Talk:Downtown Eastside/Archive 1

First Nations

If I'm not mistaken, Native Indians is a general term, while First Nations refers to those who usually live on reserves. Exploding Boy 23:54, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken - First Nations is not a reserve-specific term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it seems First Nations is not applicable in this case. I'm not Canadian, so the nuance of that term is not something of which I am aware. -- Decumanus 23:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it true that much of the DTES is officially an Indian Reserve? (Wang Chung)

Well if it's not true, it should be. All this land was stolen from them anyways, and if you didn't know it was true, they will make sure you see enough signs and pictures in the news to know and never forget...Eos4life 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The DTES is not a reserve, it is part of a land claim by the Squamish Nation Destrath 12:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that, as I've heard, Godspeed You! Black Emperor's song East Hastings is named after this neighborhood? --No-One Jones 00:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Judging by the name of the group and the fact they're Canadian, I'd say it's likely. Exploding Boy 00:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

First Nations is basically the equivalent of the term 'Native Americans' in Canada. It includes people of aboriginal descent, but excludes Metis and Inuit peoples. You don't have to be a Status Indian, or live on a Reserve, to be considered First Nations. Nekomanda (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indians come from India. It was a false name applied to people living in North America, because the "dicoverers" thought they were in India. I suppose they could never bring themselves to admit that they made a mistake. A big one! The term First Nations was created to give legitimacy to all the separate native peoples living in Canada. These peoples have been thoroughly studied by academics and the truth of the matter, that there are at least 601 nations represented in Canada, has been established and legitimized by our government. Because of long tradition, however, many natives still refer to themselves as Indians, often laughingly. It is more common now, to refer to to themselves as Cree, Squamish, Blackfoot, Ojibway, etc. It makes a great deal of difference to be a member of a nation or just a so-called insignificant and small tribe. The establishment of separate nations status was determined through studies that showed significant differences in language, cultural traditions, foods and habitat. (Uncle A-Bob)

East Hastings and the Downtown Eastside

It's true. East Hastings marks one of the major streets in the Downtown Eastside. The intersection of Main Street and East Hastings has long been considered the busiest drug area in Canada.

Strangely enough, the Downtown Eastside is also the home of the Strathcona neighbourhood, one of the strongest and tightest knit communities in the city. Made up almost entirely of houses build in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it fell into disrepair during the middle of the 1940s and into the later 1980s. Recently young people have been moving to the area because of its low housing costs compared to the rest of the city. Obviously the drug trade in the neighbourhood discourages most people from moving into the area, but those who do enjoy a certain cachet. It is very difficult to find houses in the area as they are usually sold through private sales to those in the know or at inflated prices. Original inhabitants in the area include many Chinese and Japanese Canadians who's families have lived in the area for many years.

If I mispoke in my understanding of the history of the area, I apologize.

I was under the impression that the central police station is on the south end of the Cambie street bridge, which is much farther (and in the wrong direction) than the article describes currently. Or is it describing a different police station? --E.D.Hedekar 09:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone's describing a different police station. There used to be one on Cambie... I think it's still there. There's one a few blocks from Main and Hastings too. Exploding Boy 17:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is less than one block away from Hastings at Cordova and Main. --Valve 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason for that police station is so large has very little to do with the DTES "police presense" and is entirely related to the provincial court and Vancouver Jail that is across the street. -- Webgeer 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the Vancouver Police Department's website http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/ and they list the Cambie location as the headquarters, however the Main St. location does seem to be a fairly large (second largest?) department. Maybe the article should be changed to more accurately display this fact, in fact I believe I'll change it and if any more disputes arise, I'll refer people to this source. --E.D.Hedekar 04:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main Street was the largest and principal administrative/operations/North Patrol station for many decades, with a sub-station at roughly 44th and Heather as the South Patrol division (with roughly Broadway as the divider). When the Main station became noticeably overcrowded in the 1980's the Cambie station was built and much of the Main Street administration offices (the Chief and Deputies, some Inspectors and some divisions) were combined with the South Patrol division on Cambie Street. Main street could now be considered as a sub-station. Destrath 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cited Articles in the Georgia Strait and by the Canadian Press

Can someone find this article in question, or better -- a peer reviewed scientific article? If not, the comment should be removed. I wasn't able to find anything close to this claim.

I live right in the DTES...IT IS a drug plagues crime ridden ghetto..The main police station is 150 ft from the corner, you can see the front doors of it..The one on Cambie is new where as the other one has been there for years...

I agree that this article cites vague references and makes unverifiable claims. Which Georgia Strait article said that the DTES has the highest incidence of HIV? What data do you have to back up the claim of "poorest neighbourhood"?

Qole 06:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Georgia Straight article was quoting someone from AIDS Vancouver who I believe had his facts wrong. In 1996 the VIDUS Project determined that Vancouver had the highest rate of HIV conversion in the Western world among IV drug users, not the total number of people in the DTES diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. At that time 33% of IV drug users had converted to HIV positivity and I believe that plateaued out at just under 40% shortly thereafter. This was among 1400 Project participants who may or may not have lived in the DTES and formed about 10% of the estimated total neighbourhood population. There are many scary facts that could be presented regarding HIV/AIDS as well as syphilis, tuberculosis, hepatitis C etc., as well as their disproportionate prevalence withing the Aboriginal population and the generallly high relative morbidity rates in the DTES and why the age for acceptance into social housing is 45 as opposed to 65 for ther rest of the city and so on. I would be happy to fill that in if others think it appropriate. I also updated the "poorest neighbourhood" section Destrath 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Links

I removed the following line from the article, because the linked page doesn't seem to work.

downtowneastside.ca a webpage sponsored by community advocacy groups.

Qole 06:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual link is http://www.dtes.ca but I don't know where it was previously to re-enter it. Destrath 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DTES Style

Can we have a section devoted to the culture and style of the DTES, perhaps the most innovative district of Vancouver. 129.10.244.225 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But of course -- Be Bold, my friend. Just try and keep it encyclopedic. There's some enormous changes going on in the 'hood as well, development-wise and culture-wise, that could add some interesting meat to this thing. see here, for example Bobanny 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it should be a separate article with a link to each article. I'm thinking of getting another article going on where to go in the Downtown Eastside, sort of a tourists plan of where to eat, sleaze etc. Uncle A-Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.192.128 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Poorest postal code?

