubMed, your way of counting articles if flawed as Ohiostandard points put here. So let the tags be. Steinberger (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinberger, I am perplexed by your comments here. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard response on Drug Free Australia was:

"We could use an article about this group to gather all the sources in one place. From reading [7][8][9][10], this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists. It does seem to be cited in reliable sources, but always with attribution. That's what I'd recommend here. Not self published - clearly it's an established group, not just one person - but attribution required, and I'd recommend adding something like "advocacy group" or "lobbying group" by their name. --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)"

Thus:

1. There was no advice here about directly citing government figures, as you have alleged. This third party opinion, based on a look at the organization and the materials in question, concluded that it was a reliable source.
2. In any case the Expert Advisory Committee figures are all on the Wikipedia page ie the ones which Drug Free Australia comments on, so there can be no objection that government figures are absent.
3. Drug Free Australia is already clearly identified as a drug prevention group.
4. Further your appeal to comments by OhioStandard over on the Supervised Injection Site Talk page is entirely irrelevant to Drug Free Australia. There he discusses the JGDPP journal which has no relevance whatsoever to Drug Free Australia. And Dr Robert DuPont does indeed have 120 Pubmed articles etc etc, which is not in any way disproven by OhioStandard's text on an entirely different matter (as dubious as that text may also be).

If you still have issues about the Drug Free Australia comment, perhaps you should tell me on this Talk page what words you believe should be used to describe Drug Free Australia's important analysis. Minphie (talk) 01:10, 11 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)

"I can't see why Drug Free Australia should be considered in itself a reliable source, since from what you say it is an advocacy organisation. If it cites evidence such as official statistics or research reports, then it would be better to follow the leads and cite the evidence itself - assuming that they are not primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)" Steinberger (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinberger, I am wondering if this is some kind of joke. The advice of ItsmeJudith from a Talk page (which never figured in the discussions between us last year) could hardly be taken seriously when it is considered that Drug Free Australia's analysis of the injecting room data does in fact reproduce and engage all the data deriving from the sources she mentions. And how would Drug Free Australia, which is alleging that the government-funded evaluations have made conclusions which don't accord with the data, make such a claim if they could only reproduce the evaluations without their own academic comment? This is of course ludicrous.

Further, Drug Free Australia's analysis of the Sydney injecting room, completed by 3 well-published (in numerous peer-reviewed medical journals) PhD medicos, (of which one was an epidemiologist/head of the public health and addictions unit for one of Australia's largest hospitals), an analysis used by numerous Australian politicians and media, was discussed between us ad infinitum last year with resolution being reached that Drug Free Australia was indeed a reliable source, albeit cited with attribution, as Australia's peak drug prevention organisation. You were the one that initiated the request on Reliable Sources Noticeboard which got the answer below. Here is the entire discussion:

I wonder if papers and booklets published by Drug Free Australia, specifically "The Kings Cross Injecting Room - The Case for Closure" and "The Case for Closure: Detailed Evidence", can be considered reliable sources? Are they WP:SPS? Can they be used without attribution? Steinberger (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We could use an article about this group to gather all the sources in one place. From reading [7][8][9][10], this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists. It does seem to be cited in reliable sources, but always with attribution. That's what I'd recommend here. Not self published - clearly it's an established group, not just one person - but attribution required, and I'd recommend adding something like "advocacy group" or "lobbying group" by their name. --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you want to disregard the advice that you yourself sought and adhered to immediately after receiving it, ie the advice confirming that Drug Free Australia's analysis of all aspects of the injecting room's operation was in fact a reliable source. The comment from Drug Free Australia's 2010 analysis which you wish to tag as 'unreliable medical source' is by the very same medicos involved in the 2003 analysis, albeit with the addition of Dr Robert DuPont, the first President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, also adviser on drug issues to two US Presidents, and two other international medical PhDs (Dr Kerstin Kall, the one whose needle exchange review was used as a core review by the European Union's Drug Monitoring Centre in its 2010 Monograph on Harm Reduction, and Dr Neil McKeganey who has become so central to the new directions now taken by the UK Government on drug policy). So there are no grounds whatsoever for trying to pretend that there has not been advice on Drug Free Australia's analysis of injecting rooms from a neutral third party. You were then following Wikipedia policy for resolving a dispute, but now that you have decided that you don't like that advice, you wish to flout Wikipedia policy. Minphie (talk) 04:00, 17 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)

OhioStandard, DocJames, Steinberger, I believe that we are at a place where this content dispute needs the input of other parties beyond the neutral third party comment previously requested and received on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. DocJames, you appear ready to take action and this may be a possible way ahead, so invite you to take it. I certainly feel that mediation/arbitration of the issue is the next step according to what I see in the dispute resolution policies.

