Jump to content

Talk:Outside In (organization)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supporters section

[edit]

I'm considering removing it, because it looks like a shout out for donor recognition. There's no question about the reliability of the claims, but rather I feel it lacks justification for inclusion. Anyone object? Graywalls (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I see no problem with keeping the existing content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valfontis: Curious, do you have a preference? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, it doesn't appear there is any meaningful objection then. Graywalls (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible COI

[edit]

(this is now at COI/N)

*SPA 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kanderson516 The only contribution to two articles are Outside In related.

Therefore, I put the COI template Graywalls (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naloxene training

[edit]

The syringe exchange program is a program of Multnomah County and the article subject is a partner agency. The cited Oregonian page on the housebill was about the housebill itself and not the agency or the program. The cited sources are of the agency itself. I felt removal was appropriate Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious reversion reverted

[edit]

I restored this addition this addition made by an IP editor, plus sourcing and a bit of tweaking. After it was originally inserted, it was suspiciously removed in this edit whose connection became immediately apparent by cross referencing name to organization name through ordinary search process that any competent researcher would know how to do.Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Is there a reason we're describing a social and medical services organization as an "intravenous drug addict clinic"? That doesn't seem WP:NEUTRAL in the least. --Kbabej (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is their specialty department, which is not housed in the main clinic building. Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a RS to show that's what it's called?--Kbabej (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a requirement that it be called as printed on the door? The door of the clinic says "Outside In IDU Health Services" which IMO is highly technical, euphemistic and confusing. Insulin is a prescribed drug, and its user would be a user of intravenously administered (drug), but it's common sense to not include them into the drug user category even though its literally true. If you doubt the accuracy of the lettering, you're free to yourself, in person, by conducting a field inspection. If one was to call a "University hospital department of pediatrics" you would object references to "children's hospital" until it is specifically referred to as "children's hospital" in reliable sources? I'm not calling the entire organization that. I'm calling the separate subset of that organization dedicated to drug addicts. While I am addressing your concern, you have not returned the same courtesy to provide response to my request over how you come to the data that was entered into Hawks PDX articleGraywalls (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the "separate subset of that organization dedicated to drug addicts" doesn't call their program an "intravenous drug addict clinic." I think common sense would dictate an "intravenous drug addict clinic" is pejorative. I'd like to see another editor weigh in on the issue to gain a consensus. I think that wording should be removed altogether. --Kbabej (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unreasonable usage. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local-news/drug-addict-clinic-planned-redcar-3729670 http://library.stu.edu/ulma/va/3005/1969/08-29-1969.pdf Simply not being PC enough isn't a reason to declare it off limit as POV. Are you aware that most products company call toilet paper "bath tissue"? So, it would be improper to call it "toilet paper" because manufacturers chose not to call it that? Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That source has nothing whatsoever to do with this usage. Do you have a RS calling it that? Because it's not on any signage, official name, or RS from what I can tell. It's simply a pejorative phrase you've created. --Kbabej (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The modification to the description addresses the concern. From a 1988 Oregonian newspaper article, here the Oregonian described how the city described its services "the city granted the permit and said it considered Outside In Portland’s leading organization in helping drug addicts." Our MoS doesn't dictate that we use terminology that is desired by the subject company in describing it. We don't have to reference to Ikea employees as "coworkers" whenever a reference to their employees are made in prose. Graywalls (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The COI matter on this article is more complicated than the sourcing, because the original article creation had likely allowed the organization with ideas of what to include or build upon. On the topic of COI, please discuss at COI/N Outside In(organization) if you'd like to say something. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, Just reduce the article to an appropriate stub and let's start over. Not hard. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COI rests in the fact there appears to be long term tendency for this organization to manage contents on Wikipedia. Please discuss further on COI/N. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

Three separate paragraphs copied and pasted from their 2016 IRS Form 990. Probably couldn't use it as a reference but information that might be useful to research with. They appear in all caps at the source..