Hi. I added a citation needed for the claim to be Canada's "poorest postal code." A 2003 article in BC Business argues that it no longer has this distinction. Canuckle 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

proof enuff. I'm removing it. bobanny 09:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That idea I often found questionable. Which is the poorest area of Canada then? UNcle A-Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.192.128 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As one person stated earlier, it is in that arcticle's benefit to try to pass it off as no longer the poorest postal code, then again, I'd believe there are some maybe poorer places in the Territories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.22.185 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Enormous Bias

This article paints the DTES as a healthy, victimized neighbourhood, which is an incredibly contentious point of view. Also, it fails to cite drug availability as one of the key reasons for many of the inhabitants taking up residence, as there are many affordable areas that offer cheap rent outside of the DTES/Vancouver. The article should also address that many of the people in this part of the city are from out of province, creating the illusion that the DTES is an example of down-and-out Vancouverites; rather, it's an example of vagrants from all across Canada taking advantage of warm weather, lax policing, and readily-available drugs. Jackmont Aug 14, 2007.

Well, be bold and fix 'er up then, but cite your sources, since that's one of the weaknesses in the article. I doubt you could find reliable sources for some of your own impressions though; a lot of neighbourhoods are filled with people originally out of province that come here to take advantage of the nice weather and our drugs. The DTES has always attracted transients, that's why there's so many SRO's there. It's the result of economic development and government policies throughout the city's history and is part of being the waterfront district in a port city. As for lax policing - no other neighbourhood has anywhere near the cop-per-square-foot ratio or experiences the periodic police crackdowns as the DTES does. Just because they don't bust every petty drug transaction they see at Main and Hastings doesn't change that it's the most vigourously policed neighbourhood in Vancouver. bobanny 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is enormously biased. I tried to flag it for an NPOV check, but honestly I don't know how. Examples of bias are everywhere, and hardly any of the citations contain the information claimed. Some examples of bias are: "The neighbourhood has a rich and colourful history and a strong community fabric" This sentence is clearly the author's opinion. "The Downtown Eastside is home to thousands, from the homeless to the affluent" This sentence is definitely out of place in an article that also once claimed this area was the poorest postal code in Canada, and is a transparent attempt to downplay the poverty in the area. "The Downtown Eastside has been pegged with the unfortunate distinction of having the highest rate of HIV infection in the Western world" This wording is outrageous. If it is a fact (the citation link is broken), say "The DTES has the highest rate of HIV infection in the Wester world". I agree it is unfortunate, but this is not the place for pity - it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There are many more (almost every sentence from this article is biased), but I just picked a few for clarity's sake.

This is not the sort of thing that I can fix, so don't retaliate with a citation of wiki's "so fix it" or "be bold" policy, the entire article needs an overhaul and I am not the person for the job.

As for the references in the article, many of them don't point to the information claimed. For example, the first reference comes at the end of the sentence "Used syringes and condoms on neighborhood sidewalks are becoming less common due to the efforts of United We Can", leading me to believe I would find some source that stated this fact. Instead, it is simply a link to the website of United We Can. This problem occurs throughout the article, with references that are only loosely related to the material at hand being used to back up bold claims. Also, the "Social Mix" section contains no references whatsoever, and it is in my view the most biased of all sections.

Well said. This article was obviously written by someone from DERA, APC or one of the other professional protestor/poverty pimp organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.19.154 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely inaccurate account

This article is a prime example of the pitfalls of Wikipedia. Vancouver Downtown East Side is the poorest neighbourhood in Canada (V6A postal code) with enormous problems of drugs and prostitution. It is not a "dynamic neighbourhood" with "strong social fabric". It is essentially a cancer of Vancouver. By the way, why is Robert Pickton not mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafarw (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. But if you do, make sure you get your facts straight. It is not the poorest postal code (see above). bobanny 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The title of the magazine (BC Business) should immediately make one suspicious of its claim that the DTES is no longer Canada's poorest neighbourhood. Clearly, a magazine that wants to promote business in British Columbia would rather not have a neighbourhood tagged as such as it might hinder potential investment from out of Province. To claim, without a quote or citation to reference, that this one biased magazine's supposed statement indicating the DTES is no longer Canada's poorest community is irresponsible. I am not a Wikipedian, but stumbled across this page through a Google search. Perhaps a Wiki-addict will be kind enough to check with Statistics Canada to find the truth. The fact that this has not been done indicates the neighbourhood likely still is the poorest postal code in the country. From a personal, subjective point of view based on travel throughout Canada, I can say that I have never seen anything like Vancouver's DTES in terms of homelessness, open drug market, prostitution, property crime, etc. There are some rough areas in Canada's big cities, but nothing like the DTES based on what I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.8.30 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I see no discussion here relating to this tag. It should be removed unless/until the person who posted it comes here to explain his or her reasoning. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is well explained. See the unsigned comment above under "Enormous bias". (I am the one who posted the unsigned comment and the tag). I agree that there has been no fruitful discussion as a result of this post, but largely because nobody has stepped up to defend the article as it is currently written, or to make the overhaul necessary. As nobody is taking action (I've abstained myself simply because the original writer of the article, though biased, clearly knows more about the DTES than me) I will propose an action: If, in one month from now, the neutrality is not defended by addressing the statements pointed out above, or if no fruitful discussion has started, I am going delete all statements that I deem biased. (Which will probably constitute about 20% of the article)

24.84.59.86 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear anonymous editor, if you're going to flag an article, then you should also be actively involved in improving it as well. If you follow the information links in your own tag, you will learn that "marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." In other words, you should not be tagging and running. That tag has been on the article since December. What you should be doing is clearly explaining what specific points are supposedly non-neutral, engaging in discussions here on the talk page with other editors, and making changes to the article yourself to improve the supposedly non-neutral portions.