DocJames, regarding your comment above, I believe we should be keeping to Wikipedia policies on reliable sources which are broader than the more limited criteria you are suggesting. Minphie (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Minphie, presenting the opinions of Minister Clement, RCMP, Mangham, et al. "for the sake of balance and neutrality" violates WP:UNDUE - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've come here having noticed the case request at Arbcom. Looking at the various discussions, the importance of the Mangham article is that it has influenced government policy about the subject of this article. Thus it needs to be mentioned here as it is important to the history of the subject organisation. As Doc James points out, it is not a review article in a pubmed journal so it is not a first-class source about needle exchanges in general and therefore more general articles should not use it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel about how the Magnham article is handled in the article now (under the heading "Reception")? (Insite is not a needle exchange, but a supervised injection facility.) Steinberger (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did mean injecting room. I think the Mangham is treated acceptably but there is a bit too much "to and fro". I would chop the last two paragraphs of the section as they seem to be issued by campaigning groups and do not reflect the views of mainstream medics and are not the product of review articles in first class medical, sociological or social policy journals. The quotation stating that the peer reviews were done only by the believers in harm reduction seems surprising as a lot of journals do not identify their reviewers. Further it sounds like the typical moans of a fringe group that academics are biased. I've been active in Wikipedia around the Shakespeare authorship question where there are a lot of conspiracy theorists moaning about how the academically respectable sources are rigged.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the ArbCom case, and looked at the recent edit-war, and I just wanted to comment: Wikipedia is not about picking winners and losers. We shouldn't decide that the journal is unscientific and shouldn't be mentioned when it has a following and an impact, and chop out all mention of it. We should explain why the journal is unscientific and gets a skeptical reception so that the reader can evaluate the situation more critically. I mean, look at OhioStandard's very well written ArbCom statement:

... the "war on drugs" views of organizations like the Drug Free America Foundation that lobbies, directly and via a surprising number of astroturf projects, for much harsher penalties and more vigorous enforcement. That organization is aggressively opposed to needle exchange programs and other harm reduction efforts, which it calls "a tactic to normalize drug use." Because the organization had the same founders, it is often named as the successor to the notorious Straight, Incorporated that operated an extremely abusive, very long-term residential boot-camp style program for kids who had been discovered to have used drugs.

The so-called Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is a captive vehicle for the Drug Free America Foundation. It appears to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated project to artificially promote and lend credibility to its "war on drugs" political agenda. I came to this conclusion after completing something like 20 hours of research about it when I first saw its article come up at AfD. Beyond that initial 20 hours, I've found it necessary to put in considerably more time to be able to respond intelligently to Minphie's ceaseless attempts to incorporate "research" from this publication into our articles.

In one recent week, for example, I spent another eight or ten hours learning about and investigating citation index databases for academic articles to discover that this so-called journal has evidently been cited just twice by legitimate journals since its inception in 2007. One of those two citations, at least, was made to strongly criticize the publication as a "marketing device" for the pro-enforcement views of its parent Drug Free America Foundation. ( I don't have access to the second journal that cited it, although I have reason to suspect that it was also cited there for the purpose of unfavorable commentary. ) It appears that almost no one in the published academic community views this as a legitimate scientific journal, with the possible exception of those involved in promoting it.

Now this is a beautiful explanation that makes it exactly clear what the issues are. The only problem is, it's sitting uselessly on the ArbCom page instead of being incorporated into the article. (In a briefer form, of course, minus some editorializing, and with some proper sourcing) There's no reason why we can't include much of Minphie's contested edit, with some explanation like this, and give the reader a much clearer idea. I feel like some people on both sides here are treating the reader like he's sitting at the children's table while the adults go into the other room and decide what they're going to tell him. The reader should not be treated like a child - he deserves to sit right beside us and have full access to everything we're thinking about. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Expert Advisory Committee

