Talk:Harm reduction

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forcedtoeditforclass (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BestofLAandBay.

— Assignment last updated by AleutianTea (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed links to specific service providers, agencies, clinics

This article is on the general idea of "harm reduction" and inclusion of links to specific organizations is undue, much the same way including links to specific centers or providers in Plasmapheresis or kidney dialysis. Graywalls (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you look at the kidney dialysis article, it does in fact mention specific organizations, e.g. when it states that "In 1913, Leonard Rowntree and John Abel of Johns Hopkins Hospital developed the first dialysis system which they successfully tested in animals." I think mentioning e.g. Insite in this article is similar to mentioning Johns Hopkins in that article. Prezbo (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Which has a contextual relevance in the development of the procedure. Not just selectively dropping names of providers that offer this service, or providers or clinics that were first to offer it in particular city/county/region/ on the west side Mississippi river. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Similar to what I said on the other talk page. If dialysis was controversial and legally disputed in the same way that syringe exchanges are, I'm sure the dialysis article would have more information about specific providers offering dialysis in different places. It has a "contextual relevance" in the history of this approach to public health. Prezbo (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To state my point again: I'm sure if there was one agency providing dialysis in the United States, and its operation was the subject of a continuing legal dispute, the Wikipedia article on Nephrology would mention its name. It would be awkward not to. Prezbo (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversy or not, region by region, country by country name mentions on a high-level article like this is still not WP:DUE. OnPoint NYC need not appear by name in this article. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about Insite, etc.? Prezbo (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems really tortured to me to say that a SIS facility exists in Canada but not mention its name. Why would we do that? You’ll need to start an rfc or do something else to get other opinions in here if that’s the way you want the article to read. Prezbo (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it to the last stable version. @Prezbo you're the one who newly introduced OnPoint NYC, which, I might point out that is an article you created and I'm of the opinion that it doesn't need to be newly introduced into the general article. Please stop adding it back. This has been discussed and no consensus exists in favor of inclusion. Please respect consensus building process and stop assuming insertion takes precedence. If you wish to include it, then you'll need to do the leg work to obtain consensus. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You don’t have consensus behind this version. If it’s important to you, find someone else who agrees with you. Prezbo (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. You are the one who introduced something that is being disputed. Graywalls (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Not how I read it. Prezbo (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is quoted out of WP:ONUS. In any case, where do you get this idea your preferred version; which is in favor of INCLUSION trumps it? Graywalls (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s common sense. Prezbo (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to have doubt about your adherence to respect consensus building process given the trollish response I got on a similar disagreement here by you and your comment that you should just make an "executive decision" in sourcing dispute. What you claim to be "common sense" doesn't prevail over the processes. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Prezbo:, if I don't agree with something, I can say I disagree and you could have always try to discuss further, but your response and the edit summary in particular in July is not indicative of good faith intent to work towards a consensus. Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is about the inclusion of the specific page OnPoint NYC which is an article created by the user trying to insert it. It's already linked from Harm Reduction in the US, and Supervised injection site. It's totally undue to add OnPoint NYC all over the place. Graywalls (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s nothing undue about linking to a new article (even one you created!) in articles about related topics. Prezbo (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As to your broader comments—I don’t like you, you don’t like me. It’s fine. Prezbo (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It is already in Harm reduction in the United States. I believe the inclusion of specific named organization into the higher level broader article covering the concept is undue when it is already in the one for United States where the existence is more reasonable. It is just creating a coat rack of service providers. The article does not need to name specific safe consumption site that is the first, the largest, or the biggest.. or whatever in each country to fulfill encyclopedic purpose. Prezbo inserted it, and continued re-inserting disputed contents even though consensus hasn't been established for its inclusion. (copied over from WP Medicine) Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the specific organization does not seem appropriate unless it has been somehow singled out in the medical literature or is involved in a legal dispute with potentially large-scale implications. One article in a local (and rather niche) media outlet does not establish notability.

Also, comments like If this matters to you then take it to an external noticeboard, report me to the teacher, whatever. I’ve stated my point clearly. and I don’t like you, you don’t like me. It’s fine. are rather less than civil.

Has @Prezbo directly addressed their connection to this organization? I know that harm-reduction is controversial in some circles, but I don't understand how this odd detail has become such an issue.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no connection to OnPoint NYC. Prezbo (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

What I would do is to note the first safe injection sites in the US opened in NYC in 2021. Anyone who wants more details can easily find them through the sources cited. Its coverage in the NYTimes (even if in the local section) and the AP further establish notability. Readers curious to read more about SISs specifically will also find OnPoint directly discussed in that article, to which this one already links at the top of the section.

Please take this for whatever it may be worth. I am unfollowing to avoid being pulled into a debate over what seems to be a small point that should not require third-party arbitration.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, do you have any objection to saying "As of 2023 there were only two supervised injection sites in the US"? Ideally, when editors object only to name-dropping a notable example, they remove just the name, and leave the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That is the entire point I was trying to accomplish. I am fine with this suggestion. I do not have a link to the WP hint/guideline, but the idea given is to avoid "such as A, B, C." that name names to not encourage more coats from getting racked. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you only want to remove the name of the specific example, the you should partially self-revert, so that you only remove the name of the specific example, and not 100% of the information about SIS in the US.

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles are articles in which you claim to be writing about one thing, but you spend most (or at least an unreasonably large part) of the article writing about something related. For example, imagine someone writing an article that is nominally about Lake Wobegon, but when you click through to the article, it tells you very little about that place, and instead focuses on a famous resident, or a single event, or how well the children in that area are educated. That editor has used the place like a "hook" to "hang" a different subject on.

A passing mention of an example is not a "coat rack". A passing mention of a blue-linked notable example is called Wikipedia:Building the web, and it is generally considered a desirable behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've implemented what was suggested. I changed the source to Scientific American because a concern was raised that the existing one is a local niche media. Graywalls (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense to me, but it's now three against one, so c'est la vie.

If you care about consistency it would make sense to scrub the article of references to other safe injection sites as well. Prezbo (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral on whether to include a link to the specific organization. Adding a link is common but not required.

I think it would be more important to organize that section, e.g., by grouping all of the content about Canada in adjacent paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Routes of administration: Add a "Nasal administration" sub-section

Nasal septum perforation caused from cocaine abuse.

And copy/paste Nasal septum perforation 94.255.152.53 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)