Personally, after a quick read of the article, nothing appears "non-neutral" to me. One of the objections raised above, the "homeless to affluent" bit, is demonstrably true, and it doesn't make the statements about the area's poverty any less true. In fact, really none of the complaints I see on this page are about issues of neutrality: non-neutral doesn't mean "I don't agree". As a first step I suggest you re-read the article, decide exactly what it is you feel is non-neutral, and ennumerate those items here clearly, or I'm removing the tag. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll gladly elaborate, starting at the beginning of the article, I'll enumerate some of the non-neutral sentences that I come to, explain why they are incorrect or non-neutral. This may be a repeat of some of my previous posts. Also... I don't know what to do to defuse the situation, as I realize this can turn into a heated argument, and some of my previous posts we brusque at best: But please don't take it one step further by addressing me as "My dear anonymous editor". Let's keep it civil.

My comment about the sentence "Used syringes and condoms on neighborhood sidewalks are becoming less common due to the efforts of United We Can" still stands. In critiquing this sentence, I am not claiming there *are* used syringes or condoms on the sidewalks, simply that this sentence is biased in the following way: It aims to make the atmosphere of the neighbourhood sound more welcoming by citing a fact which is not backed up by the provided reference. It could be the case that this sentence is true, I don't dispute that. What *is* the case is that the reference provided does not support the claimed fact, and so this sentence should be removed until a suitable reference can be found.

Next sentence is the "homeless to the affluent" remark. Again, I don't dispute its truth, but the juxtaposition of these terms is an attempt to downplay the fact that there are many homeless people visible on the streets when you walk around the DTES. In fact, I am sure this remark *is* true, in fact, I bet it is true about every district in Vancouver. There are both affluent and homeless people that live in Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Point Grey as well - I've met them. Because it is true for all areas of Vancouver, it adds nothing to the article, and should be removed.

Two sentences later, there is a similar error, in saying "Many people of all ages, children to seniors, volunteer their time to create a healthy environment at community centres and on the street." This is again a statement that is true of almost all regions, not just the DTES. Every community center runs volunteer programs in every district that I can think of, and so it applies to every place. The mention of this "universally true" positive statement is again an attempt to downplay some of the serious negative issues faced by the DTES population.

Nothing to do with my NPOV flag here, but the second paragraph of the "Social mix section" makes 5 or 6 factual claims with no references backing it up, e.g. "There is a noticeable police presence as poor transitional populations including runaways, prostitutes, petty criminals, people involved with the mental health system, and drug addicts cohabit the area due to its affordability, variety of services and tolerance." Can you give me a reference showing that is why they live there? For example, as reasonable as it is to claim that a drug addict lives in DTES for its affordability, I find it more plausible that a drug addict would live there because it is an easy place to get drugs. Therefore, the claim that "affordability, variety of servies, tolerance" are reasons of note should be backed up.

The remaining two paragraphs of the "social mix" section consist entirely of positive claims, for example "The mix of different types of people from disparate places makes this a unique creative, mutually respectful and active cultural area, regardless of the fact it is plagued by pan-handling, theft, drug-use and prostitution, " and all with no references. Again, I am not disputing the truth of these claims, but you cannot say these things without providing factual basis, otherwise your choice to include these claims over other, equally plausible claims like "lots of people are afraid to walk through the DTES at night" represents a bias. Therefore, these comments must be backed up with references or removed.

To show that I am not a complete monster (ha), I'd like to say that the next section of the article, relative to the rest of the article, is pretty good. As an example to use in writing the rest of the article, sentences like "The Evelyne Saller Centre, at 320 Alexander Street, known to locals as The 44 (from a previous address on E. Cordova St.) provides low cost meals, a TV room, pool table, laundry facilities, showers and outtrips. A jam session occurs weekly and free guitar lessons are available." are great. This sentence contains only factual claims, which, if I dispute them, I can verify by following the link to the homepage of the Evelyne Saller Center, where I can read that they are all true. Bravo. However, there still remain in this section slight problems like "The Downtown Eastside Women's Centre at 302 Columbia St. at Cordova, has been a great asset to the community since its inception." This sentence, though probably true, is not backed up by the link provided. I'm sure the women's center *is* an asset, but in order to make that claim in an encyclopedia article, you have to prove it to be so. Still, this is a relatively minor issue, since I am sure we can all agree that pretty much any women's center in DTES is surely an asset.

I'm going to give it a rest for now, but my recommendation is that the "Social mix" section be entirely eliminated, which would would account for the mean-sounding 20% reduction in the article I claimed above. Also, the article should be closely skimmed for buzz words like "dynamic mix of people", which really just add fluff and say nothing. Lastly, the DTES does have a bad reputation in Vancouver. People will say that there's lots of homeless people there, lots of drug addicts, etc, etc. There should be a section in this article addressing why Vancouverites feel this way. Is it true? Not true? Are the people of Vancouver simply jackasses? Either way, it is certainly an important element of the DTES' presence in greater Vancouver, and should be addressed.

137.82.36.10 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, if you're going to flag an article, then you should also be actively involved in improving it as well. I'm at a loss as to why you haven't already. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As you remarked in your first comment, there was no discussion resulting from my NPOV flag. I flagged it in hopes a discussion would start, so there could be a concensus before any editing. In particular, if the burden of editing this article is placed on me, my edits will consist mostly of deletions, and I didn't want to delete people's work without talking to them first.