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 police crackdown ended some weeks into the Insite project. So it is not "continuing until this day". Any "reductions in crime, public drug use and litter" can there not be "accorded to policing". [19] The authors of the original article makes other counter-argument to DFA's analysis. As does Paul Gallagher, that also notes that, unlike the original Lancet article, DFA's analysis has not gone trough peer-review. He also claims that DFA manipulated their input data for their analysis. [20]. Steinberger (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On your point about the crackdown continuing, no lesser authority than the very same City of Vancouver evaluation cited by the Lancet authors here to demonstrate their false assertion says, "as of August 2004, the initiative is still ongoing, albeit in a slightly modified form.” That quote comes from a document published 1 September 2004. So there is no question that the crackdown was ongoing, and testimony from the senior police officer in charge of the crackdown personnel in the DTES is found in the international analysis document proving that it was still continuing in 2011. Furthermore, all of this evidence is in the letter to Lancet by Christian et al. and the international analysis document is directly referenced by Lancet. Minphie (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah. "This evaluation, sponsored by the Vancouver Agreement Coordination Unit, was designed to assess the impact of the Vancouver Police Department’s City-Wide Enforcement Team (CET) initiative implemented in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) area of the city during the during the months of April-September, 2003." "Concurrently with the above-noted activities, the VPD was also planning for the role that it would play in relation to the Supervised Injection Site that was to be opened in September, 2003 and operated by the VCHA. [...] An attempt was made to clarify the role of the police and the position was taken that the VPD would support the public health objectives of the SIS by encouraging intravenous drug users encountered outside of the site to use the SIS. It was also understood that the police were required to provide enforcement in a way that would “balance the need to ensure open and ready access to the SIS by drug users while ensuring that disorder, violent behaviour, and unlawful activities were kept under control”." Steinberger (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the authors in Lancet are wrong and already demonstrated to be wrong. The evaluation they cite to prove a six month-only crackdown does not support what they say, contradicting them. So the text must stand as is. As must the section on the Expert Advisory Committee's review of the research. Minphie (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong as I already have demonstrated. And also the word "crackdown" itself implies that it only is intermittent, if you don't believe me think about the law of diminishing returns or ask a police officer why that is. And how do you explain that the VPD had another crackdown in the district in 2009 if it, as you say, rather have been continuous since 2003? And for the fifty-sixth time: DFA's publications do not fit MEDRS, neither do really letters (comments) in peer-reviewed journals as they are not peer-reviewed. But I can take the latter. However, everything DFA must be chucked, the remaining EAC is obtuse and you should not censor the authors response. Steinberger (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, first let me say that your English above is much improved. Appreciated. Now, can I take up the issue of the changed policing in the DTES step by step?

1. The City of Vancouver evaluation,here which you have cited, very definitively says that before the changes in policing commencing April 7 2003 the policing policy for the DTES was, "The long-standing policy of containment, within which VPD officers did very little proactive policing and responded to specific incidents on a reactive basis, did not require the VPD to take any risks and was viewed as maintenance of the status quo." (p 38) Contrast the new approach . . . "In March 2002, the District Two management team held a planning meeting to develop a strategy for addressing the issues in the DTES. During the meeting, a vision statement was adopted: “Our vision for District Two is communities where all citizens feel safe and secure”. Borrowing language from a “zero tolerance” policing philosophy, a statement was also developed that defined the Mission of District Two in terms of making the District an “intolerant environment for criminal activity”. (pp39-40) So we have a kind of ad hoc containment before 2003 (with a few isolated trials of the approach immediately before April 2003) and a kind of zero tolerance policing implemented April 2003. If, as the Lancet authors suggest, the crackdown ceased a few weeks after Insite opened, then the policing, which reduced indicators of drug use in the four city blocks by 46%, according to the CMAJ measurement applied by Wood, Kerr & Montaner,here the very same authors who in Lancet denied any knowledge of changes in policing, would have to go back to the containment policing described in the City of Vancouver evaluation. I will need evidence from you that indicates that this is what happened, because anything less than that will be policing changes which may have been entirely, mostly or partly responsible for the 35% reductions in mortality in the area close to Insite, a responsibility not entertained by the Lancet authors which thus destroys the Lancet study's conclusions.
2. Now the City of Vancouver evaluation document does say that "The purpose of this independent evaluation was to assess whether the CET had achieved its stated goals during the six month time period April 7-October 5, 2003 during which it was operational" but it goes on to immediately say, "and thereafter when the CET was replaced by a more permanent strategy of policing the DTES." There is no suggestion of a return to ad hoc containment and it most definitely asserts an ongoing initiative.
3. Page 49 of this same evaluation document, which was published September 1 2004, clearly says, "The initiative was first designed as a three-month project and was later extended for an additional three months after an early internal evaluation of the initiative had been conducted. In fact, as of August 2004, the initiative is still ongoing, albeit in a slightly modified form." The crackdown was most definitely ongoing, continuing to displace drug users (and as the international evaluation here on pages 7 & 8 points out) and their crime, litter, public drug use AND OVERDOSES from the area around Insite.
4. On page 50 this same evaluation document mentions the number of police involved in the CET. "To assemble the sixty police positions required, 20 were assigned from District Two (the “Core” officers) in which the DTES is situated and a total of forty additional positions were taken, through secondment . . ." How many police before the CET? Not many. How many between April and September 2003? 60 assigned police, in contrast to the handful pre-CET. How many after September 2003, when Insite opened? Well the international analysis on page 7 cites a statement from Vancouver Police stating that the number once Insite opened was . . . 60 officers.
5. Even a 2004 speech by Mayor Larry Campbell,here that the Lancet authors cite in a November 2011 response to the international analysis,here as supporting the notion of a discontinued crackdown says, “The city is continuing to work closely with police to focus on property crime, and the Vancouver Agreement has supported an enhanced enforcement initiative on problem premises in the DTES.” Compare p 58 regarding the chief operational objectives of the CET.

