Talk:OnPoint NYC
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of OnPoint NYC be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Manhattan may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | A fact from OnPoint NYC appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that OnPoint NYC's safe injection sites treated 672 overdoses in their first year of operation, with no resulting deaths? Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/new-york-s-supervised-injection-sites-have-halted-nearly-700-overdoses-in-just-over-a-year/ar-AA15V3yK
- Reviewed:
Created by Prezbo (talk). Self-nominated at 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/OnPoint NYC; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Verified that the hook is interesting and is sourced in the article. I suggest minor improvement to the article such as adding the infobox. Toadboy123 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Rivera’s response to complaints
You may be right about the Time 100 thing, I don’t know what Wikipedia’s normal stance is on such lists. You have an axe to grind about harm reduction but so be it, Wikipedia is full of axe-grinders. The preceding sentence I strongly object to removing. The article devotes a lot of space to community complaints about OnPoint, and it makes sense to record the organization’s response to such complaints. Hopefully someone else is watching this page and can break the tie so to speak, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. Prezbo (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- You again restored it. I believe that it is undue. Given WP:ONUS, please explain why you believe your personal preference and what makes sense to you appears to take precedence over that of others when agreement can not be reached. I've noted your removal for things such as "remove fascist press" and such which seems entrenched in opinion based removal. At the present point, you re-inserted what you want featured while removing what you believe to be undue. ONUS would suggest resting on non-inclusion unless agreed upon by consensus, not feature what you want, exclude what you don't. media sources I added specifically included concerns about putting the burden of drug user services in black neighborhood, which you suppressed while your edits embellish the inputs of the executive director of the org. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Community complaints are worth mentioning but not worth devoting as much space as the article did. It's only fair to record the organization's response to such complaints, I would say the same if this is was an article about Exxon or Monsanto. Someone who refers (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supervised_injection_site&diff=prev&oldid=980399702) to supervised consumption sites as "druggie shoot up galleries" should find a different topic area to edit in. Prezbo (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're bringing up one-off edit summary from something from over three years ago. Regardless of the article, voices of the article subject should not be prominently featured and the article contents should be primarily on secondary sources. So things that article subject say or repeated by advocacy/criticism groups that directly cite them should be avoided, but those opinions discussed by reliable media outlets should be considered. WP:PSTS and WP:DUE are the concepts applicable here. I'd also have to say that last time I tried to engage with you on contents, you have not participated constructively, such as refusing to address the topic on hand and removing comments abruptly. Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's a pattern of editing, not a one-off edit summary. But returning to the article at hand: there's one sentence describing Rivera's views, cited to a secondary source. It's not undue. It could be that you and I are the only people looking at this article in any case, if not I'll wait for other opinions. Prezbo (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Until then, we can just OMIT everything we can't come to an agreement/compromise. WP:ONUS as a guidance by setting that due weight concerns defaults to omission if no agreement exists so editors are not trying to override one another. Graywalls (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you consider it important to OMIT this sentence then I can't stop you. Prezbo (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Until then, we can just OMIT everything we can't come to an agreement/compromise. WP:ONUS as a guidance by setting that due weight concerns defaults to omission if no agreement exists so editors are not trying to override one another. Graywalls (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's a pattern of editing, not a one-off edit summary. But returning to the article at hand: there's one sentence describing Rivera's views, cited to a secondary source. It's not undue. It could be that you and I are the only people looking at this article in any case, if not I'll wait for other opinions. Prezbo (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're bringing up one-off edit summary from something from over three years ago. Regardless of the article, voices of the article subject should not be prominently featured and the article contents should be primarily on secondary sources. So things that article subject say or repeated by advocacy/criticism groups that directly cite them should be avoided, but those opinions discussed by reliable media outlets should be considered. WP:PSTS and WP:DUE are the concepts applicable here. I'd also have to say that last time I tried to engage with you on contents, you have not participated constructively, such as refusing to address the topic on hand and removing comments abruptly. Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Community complaints are worth mentioning but not worth devoting as much space as the article did. It's only fair to record the organization's response to such complaints, I would say the same if this is was an article about Exxon or Monsanto. Someone who refers (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supervised_injection_site&diff=prev&oldid=980399702) to supervised consumption sites as "druggie shoot up galleries" should find a different topic area to edit in. Prezbo (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Services
To me describing the services that a nonprofit provides seems normal for an encyclopedia article and not “guide”-like. Prezbo (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The contents that were in place kept a balance by including contents sourced to reliable sources. Selectively removing contents that you do not like results in a balance. Mentioning services like shower is clearly intended to be a guide to prospective clients. I disagree in selective restoration of these contents while selectively omitting the things you have removed despite being covered in reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like shifting rationales/moving goalposts. It’s a judgment call how much negative content is “due.” I have a feeling that if I left it up to you every article about a harm reduction org would be a hatchet job. However you’ll probably get what you want here because you’re more committed to Wikipedia than I am and no one else is interested in getting involved. All I can do is leave a bit of a record for future Wikipedia archaeologists. Prezbo (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll add that right now about half of the “history” section is devoted to criticism/negative press coverage. I think this is “due” and more negative content would be “undue”. Other editors will have to form their own judgments I guess. Prezbo (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Prezbo's potential conflict-of-interest with the named agency was voiced there by a neutral observer new to this article. I also noted the Prezbo put in the article's lede what the organization regards itself as rather than safe injection site. This came across like a "fast food restaurant" considering itself a "sustainable animal welfare focused dine-in venue
- with citation to the company itself rather than as a "fast food". Such presentation gives the article subject's view an undue weight. Prezbo, do you have any connection any potential conflict of interest with the specific named organization OnPoint NYC? Have you directly interacted with them? @Prezbo:, regardless of what your past position may have been, are you writing on OnPoint NYC, harm reduction and drugs from a neutral point of view and you're neither an advocate of or a critic of the harm reduction approach? Graywalls (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- No COI. Advocate of harm reduction (just as you are a critic of it) but trying to write neutrally. Prezbo (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll add that right now about half of the “history” section is devoted to criticism/negative press coverage. I think this is “due” and more negative content would be “undue”. Other editors will have to form their own judgments I guess. Prezbo (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like shifting rationales/moving goalposts. It’s a judgment call how much negative content is “due.” I have a feeling that if I left it up to you every article about a harm reduction org would be a hatchet job. However you’ll probably get what you want here because you’re more committed to Wikipedia than I am and no one else is interested in getting involved. All I can do is leave a bit of a record for future Wikipedia archaeologists. Prezbo (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)