You seem to be saying now that the discussion is over, since none of my NPOV claims have been addressed, and you're goading me into action. So, I'll make the edits I suggested in my comment above. 24.84.59.86 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read this article in a while and I decided to come back to it and to be honest, I'm appalled. More and more articles on Wikipedia are reading akin to tourist brochures rather than educational articles. The very first section is about the "Social Mix" of this area and how "dynamic" it is? Many people volunteer their time to create a "healthy environment"? What the hell happened? This is clearly biased and were there a way to inflate the NPOV tag, I would. There aren't even references in popular culture to DTES listed, such as Billy Talent's opinion of the area, yet nearly all other Wikipedia articles have pop referrals regardless of the negative or positive connotations associated. This article desperately needs an overhaul. I'd like to do it myself but I assume it'll simply be reverted. If there's no opposition, however, I'll certainly take it on when I have free time. NoHitHair (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find plenty of support. Bear in mind that writing from a neutral point of view is one of our core policies. verifiable citations will be important. I am willing to help with this. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by anon

Altho i live in NYC now, i used to live at a number of SRO's in the Downtown Eastside for the better part of a year and i think a number of basic points which make the area VERY VERY unique in the world have been missed:

1) 90% of the buildings are SRO hotels. 2) there is no possibility that any postal code in canada could have a lower income, because everybody in canada is guarrenteed welfare and significantly more than 50% of the downtown eastside are already on welfare, often long term disability. 3) the population is more than 90% MALE. 4) the area is explicitly a product of this Canadian welfare system, wherein there is very little chance of living in any city in Canada alone as a man for $350/month -- which is maximum normal welfare and, NOT COINCIDENTALLY, also the exact rent at almost all the rooms in almost all the SRO hotels which are almost all of the buildings. 5) the exact infrastucture of the area does include an alley (mostly free of traffic) between every street (usually busy) going in one direction, ie. a block is divided horizontally or veritically. 6) I very rarely saw a used styringe there dispite almost a decade living within a few miles of the area; in fact, used styringes are probably more common in most normal N.A. suburbs. However, syringe wrappers (white and orange paper with black lettering) are certainly the most common piece of garbage after cigarette butts (and before chip bags). More to the point, I definately saw more IN USE syringes, altho i do not use heroin or shoot cocaine. 6b) I am in no way being hyperbolic or whatever. The Vancouver Downtown Eastside is real. 7) Significantly less than 50% of the population own or use motor vehicles. 8) The area does lie in the heart of the most culturally vibrant area of the city, including the very upscale "Downtown Vancouver" immediately to the west, and much of the drug trade and certianly almost all the prostitution results from this very close relationship.

Despite all these apparent handicaps, the Downtown Eastside was a great place to live unless you have kids, because children are not allowed in the SRO's. The Downtown Eastside IS what many "gangsta ghettos" of the world may claim to be: a full-on anarchist cracktown drowning melting pot style into yesturday's junk sorrow, EH? But definately it is rated R for adults only, and the ten thousand people who live there ARE EXACTLY THAT: ADULTS, AND ADULTS ONLY. Thus they really pose no threat to healthy american families the world over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.65.4 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Slanted and highly biased early version

This article, when I first read it, was highly-biased in favour of making the area appear as a drug-infested rathole, name-calling "vagrants" was present, and everything in the area was run-down. A lot of the information left out all the positive things going on. These claims are simply not true. I live here. Many of the statements were not supported by references. I have taken steps to present elements that pertain to the quality of life many people who live here are experiencing. This flies in the face of a media biased toward painting the area as more destitute than it actually is.

Two high-priced condos which immediately come to mind are The Edge, at 289 Alexander and The Van Horne, 22 E. Cordova St., but there are others. These places have well-off people living in them. Hence the reference to affluent and poor living together. In fact one agenda of the City has been to mix the groups together. I have used physical addresses in some cases, to prove that certain specific organizations and locations exist.

Personally, I am working on finding sources for some of the changes I have made. But how often does an article get written on how clean the streets are in the Downtown Eastside.

I am interested in information on how to improve the article. Being a recent editor I am not quite sure about all the issues around proving statements made in Wikipedia articles. However, I find that websites made by parties stating a point are quite an asset to proving a point, as they often give much information about what the society or organization does. These things can be checked by actually going to the organization and experiencing the services they offer first hand. They may not have articles written about them in the mainstream news, which I believe, is one of the important alternatives Wikipedia offers, a more encyclopedic base of knowledge. I have found it difficult navigating and getting information from the "help" areas of Wikipedia and so have probably missed some things I should be doing. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would be grateful.

Furthermore, I have seen few changes made to this article. I had hoped that the article would be improved by others.

Uncle A-Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle A-Bob (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made a real contribution by adding a great deal of factual information to the article, IMO. You ask about further improving the article. Here are a few thoughts:

1. I would start with the neutrality tag. Consider whether it is still justified. Is the article written from a neutral point of view? Before you answer this, take a look at whether all viewpoints are represented in a balanced way.
2. Next, I would look at whether the article tells the story of the DTES (rather than being a collection of facts).
3. Citations: I would add more and I would look at the format of the ones that are already there. WP:CITE sets out the guidelines. Here's a good resource on format of citations: Citations of generic sources. I have it bookmarked and use it a lot.

I will stop there for now, but there is a great deal more you could look at to bring it from a "start" class article to a good article or even a featured article. I'm willing to help. Sunray (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be really happy to see some edits on this page, but I'd like to point out that none of the comments raised above wrt the NPOV flag have been addressed in any subsequent discussion. In fact, it seems people are missing the point of some of the objections.

For example, you cite the DTES as having some really expensive new condos, thus justifying the statement "The DTES is home to the homeless to the affluent", but the truth of this statement was never a contentious issue. The point is that this statement definitely *is* true, in fact, it is definitely true of every place in Vancouver! Therefore it doesn't add anything to the article, and is just a universally true positive statement added to dilute the negatives.

A great thing to see in its place, for example, would be some positive aspects of the DTES that are only true of the DTES, and no other districts in Vancouver. 24.84.59.86 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why some wanna pretty up the image of the east side. After all the Olympics are coming and the East side is an emberrasment to Vancouve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.23.113 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article needs editing, the Downtown Eastside is a unique area in North America and deserves neutral content. As it stands the article does not give the reader an idea of what the area is actually like. I've lived here a long time and am happy the article is flagged, the objections to it are totally reasonable. Rove645 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is in need of a serious overhaul. I am willing to help if other people are also involved. Here is my advice, and how I personally would feel most comfortable going about the cleanup: ① First, just cut big chunks out of the article, anything biased or subjective and anything without a reference. We may not be left with a lot, but that's okay, because the next step is ② to start adding things back. But if you add anything, it needs a reference. The point has been made that there is more information out there about the negative aspects of the neighbourhood than the positive aspects. Well, c'est la vie. That just means if we want bad enough to include information about the positive aspects of DTES, we have to look all the harder for good sources. As Wikipedia editors we can't simply tell the story we want to tell, we can only tell a story that is backed up by sources.