Of course the crackdown was ongoing. Don't try pretending it was otherwise when the evidence contradicting their defence comes from the police department itself AND the same evaluation documents cited by the Lancet authors to try and cover their errors. And why is the pre-Olympic crackdown relevant? They were targeting the homeless particularly. I don't see this as the aim of the CET initiative. Yes they may have cracked down harder on dealers than ever before - that does not mean that all these statements above are saying that they did little against dealers from September 2003 until the Olympics.

I am very happy to allow you a response before I start reinstating text. Minphie (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of CET/BET (City-wide Enforcement Team is now called Beat Enforcement Team) is not in any way to displace drug users and especially not the IDU sub-group (page 12). At the inception of CET/BET there was an effort to disrupt and disperse the drug markets (among other objectives) trough a initial general crackdown. And not just any drug markets, but specifically the open drug market that tends to be hotspots of violence and disorder (page 11). But that crackdown did end in October 2003 and since some of the drug markets have reappeared (page 222). Since there have been other crackdowns (projects) though, but none of those I have checked up on have tried to displace drug users. For example Project Raven, Project Lucille, Project Haven... From the inception of Insite forward the police where to "encouraging intravenous drug users encountered outside of the site to use the SIS" (page 55). For example, police officers "actually escorted drug users with their drugs in hand" [21] or simply by giving publicly injecting drug users hell for not using it [22]. And the evaluation on the crackdown did in fact control for overdoses, and "there is no evidence that the CET had a measurable impact on the number of fatal drug overdoses in the DTES" (page 8). Steinberger (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me take your points one at a time.

1. You say that the purpose of the CET/BET was not to displace users. Purpose or not, that is what it did. Page 1 of the evaluation document reads, "In anticipation that the initiative would result in the displacement of persons and criminal offending, the initiative was not limited to the DTES area, but, as the term “City-wide Enforcement Team” connotes, was to be much broader in scope. To this end, a special task force was envisioned that could intervene in different parts of the City as significant crime and disorder problems arose." The evaluation talks often about the VPD anticipating 'displacement' of users. This is precisely what it did, as is so nicely documented by the very same Lancet authors who failed to mention the changed policing here. So your point has no validity.
2. You cite later 'projects' as proof that the crackdown had ceased in September 2003. Any ongoing crackdown lasting years would expect to have many sub-battles, so your point has no validity. And then there are statements from the VPD like this one from June 2004, 15 months after the CET started Project Lucille here which says, "We launched the first part of our strategy in April 2003, with the creation of the City Wide Enforcement Team. This involved the dedication of 60 police officers to deal with the open-air drug market and the crime and disorder issues of the Downtown Eastside. Over the last 15 months, the City Wide Enforcement Team has been successful in bringing a level of stability to this community not realized for many years. Project Lucille is a key element in the current phase of our strategy." More proof verifying the other VPD statements recorded in the international analysis saying that the CET/BET was ongoing.
3. You appear to think that reappearance of drug markets in a crackdown indicates there never was or is a crackdown happening. On page 102 the evaluation says, "it was noted that, on numerous occasions, the police would “sweep” through the area and the big groups of drug dealers would leave. However, they never stayed away. Less than ten minutes after the police had walked through most of the dealers had returned." Also, "The field observations also revealed that open drug use continued in the DTES during the CET initiative and persons were observed on a daily basis openly using drugs, including injection drugs." So, again there is no substance to your objection here.
4. Controlling for overdoses? The evaluation did not compare overdoses in the four city blocks patrolled, but rather surveyed the overdoses for the entire DTES, an area of 400 city blocks (into which many users from the 4 city blocks were displaced). No substance to your argument again.

In summary, there is only more proof here that the CET/BET crackdown was ongoing, just as the VPD always said it was. The upshot is that the 46% reductions in drug use indicators in the first 6 months would be expected to be replicated to a greater or lesser extent throughout the ongoing crackdown, which extends till this day, but which definitely covered the years 2003-2005, which was covered by the Lancet study. These authors claim to not have known of any police activity which could have reduced overdoses in a 500 metre radius circle around Insite after its opening. The fact was that there was police activity quite capable of reducing drug use and overdose in the epicentre of that area by 46%. Minphie (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How can the purpose be irrelevant? "Disruption of the drug market may encourage the movement of drug users to different parts of the city and may affect their access to medical and other social services and create an increased public health risk. | In the case of the DTES, new services were recently designed to increase access to the health care system, and that may have mitigated the effect of the CET initiative." (page 25) There is displacement pressure from increased police activity (the sustained presence and the crackdowns) but the new facilities act as a pull. On the balance, one officer in the report stated: “There is a proliferation of services for drug users in the DTES. It is not clear that the concentration of services in one area is the best strategy. Some agencies have accused us of taking away their clients. I do not know whether there is any truth to it. That was not the intent.“ (page 172) It is thus somewhat odd, that officers in the area are unsure wither the initiative had effect on the numbers of prospective clients to Insite and other facilities in the DTES and you, from behind a computer screen in Australia is not.

I also find it odd that it is me that have to prove that the crackdown is not sustained, when the evaluation clearly say that it initiative ended. It do only implies that something roughly similar was ongoing in 2004. It is really up to you to prove that this roughly similar thing is the sustained crackdown, and not just the consequence of a lesser shift from the previous containment strategy into putting eyes and ears in the area. And they monitored overdoses in the whole region, to heard in any effects of the displacement. Not just the DTES. Steinberger (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, whether police meant to or didn't mean to displace drug users is irrelevant to the question of when the crackdown ceased. That is what we are discussing here. And I fully accept all arguments about services being under-utilized in a crackdown, but it is still irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Officers did indeed have questions about the impact of a crackdown on Insite, but that is not the question we are addressing. And the reason I have asked you to demonstrate that the crackdown was not sustained is because there are half a dozen strands of evidence listed above to say exactly the contrary, and from no less a source than the VERY POLICE THEMSELVES before all the other strands are added. Minphie (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it does not even matter what we discuss and what we establish. At the end of the day we must stick to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That means that we can't ignore the response of the authors to Christians et als letter, no matter who are right. If something, the least prominent view should go and that is not the views of Marshall et al. And second, to say Marshall is wrong you need a source that explicity say that. And third, the evidence above do not point towards a continued crackdown. The evaluation explicitly say that the CET initiative ended. And by CET one means the end of a endless string of crackdown under the overreaching containment strategy and the start of a new marked by continuous police presence in the area. This new strategy was not envisioned as a crackdown, but still, and at least in its initial phase, it had some crackdown characteristics. The evaluation also say that CET have continued, "albeit in a slightly modified form". It is your interpretation of the evidence that indeed means that the crackdown had continued, but that is by no means explicit. Steinberger (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, there are three issues I need to deal with here. First, yesterday I posted two 3O third party input requests which have disappeared overnight, with no third party input. Therefore the requests should still be showing on the 3O listings. But they are not there. Can you tell me what happened to the two banners on this page which have disappeared, especially as you appear to be the only other person accessing this part of the Talk page at present?

Secondly, I have given full citation for every point of any discussion we are having about the validity of my text on the Insite page. My text on the Insite page is also fully cited. When it comes to the discussion we are having here about the crackdown, there is no onus on any editor to demonstrate that their background discussion of issues NOT appearing on the main page is voiced already somewhere in a documented source. In fact, my information on the Vancouver City evaluation document (which again is not discussed in any way on the main page) derives from the ongoing Australian debate between the Drug Free Australia representative listed as one of the authors of the international analysis and Lancet letter, and Paul Gallagher on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia drug policy debate listserver here.

Thirdly, I fully agree with you that the author's response to the international analysis is important to the main Insite page, and has only disappeared because I performed a general undo of your text which had much of my text removed. To be honest I have not read your additions, but they have a place. It is the rest which is under dispute. Minphie (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

3O

The removed content in question

The research has been extensively criticised by an international team of medical analysts, who have specifically written to Lancet urging retraction of the study claiming 35% decreases in overdose deaths around Insite due to its presence. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

References

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)

The word "crackdown" is an ambiguous term and it is not obvious what it means. I recommend that either it not be used without a source explaining exactly what it meant for what duration of time, or that it be used generally in some way without making such specific claims. There is a lot of content here, but there seems to be a claim that police had a special and documented relationship with a certain community population at a certain point in time and I am unable to understand what this was or why it was important. The article seems to be making a claim that 48-72 added police officers (hardly a good metric - is this full time patrolling? a monthly drop-in?) patrolling a 4-12 block area reduced indicators of drug use in an area within a certain point in time by 46%. That is a specific health intervention claim which is not sufficiently qualified or explained and if it is to be made then it should be made clearly and with WP:MEDRS to back it up. What happened and why is it important? Can this discussion be simplified into short points? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you have already answered one of the points. The Drug Free Australia source clearly (supposedly, I have not read it) make the claim that the surge in police activity (shift in policing strategy and/or crackdown) is the premier cause of the decline in overdoses. This in contrast to the peer-reviewed Lancet article that say that Insite is the main cause for the decline in overdoses. The report from DFA is also cited for a hoist of other claims. The problem I have is that DFA not is MEDRS and should not be used to make specific claims in a section that is for the research into the health impact of Insite and you seem to agree on this point. The other point that would be happy for input is on the facts that are picked from the Expert Advisory Committees' report. Overall the report is positive, but that is not in any way reflected in the facts Minphie picked for his summery. So I think it should go also, as giving undue weight certain viewpoints over others. Lastly, should letters to the editor with responses be in the research section, should they be in the reception section or should the go? Steinberger (talk) 22:20, 3 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)