Well, what do you say? Can we start by chopping out all the unreferenced and subjective parts? Again, I'd like to stress that this doesn't mean the unreferenced parts have to stay out, it just means they need to until they are backed up. If we go about the cleanup this way, we can "start with a clean slate" and slowly build up an article everyone can agree on. Until it does get built up, I think it's better to have tight, short article that is well referenced than a long, iffy one that isn't. Because that is fundamentally what Wikipedia is about, providing referenced information. Moisejp (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I currently live and work in the Downtown Eastside. I've been living and working here, off and on, for 27 years. My take on this supposed neutrality dispute is that it is a non-issue. I really can't see anything wrong with the article. The criticisms I'm seeing above strike me as observations by people who know very little about the neighbourhood outside of its reputation. It also strikes me as more than a little absurd to suggest that an article shouldn't mention atributes of its subject unless those atributes are exclusive.

Perhaps we can vote for removing the tag. Anyone? I'm for removal. Steve Lowther (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the article as it stands now shows it is not neutral. It doesn't matter how nice a place the DTES is (which it isn't), putting in fluffy garbage that can't be backed up with facts makes it non-neutral. TastyCakes (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is again becoming highly biased in favor of an attitude of "disgust" for the problems in the area. Often these comments are not proved by references, but even if they were, and god knows the can be, this type of slant in no way reflects an accurate picture of the location: Downtown Eastside, Vancouver. By the way, the inclusion of friendlier elements and the addition of items that tell of the efforts being made by groups and private individuals was an initial attempt to bring some balance to the generalized slander that continues to be heaped on the area by so-called news organs. This "news" is what has evidently slanted this article. I guess we don't need any "evidence" for the photos in the article either. Original research seems to be okay in this field? I am still learning about how to find reliable sources, but I hope to add some one day. This has the potential of being a great article some day and I have seen some good editing in the past. I was recently in Strathcona relaxing under some of the most beautiful trees and flowerbeds in the city. Now where is that reference? I know it's out there somewhere. Probably an article on Strathcona neighbourhood. I think that a lot of people would not recognize the location from the Wiki article. But then again, some people don't like to think of Strathcona as the Downtown Eastside. (see comment in section below, Geography, on City of Vancouver definitions of DTES)(Uncle A-Bob) May 18, 2009

You could always go down to the city archives and dig up some reliable sources there about the neighbourhood's rich history. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Geography

I think a great many people are confused about the boundaries of neighbourhoods and districts in Vancouver. According to the City's map: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/dtes/images/dtesmap.gif , the downtown eastside is a large district incompassing several neighbourhoods. When people, including most of the authors of this article, say downtown eastside, they really mean the Oppenheimer neighborhood and a few boundary places to the east and south.

This article should be about the Downtown Eastside as a whole, including Gastown and Chinatown, and then there should be seperate sections on the sub areas.

The article should make it clear that they are talking about Oppenheimer neighbourhood when they talk about the slums. It would be rare to find a large number of hookers, drug dealers, passed out drunks and needles and condoms in Chinatown or Gastown, and this should be made clear.

If someone who is unfamiliar with the city reads this article, they are going to think the entire district is a slum, when in reality Gastown, Chinatown, Thorton Park, and most of Victory Square and South Strathcona are no where near as bad as Main and Hastings.209.121.155.196 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right on! I agree. (Uncle A-Bob) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle A-Bob (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added some (sourced) text to the beginning of the article to try to explain that the term "DTES" is used both to mean a wide area that includes places like Gastown and South Strathcona, and a much smaller area which is where the problems are most acute. Some of the information in this article refers to the larger area and some of it refers to the smaller area.The article needs to be cleaned up so that it's always clear what definition of the term is being referred to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Remains Unbalanced

This article has clearly had a lot of back in forth in the past, but at present it is written with obvious sympathy for the area. To make it neutral, opinions of any stripe should be removed and (ideally) only demonstrable facts should remain. I'll have a swing at doing this... TastyCakes (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Community groups and social agencies" section

I have a problem with the Community groups and social agencies section. I appreciate what its trying to do, but by listing the street addresses of each social group and what their main goals are, it no longer reads like a Wikipedia article should. doesn't really fit in with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. That whole section would be better suited to a Downtown Eastside Charity listing website, or maybe even the city of Vancouver website. Wikipedia is not a Community Information page.

I have no problem briefly describing which charities are the most prominent in the DTES, but Wikipedia can't be an advertisement for their services and listing the street addresses of these organizations really goes against the grain of Wikipedia standards, in my opinion. This section needs to be re-done. --Mezaco (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just don't want to be the one to separate the valid stuff from the garbage. Some of it seems hard to judge... But by all means take a shot if you like. TastyCakes (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. It's funny to me, that drug needles on the ground (a photo) and police takedowns (photo) are valid Wikipedia elements. The point is to find articles showing the other elements of the area. We will all have to read more about Wikipedia's criterion for good articles. When I added these groups and volunteers initially I did not understand Wiki's rules, which may be expanding. There are a lot of them, and it is scary to think that only a genius can figure them out. On another point, I have found numerous Britannica Encyclopedia articles quite slanted and devoid of important information. Perhaps all articles have slants that would be better adjusted. Is it really possible? I personally was not trying to promote charity, but trying to find a way of presenting a more balanced article. The original insanity of the article was so serious. (Uncle A-Bob, May 18, 2009)