Okay. It seems to me that a great deal of the content itself in the contested section is all right, but the presentation and wording of the content is non-neutral. At first glance, DFA is probably not going to be considered a reliable source, but as I said, I'll let RSN handle that. I don't think that the DFA has to be reliable to be mentioned; I think it should be included regardless, as it's significant opposition to Insite. But, its conclusions must be explicitly labeled as such and not purported to be true out of hand. As an example, the sentence "Any reductions in crime, public drug use and litter are accorded to policing." needs to be backed by a 100% reliable source. If DFA ends up being considered a reliable source, well and good; if it is not, the sentence needs to be rephrased to some formula of "The DFA paper concludes that any reductions in crime, public drug use and litter can be accorded to policing." Phrases like "extensively criticised" and "specifically written" smack of fluff; they should be reworked. If the authors of the study being criticized have written responses, they should be given at least equal billing in this section.

The subsection about the EAC may also need reworking; I'm not sure what the point is in having all the figures in the second through fourth sentences; it seems that we spend two sentences quoting numbers, then in the last sentence, we quote a completely unrelated number and draw a conclusion from only that number. The number of lives saved per year is relevant, but I don't see the use of the other numbers quoted by themselves, and I don't see how the other numbers can lead to the conclusion about numbers of lives saved. I think we can agree that the EAC is a reliable source for this section; I don't think it's necessary to support a stronger source with a weaker one, particularly if RSN deems DFA to be unreliable. Even if it is reliable, though, using it in the section about EAC is probably unnecessary; the EAC's conclusions should stand on their own.

In a nutshell: I think that the sentences discussing DFA in the subsection about EAC should be removed, as well as the superfluous numbers in the second and third sentences, regardless of the outcome of the RSN discussion. In the first section, some of the fluff adverbs should be removed; if the RSN discussion determines that DFA is not a reliable source, then we need to remove much of that section, or at least rework it to make it clear that these are only DFA's conclusions, not accepted fact (and really, it would probably be better do do this rework regardless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding critique to Research section

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)

It is very much undue to give equal credence to the findings published in CMAJ, Lancet ect on the one hand and Drug Free Australia on the other. Drug Free Australia is a reliable source for Drug Free Australia's position on the science. It may be reliable for the policy position of WFAD or INCB. That does not mean that Drug Free Australia is reliable source for medical research findings nor does it make the organisations criticisms credible enough to be dealt with under the "research" section of any article. Why did I mention Magnham? By consensus, Magnhams study is not credible. It is not considered reliable. Thus, its critique is not dealt with in the research section of this article. Neither should the critique of DFA. However, Magnhams study have been cited by the federal government. This makes it notable. Thus, it is mentioned. But not under research. In other words, how DFA and other advocacy have "reserved" the research findings published in proper scientific journals should be dealt with under reception. Not anywhere else. Steinberger (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you two are having a conversation and that you both seem to know what you are talking about. I just wanted to comment that I and other people watch this page, and I wanted to share my perspective that your conversation is over my head. Here are some things I did not understand:

• relationship between WFAD's publishing practices and DFA
• relationship of UN policy to anything related to Insite
• why Mangham may or may not be a reliable source
• what perspective the articles is currently purported to present, and what is alleged to be lacking

Thanks. I may not want to join this conversation especially if you two work things out in a way that pleases you both, but I did want to acknowledge that I appreciate the thought you both are putting into this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Steinberger, you have reverted text without showing any evidence of looking at the two citations I used.

1. The first citation for the paragraph on the Insite study claiming 35% reductions uses material published and referenced by Lancet. Both sides of the argument are addressed on Lancet's pages. Why on earth would you delete this text? The authors of the Lancet letter challenging the original Lancet study are Christian, Pike, Santamaria, Reece, DuPont (former US drug Czar to two US Presidents and founder of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse [NIDA]) and Mangham.
2. The second document cited in the last Research section paragraph uses essentially the same authors - DuPont, Kall (who is one of the four 'core' reviewers good enough to make the Palmateer review of reviews on needle exchange science in the EMCDDA's monograph on Harm Reduction), Koopmans, McKeganey (without question one of the most influential addiction specialists in the UK), then Pike, Reece and Santamaria, the same three as published by Lancet in their letter challenging the flawed study on Insite, and then there is the previous Harvard psych, Slack completing that document's team. Lancet doesn't quibble with the qualifications of these guys, why do you?
3. If you believe there is something wrong with what the letter to Lancet had to say, demonstrate it here and I'll withdraw the paragraph, but the letter to Lancet is not only notable but it is irrevocably true. It is absolutely beyond doubt that the Lancet study by Kerr, Montaner and colleagues was in error. Drug Free Australia has shown beyond a doubt via a letter from the police commander himself, that the Lancet authors were very wrong about saying that the police crackdown ever stopped (it didn't) and this entirely invalidates their study. Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? Also demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the Lancet Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest when failing to publishing the damning second letter with the incontrovertible proof, and that he is a colleague in a drug law reform organisation as per the website Drug Free Australia points to. This cannot be challenged - it is true. If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?

My concern is that we are back to the tendentious editing of years gone by. LiteratureGeek intervened some years back to your appeals to MEDRS re SISs with this [23].

"Steinberger, this article is not a pure medical article, infact it is not even 50 percent medical article in my view. It has significant, political, social as well as medical implications and involvement. WP:MEDRS, only applies for when talking about specific medical statements. Currently I feel the article does not reflect the controversies and criticisms of harm reduction fairly. Instead of mass deleting large additions of sourced content added by Minphie, based on "writing in the references", failure of attributing who the source is from etc etc, why don't you make those changes instead of mass deleting? I do agree that Minphie's editing is not perfect but I also am concerned that you may not understand WP:NPOV and do not understand WP:OWNERSHIP of this article as well as the WP:TRUTH. Why is this article so biased in favour of harm reduction when there is extensive controversies throughout the world? Can anyone enlighten me? I do not know who is most or least to blame for this but the article is not balanced.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"

Please stop reverting text that is evidenced and correct and entirely relevant to the Research section. Again, my concern is that the tendentious editing of previous years has returned. Minphie (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to address all of what Minphie is saying, but yes, this user's contributions are making a medical claim which is not backed by WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing. In the disputed edit, the statement "calculating lives saved by supervised injection facilities, found that Insite saves 1 life per annum" is making a statement which could be taken as a statement that Insite's practices have a certain outcome. Statements like this should be clear on whether this outcome is due to Insite not executing them as they should or because the practices when executed properly are intended to have this outcome. As it stands, this statement is WP:WEASEL-ly. If DFA has something to say and its authorship can bear peer-review then they should be clear about when they have medical claims and when they explicitly are not making medical claims. When they have medical claims they should go through peer review.

If more opinions are requested then I can get those, but I recommend that this discussion be carried through first. If more opinions are requested, deconstruct what it is that is desired for this article, make a short request, and expect the statement proposed to be scrutinized for its match to the source. If a statement is not intended to be a medical claim, explicitly state that a claim is not medical. I especially would like to see a paper which said that "harm reduction is expected to do XXX, but Insite's execution of harm reduction produces effect YYY..." Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie have sought more opinions on this earlier.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#Drug_Free_Australia
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Citing_Lancet_Letter_Authors

He didn't fare very well. Steinberger (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Lancet debate needed

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)

State what you want simply and concisely. It is extremely burdensome to get third opinions on the massive amount of text you post. Start with 1-2 sentences and a source. If you could only put 2 sentences in this article, what would you put and what source would you use? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Absent some kind of third party verification that Gary Christian et als critique is taken serious in the wider scientific community, I can't even see this being an issue. DFA and others self-published "research" simply can't be put alongside the findings published in Addiction, CAMJ, Lancet and the like, without some verification that it is put alongside the research published in those sources by the wider scientific community. Not putting the DFA-drivel in the research section, it not "sanitise the reality on the Research". It is to reflect the reality on the Research. Steinberger (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am really looking for some Third Opinion clarity on this issue.

To clarify again, for anyone contributing a third opinion the question is why a full-paged extremely well-evidenced letter published in Lancet should not appear in the Research section immediately below the bogus study it exposes. The letter and follow-up letter to Lancet by 4 medical specialists (epidemiologist, addiction medicine specialist, surgeon and the US National Institute of Drug Abuse's founder) who each boast 20-100 Pubmed articles apiece alongside the two other specialists involved, has indubitably, with not one bit of wriggle room, demonstrated that the Lancet authors are wrong about the policing issue, which entirely collapses their study's conclusions. Is there a hidden guideline somewhere that says that Wikipedia must print only one side of any given debate, or hide the other side at the bottom of the article where many readers won't bother to go? Minphie (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please right here post the content you want to add with the source from which you are deriving it? I understand your abstraction but please show what you propose. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The user requesting this is currently blocked. This article does need more balance, and this discussion ought to continue, but the blocking process on Wikipedia is suggesting right now that Minphie is not the person to do this at this time. I am closing the request for a third opinion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External Link