It's not really that complicated, we just want a fact based, non-subjective article. Anything that is classed under opinion like "this place has its problems but still has some swell people" may be interesting, but it is not a "fact" (it's an opinion) and so doesn't belong in wikipedia. That the downtown eastside has drug problems is a demonstrable fact, through statistics and pictures such as the one you mentioned. That is why it is still represented while some of the more sympathetic parts of the article have been removed. I do think the pictures are in the wrong places - the police picture shouldn't be in the social agencies section and the needle picture shouldn't be in the residents association section, they should both be in the problems section. A larger problem for the article may be notability. Usually articles are pared down to "notable facts", rather than a big collection of sometimes trivial details. Deciding what is notable in an article such as this (such as the extensive list of social agencies and events held in the DTES) is difficult and likely to be controversial, which is why I've mostly left this alone. TastyCakes (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for deleting this section altogether. Wikipedia is not a directory. There are 260 social agencies and housing sites operating in the DTES (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Downtown+Eastside+agencies+housing+sites+crowd+Downtown+Eastside+with+video/9983274/story.html); we should replace this section with paragraphs that discuss the social services in the area and include various points of view about whether they are important, sufficient, and effective. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken Map Link

Under "External Links". First item. Should be:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dtes/images/dtesmap.gif
--Atikokan (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously biased

The old article from a couple years back did a fine job of describing the area. This article is a joke. The place is a hole and this article comes across as an absolute farce! I'd make the required edits myself, but folks like myself usually have their edits rewritten by "senior" editors. 24.87.188.157 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you dislike? Please do make changes. Yes you will probably insert things that aren't written according to Wikipedia's specifications, but everyone does when they start. If you make reasonable changes and make a case for them here or in the edit summary, there's every reason to think they'll remain (perhaps with some modification). I've just been reading over the article and there are still some things that annoy me, I'll have another go at it. TastyCakes (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a horrible writer and I just have a lot of disorganized things to say. I know personal research isn't allowed, but I'll throw it out there if only to affirm or strengthen similar points in the article. Anyway, I'm going to throw this at the wall and you guys can decide what sticks and what doesn't (The talk page, not the article).

The community groups sections needs to go or be heavily rewritten so it doesn't sound like an advert. As someone who lives in the city and knows enough about the DTES, it's rather obvious that the article has been slanted. The events section needs to also go but could make the cut if it were scaled down. It looks like some pitiful attempt to make the area look like more than it is. The article speaks of various stores as if it were a normal part of town. It is not. The fact that ANY sort of business is making a comeback in the DTES is laughable and I dispute that greatly. The only meagre shred of truth to that is a couple cafés next to the suburban bus stop on Hastings at Cambie (The border of the DTES) and that's only because it's a new building.

The Chinese community is absolutely furious with the state of this neighbourhood. I don't have too many details on this, but I know they've been lobbying to have the area cleaned up and have at least one (if not many more) groups devoted to voicing their concern about the state of the neighbourhood.

The 100 block of E/W Hastings Street is actually the site of the most pedestrian involved auto accidents. There was a recent article (a month ago?) with MANY Vancouverites commenting that it's not the driver's fault but the area residents as they tend to be on drugs, drunk, or simply stupid and jaywalk seemingly with impunity. Needless to say, Vancouver police are not enforcing jaywalking laws. As a personal observation and I have nothing to back this up, it seems that because the freeway to Vancouver was never built (only the Prior Street section westward), eastern commuters have been forced to use the Hastings corridor to access Downtown leading to a lot of friction between crackheads and normal people going to work.

Many of the stores and greengrocers that the article speaks of is actually in Chinatown to the south. There are only two or three green grocers up on Powell Street and even those are actually run by Chinese and usually shopped at by Chinese people (At least it was this way during my commutes through the run-down area a year ago). The article also fails to mention the Police Museum on Cordova and Gore. The area is also serviced by Waterfront Station by way of the SeaBus walkway and E Waterfront Rd. I've had the unfortunate luck of having to drop off several of my employees here; unfortunate because some crackhead nearly always tries to jump in front of my car, thus sort of proving my point about it "servicing" the area. Cordova over from Dunlevy (Near the police station) as far east as Victoria Drive is where prostitutes peddle their wares every night. From what I've heard, it's become somewhat of a past time to cruise that particular stretch of road and "whore spotting". In addition it's very common to hear from fellow Vancouverites that the entire area ought to be walled off. It's been said so many times by so many people, I'm sure you guys could probably find a source for that comment from a news site so you can stick it up on here.

There. Some new info for you guys to pick away at. Git 'er done. 24.87.188.157 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead states "the Downtown Eastside contains the following neighborhoods: Chinatown, Gastown, Oppenheimer, Strathcona, Thornton Park and Victory Square, as well as the light industrial area to the North". It seems all you're concerned with writing about is Oppenheimer and Strathcona. This article is not just about the bad parts of the area but the entire downtown eastside which isn't all bad. -- œ^™ 04:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ya I guess part of the problem is that it's not a clearly defined area. Perhaps the article should spell out more (in both the positive and negative sections) which part of the DTES they are referring to. TastyCakes (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a cite for that traffic statistic about crackheads getting run over. I'd write this stuff in, but I know I've got it in for the run down hellhole and it'd come out as biased as it was before. -> http://www.theprovince.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Vancouver+needs+czar+look+after+pedestrians+needs+expert+says/1813607/story.html 24.87.188.157 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The work of MD Gabor Maté should be somehow mentioned in the article. He works in the Downtown Eastside at Onsite (the supervised injection facility). He has written many books and articles detailing his work in the DTES. People like him are the real players in the DTES. Not the bleeding heart liberals who pilfered this page a while back. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/staying_alive/dr_gabor_mate.html and http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Prisoner_of_War

Oh and for the record, I recant what I previously said about police not enforcing jaywalking laws in the DTES. Here's another cite http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights-Justice/2009/07/16/DTESTicketsNotRecalled/ 24.87.188.157 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The map only shows what appears to be the Japantown area, and should include Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings at least east to Gore if not Heatley or Clark; in fact, the core area of the district isn't even on the map.Skookum1 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to remove the map. It's just confusing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thornton Park mention

Thornton Park isn't a neighbourhood name, despite being mentioned in the lede as such; if that area has a name it's "Main & Terminal", though inclucing CityGate and Pacific Central Station; Thornton Park happens to be in this area but, given that it has no actual residences, calling it a neighbourhood is a bit of a stretch....Skookum1 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seattle PI article

I came across this Seattle PI article about the DTES; it has several citable points within it that should/could be included in the article.Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

There's a category on commons (here) with a bunch of pictures of the DTES. I think some of them are quite touching, and demonstrative of poverty and other problems in the area. There seem to already be a lot of pictures in this article, so I guess I'm talking about replacing existing images more than adding more. Anyway, just thought I'd point them out, I'll leave it up to others to decide on using them or not. TastyCakes (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers and Comparison

Would be nice to have some hard numbers in here re: drug use, violence, HIV/AIDS rate, etc. for comparison. I'm not a Canadian nor have I ever been to Vancouver so I'd like to know how this compares to cities in the US/UK. Pictures, street view, etc. don't make it seem like too bad of an area compared to a lot of what I've seen in both nations, and I wonder if the article's highly negative tone could be tempered by the fact that - although it's bad relative to Canadian standards - it's still much better than Camden or Glasgow or Derry or etc. 66.152.138.61 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the numbers (although the rates of Hep-C and HIV are very high) but more because of the open-air drug market, and how blatantly exposed everything is. The dealing and injection drug-use is really prominent and in-your-face, and coupled with mental illness and homelessness concentrated in just a few city blocks startles a lot of folks that can't help but pass through on their way to the downtown core, and especially when it's only a few minutes walk from more upscale areas. I think that's what shocks most people about the place giving it such a bad reputation. -- œ^™ 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Refocused Demographics section

Hi everyone, I've started to work on trying to expand how this article covers the deep, significant issues of the DTES, and am removing some relatively unimportant details to try to keep it focused. Here are things I've recently cut from the Demographics section:

In the same year, 43% of the population were immigrants, with 23% of those being from China, 5% from Vietnam, 2% from Hong Kong and 14% from all other countries. One percent of residents were on visas or had refugee status. = I've replaced this with the statement that the DTES has fewer immigrants than the city as whole. Given that immigrants are a relatively small part of the population and not a huge point of discussion in the sources that cover the DTES, I think these details are unnecessary.

These include cooks and kitchen staff, paramedics, police and firemen, social service and employment agency representatives. Mental health workers, doctors and alternative therapy practitioners, educators, priests, nuns and other members of the clergy also make up a significant portion of the population. This was unreferenced and I don't see a reason to include this much detail.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Content removed from Mental Illness section

I've removed the following content:

"The city has established programs such as Project Civil City and the Safe Streets Act to address some of the issues associated with visible homelessness and related deviant activity. "

Project Civil City has been cancelled. The Safe Streets Act is a provincial law rather than a city program. I also removed:

"Criticism of these programs suggests that they have displaced individuals and focused them into a concentrated area where social programs do not have the capacity to aid them."

I don't understand what "a concentrated area" here is referring to. There is a point of view that the social programs in the DTES core lack capacity, however everyone seems to agree that it has more capacity than the immediately-surrounding areas. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the following sentences, as they are not specific to the DTES:

Dr. Michelle Patterson has suggested that mental illness leads to homelessness, rather than the other way around, especially when social support is lacking. Vancouver's homeless with mental health issues face social stigma, which is reported as being a large limiting factor to their quality of life and opportunity. The homeless and mentally ill also face social obstacles related to disability, race (many are members of visible minorities), and gender (see intersectionality). In what Dr. Christian Schutz terms the "homeless treatment paradox," individuals most in need of care - such as those with fetal alcohol syndrome - are often the least likely to receive it, and thus are likely to become homeless. There is a lack of institutions adequate to serve the LGBT community, which suffers from prejudice and physical assault. Common psychiatric services are often insensitive to these individuals' extra stress.

References

Removed Community groups and social agencies section

I've added a summary of the types of services offered in the DTES, and removed the following section for the same reasons as above, i.e. Wikipedia is not a directory. If anyone would like to create a List of non-profit organizations in the Downtown Eastside page, I think that would be a more appropriate place for this type of information. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Ray-Cam Community Centre provides services and programs for children and families, including English as a Second Language classes, seniors programming, singing and sports opportunities, tutoring and computer stations. Another, the Strathcona Community Centre operated by the Vancouver Parks Board, offers fitness and martial arts classes, special events, a pre-school, after school care, general recreation, arts and crafts programs and free showers. The Carnegie Centre, located at Hastings and Main Streets, has served food since the early 1980s, and also offers live music several times a week, and free art sketching opportunities since the early 1980s.

The LifeSkills Centre on Cordova Street, across from Oppenheimer Park, offers activities such as crafts, sports, and special community events and lunches. The IATSE, Local 118 puts on annual turkey dinners and clothing give-aways at the park just before Christmas. The Downtown Eastside Women's Centre at 302 Columbia St. at Cordova provides the Relocation Project/Bridge Housing aids women in need of emergency housing. The Evelyne Saller Centre, on Alexander Street, known to locals as The 44 (from a previous address on E. Cordova St.) provides low-cost meals, a TV room, pool table, laundry facilities, showers and out-trips. WISH, a drop-in centre for female survival sex workers located at 330 Alexander Street, is open Sunday – Friday evenings, and offers a hot meal, showers, a literacy program, makeup, clothing and hygiene supplies, and a safe space for women to gather. PACE Society (Providing Alternatives, Counselling, & Education) is a peer organization by sex workers for sex workers located at 148 West Hastings St. PACE offers peer support groups, safety workshops, outreach, advocacy, informal counselling, mentorship, and a Monday to Friday drop-in.

Churches such as the First United Church, one block east of Hastings and Main, Union Gospel Mission on Cordova Street, and Street Church, on Hastings St., provide assistance to area residents in the forms of advocacy in dealing with welfare offices, getting health issues met, dealing with drug rehabilitation, and providing entertainment through movies and outings. First United Church has given away thousands of donated books, articles of clothing and kitchenware. The Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement on E. Cordova St., have for years provided food and clothing for area residents.

The Salvation Army Church (Cariboo Temple) sends a Soup Truck and Volunteers to hand out hot soup, hot drinks and sandwiches every Tuesday and Sunday nights. Their counterparts, Vancouver 614, live in the neighbourhood and invite their neighbours into their homes for family meals and prayer. The Salvation Army also has institutions with detox, drug rehabilitation, shelters, drop-in centres, second-stage housing, and community services.