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

Sepideah OSF See Wikipedia's external links policy. In general, the official website should be included and then other sources should appear as citations to support text within the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121016184729/http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Harper+protesters+doors+Chinese+cultural+centre/2549728/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Harper+protesters+doors+Chinese+cultural+centre/2549728/story.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Supervised+injection+site+exempt+from+drug+laws+court/5482761/story.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313183753/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/vancouver_safe_injection_060718/20060718?hub=Health to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/vancouver_safe_injection_060718/20060718?hub=Health

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822162534/http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm to http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022190600/http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/12thandcambie/archive/2008/10/03/gregor-robertson-and-peter-ladner-square-off-in-first-public-debate.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/12thandcambie/archive/2008/10/03/gregor-robertson-and-peter-ladner-square-off-in-first-public-debate.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813170440/http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n21jy06a.htm to http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n21jy06a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723075254/http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php to http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701055026/http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/09_15/4_policy_politics01_15.html to http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/09_15/4_policy_politics01_15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105110520/http://www.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/opinion/story.html?id=00476559-9173-4d1c-9bec-018fd834ab3a to http://www.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/opinion/story.html?id=00476559-9173-4d1c-9bec-018fd834ab3a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211194138/http://www.openmedicine.ca/comment/view/128/52/6 to http://www.openmedicine.ca/comment/view/128/52/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206203947/http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/10/18/allegations-against-ubc-researchers%E2%80%99-study-on-insite-%E2%80%9Cwithout-merit%E2%80%9D-independent-reviewer/ to http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/10/18/allegations-against-ubc-researchers%E2%80%99-study-on-insite-%E2%80%9Cwithout-merit%E2%80%9D-independent-reviewer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719233834/http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/02/12/supporters-rally-to-defend-insite-from-feds/ to http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/02/12/supporters-rally-to-defend-insite-from-feds/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629213926/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514152034/http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/pdf/report_vancouver_2005.pdf to http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars//pdf/report_vancouver_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309145143/http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=5fd518f7-dfbe-4a5c-9e42-6c81e6eabca3 to http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=5fd518f7-dfbe-4a5c-9e42-6c81e6eabca3

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a follow-up statistic showing whether the problem got better or worse

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)

Duh, I should have kept reading; it says Insite had "7,301 unique users" in 2017. That's a huge increase over 4700 users in the year 2000. Some of the users may be traveling from outside the neighborhood, but still...

It also says that among those 7301 users, 2,151 overdoses occurred. If each "overdosee" overdosed once, that means 29.5% of the users overdosed. (Actual percentage will be somewhat lower than that, because no doubt some users overdosed more than once.)

Scary, scary stuff... 75.163.161.212 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Changes October 9, 2019 Line 27

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:

"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)

Hello. Welcome.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, for multiple reasons. See WP:CIRC. We especially cannot cite an article for a claim elsewhere in the same article. Information should be verifiable, which means (among other things) it must come from outside of Wikipedia.

Government documents are usually considered WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia strongly favors secondary sources, and conclusions cannot drawn by individual editors, they must come from sources. To put this another way, using sources to draw a conclusion which are not directly supported is a form of original research, which is not permitted. Further, highlighting specific statistics from one source is a form of editorializing. This is also not appropriate for multiple reasons. Please find sources about Insite and summarize what they have to say. Even if the connection is obvious to you, it must be obvious to the reader, as well. It cannot be implied, it must be stated.

It is, of course, possible for a source to be relevant to Insite without mentioning "Insite" by name, but the connection needs to be very clear. Further, it needs to be very clear that these specific statistics are not being cherry-picked to support a specific assumption. This article is not about addiction medicine or substance abuse or public policy in general terms, or even in local terms. This is about Insite. Context about those other things will need to be provided by reliable sources, not editors. It may then be possible to use weaker sources to fill-in details, but not before.

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Likewise, this is not a newspaper, or publisher of investigative journalism (this is another form of original research). Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 11 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."

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 still appears to me to be a subtle form of WP:OR and that source is not particularly helpful in this context. Vancouver Coastal Health has its own article. For that and other reasons, the connection still needs to be made by a reliable, independent source. I also think the obscurity of the source is a red flag. If these statistics are relevant, there should be a more substantial secondary source directly linking them to Insite. Not just VCHA, but Insite specifically.

Taking a statistic like this in isolation may be misleading. Vancouver is the largest city in BC, and cities have different patterns of addiction from surrounding areas and this statistic says aboslutely nothing about the causes or history of these deaths. The significance of these two statistics (yes, even the significance of the rate vs. number) should be established by a reliable source. To be pedantic, I am not disputing that these statistics are accurate, but listing statistics without context is always messy. Figuring out which statistics to present and which to leave out is potentially arbitrary. The way we decide is via secondary sources. The context from these sources should also be included, so readers can get the larger picture. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References