The Health Contact Centre on E. Hastings, in the alley, provides nurse services, information, and some forms of occupational activities. Vancouver Coastal Health was closed in Spring 2010, classified as a "duplication of services". A large number of the elderly population of the area used this as their primary source of medical and social contact.

The UBC Learning Exchange, sponsored by the University of British Columbia since the year 2000, opened up an outreach program at the north end of Main Street. It is used by local residents to improve their education.

Pivot Legal Society is a non-profit legal advocacy organization located in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Pivot's mandate is to use the law to address the root causes that undermine the quality of life of those most on the margins. Pivot's work involves addressing child welfare, addiction and health, housing, policing and prostitution.

Guru Nanak's Free Kitchen is a non-profit community organization that regularly provides thousands of meals to the needy and homeless in the area through events at sites such as the LifeSkills Centre and the First United Church. The concept is based on the Sikh principles of langar (free kitchen) and seva (selfless service) developed by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji hundreds of years ago.

Murality is a non-profit organization that works to revitalize Vancouver's Downtown Eastside through street art. Its first project, Jump for Joy, is located in Chinatown. This temporary mural was initiated by Murality's founder, Amalia Liapis, and photographer Eyoälha Baker to bring life and vitality to nearby residents, as well as tourists.

Eaton's

I've removed this from the History section: "After Eaton's moved its Vancouver flagship store from West Hastings in the 1970s, shopping traffic declined, a trend which was to last for many years." The Eaton's article says that its original Vancouver store now serves as the downtown Harbour Centre campus of Simon Fraser University. This is quite some distance from the DTES. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra refs

I removed the following references from the lead as they are non-specific (no chapter or page numbers) and we have other refs that say the same thing:

• "'Milltown to Metroplis, Alan Morley
• 'Early Vancouver, J.S. "Skitt" Matthews

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Terminology: "DTES core" vs. "DTES"

Hi everyone. I've tried to clarify what information pertains to the DTES area defined in the city's Local Area Plan (including Strathcona, Gastown, and Chinatown), and what information pertains to the DTES core. I think most things are sorted out, but after reading through a lot of sources it's becoming apparent that virtually everyone calls the DTES core simply the "Downtown Eastside." There is a very strong understanding among reliable sources that the term "Downtown Eastside" refers to an area in which a certain set of issues is most acute. There is some debate over exact boundaries, e.g. whether the corner of Hastings and Cambie is in the area or outside of it. But nobody, *including* the City of Vancouver, would consider La Casa Gelato or the Gastown Steam Clock to be part of the DTES, *except* in the context of certain very specific discussions around planning and statistics.

I'm proposing that we/I refactor the article to replace instances of "DTES core" with "DTES", and use the term "greater DTES area" to mean the wider area. Any thoughts on this? I'll make this change in a few days if there are no objections.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with this now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Done! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

BC Electric Railway

I've just removed this, as it's a relatively insignificant fact in a long section, and has had a "citation needed" tag since 2010: "The headquarters of the BC Electric Railway Company was also in the area, making the DTES the hub of rail transit not only of Vancouver, but the entire region. " Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I found a ref for it and put it back (with rewording). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Downtown Eastside/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is very impressionistic right now, with no citations and only vague references and weasel phrases. Needs considerable work, but it does touch on many of the basic issues that the area gets attention for and has a basic structure in place, some links, and a photo.Bobanny 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) I initially put the importance as mid, but changed it to high. It's a significant neighbourhood for a variety of reasons: historically it was the centre of town, it receives national coverage pretty regularly (Insite, Pickton case), and so on.Bobanny 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 13:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Homeless + Mentally ill statistic

I've just removed this:

According to a City of Vancouver report in 2012, 40% of homeless people living in the DTES suffer from a mental illness.

The link is broken and I can't find the paper anywhere else. I also question whether the city calculated this number specifically for the DTES, as opposed to for Vancouver as a whole. I will replace it with data from the 2015 survey. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Prostitution edit

"...the majority of Vancouver's 1,000 to 1,500 sex workers work in the DTES, often in the streets". Vancouver has 1000-1500 sex workers? How do they get this number? After they have been arrested or in the hospital after an assault? That's inaccurate representation. I think it would be more accurate to state that most of Vancouver's 1000-1500 outdoor sex workers, work in the DTES. It is easy to look at the many adult entertainment websites to see that most Vancouver sex workers, indoor sex workers, work online. I will attempt to find a more recent source as opposed to the 2009 source that was provided. This is a topic that is hard to source for the simple fact that we are dealing with an occupation that is notoriously secretive. I think it would be prudent to add the word "outdoor" until I can find a more up to date source."...the majority of Vancouver's 1,000 to 1,500 outdoor sex workers work in the DTES, often in the streets." 31jetjet (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)31jetjet

Hi 31jetjet. Just to recap for everyone else what we're talking about, the source I used for this sentence is a Vancouver Police Department publication from 2009 which is here: http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/vpd-project-lockstep.pdf It says, "Current estimates suggest that there are between 1,000 and 1,500 sex trade workers in Vancouver and most work in the DTES." (p. 25 according to the document footer, or p. 26 in the PDF file).

With the footnote that's currently at the end of the sentence, adding the word "outdoor" to the middle of the sentence is really not good. When an article has a sourced statement, the statement should reflect what the source says.

Having said that, I looked more closely at the VPD's Project Lockstep document, and its source for the "1,000 sex trade workers in Vancouver" estimate is a 2007 report available at http://council.vancouver.ca/20070313/documents/rr1appendix.pdf, which says "It is estimated that 1,000 women sell sex on the streets of the inner city." I was not able to locate the VPD's source for the 1,500 estimate. So it turns out that your hunch about the statistic including only outdoor sex workers is valid. However, we need to make the sourcing clear.

I'll change the article to say, "Vancouver has an estimated 1,000 street sex workers[1] and according to the VPD most of them work in the DTES.[2]. If you have something else to add that's reliably sourced, feel free.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Clayoquot. I see now that you have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into this article, I appreciate the change as it is more specific and therefore more accurate. 31jetjet (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)31jetjet

:) :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————