CLINIC AND HEALTH SERVICES OUR CLINIC IS A FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER PROVIDING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE AND PREVENTION TO HOMELESS YOUTH AND OTHER LOW-INCOME PEOPLE, AT OUR MAIN CLINIC, THROUGH MOBILE MEDICAL OUTREACH, AND A SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTER. SERVICES INCLUDE A MIX OF DISCIPLINES: WESTERN MEDICINE, NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE, ACUPUNCTURE AND CHINESE HERBAL MEDICINE, CHIROPRACTIC CARE, DENTAL CARE, TATTOO REMOVAL, AND MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SUPPORT. OUR IDU HEALTH SERVICES PROTECTS INTRAVENOUS DRUG USERS FROM HIV AND OTHER DISEASES, AND TREATMENT AND REFERRAL FOR SERVICES AIMED AT DECREASING AND ENDING THEIR DEPENDENCE ON DRUGS.

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICES WE PROVIDE SERVICES GEARED TO HELP DIVERSE POPULATIONS OF HOMELESS YOUTH ACHIEVE SELF-SUFFICIENCY: SUPPORTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND CRISIS SERVICES, BASIC NEEDS RESOURCES, NUTRITIOUS MEALS, HEALTHY ACTIVITIES, CASE MANAGEMENT, MENTAL HEALTH AND ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT, ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE SUPPORT, EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND PLACEMENT, AND HOUSING PROVIDE THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO BECOME SELF-SUFFICIENT. FOCUSED SERVICES EXIST FOR SEXUAL MINORITY AND GENDER VARIANT YOUTH WHO MAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF HOMELESS YOUTH.

SOCIAL VENTURES WE OFFER TWO DIRECT EMPLOYMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMELESS YOUTH IN NEED OF JOB SKILLS. VIRGINIA WOOF DOG DAYCARE AND BESPOKE ARE HANDS-ON LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. VIRGINIA WOOF IS A SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC WHO BOARD THEIR DOGS FOR DAY OR OVERNIGHT STAYS. HOMELESS YOUTH WORK WITH REGULAR STAFF TO SERVE CLIENTS AND DOGS. BESPOKE SENDS YOUTH OUT ON BICYCLES TO MAKE AND SELL PEDAL-POWERED SMOOTHIES IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AROUND PORTLAND.


Graywalls (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Without denying the problems this organization has caused for the local neighborhood, this article reads like a hit piece. I'm sure there is some more positive press coverage out there. Prezbo (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo:, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public., quoted from WP:DUE. Don't just say "I'm sure there's more positive press coverage". That's just pure speculation. Go find those sources, that's independent of the org. That is, something that's not based on regurgitating statements by org's management or press release and saying "they said.." "executive director said...". NPOV issue is addressed, because it represents what's covered in reliable sources independent of the article subject. The anonymous edit from IP is being disregarded, because as you can see from the list on the top of the talk page, there's been repeated manipulation by personnel making on behalf of the article subject over long term. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prezbo:, also, the sources used are highly reliable mainstream corporate media outlets rather than questionable POV pushing sources like Filtermag, or The Post Millennial. Please have a look at this source also. IDUHS, which is the official name of the progrma which deals with the drug users side of the organization's function is named for "Injection Drug Users' Health Services" Graywalls (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re[2] the fact that someone other than you was in favor of retaining this content doesn't mean that there's consensus for its inclusion, that's not how "consensus" works on Wikipedia, it's a discussion not a vote. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Also no consensus to remove the NPOV tag. I think you are displaying WP:OWNERSHIP over this article. Prezbo (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EDITCON. The fact someone came along and blanked something from an IP, then an established user came along and restored it, and having remained does imply some consensus. As for the placement of template, it doesn't quite work the same as WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we're at the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS stage of the process now. Prezbo (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prezbo:, Given this is not where you generally edit and contents comments directed at me as opposed to contents, such as Special:Diff/1250801043, there's an air of retaliatory edit to this. Graywalls (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I’m sure there’s some rule against that which you can find and link to. But I think my edits are still an improvement to the article. Prezbo (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prezbo:, please elaborate what you meant by "sure". Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You irritate me, I looked at your contributions and didn't like what you'd done to this article...what kind of elaboration are you looking for? Prezbo (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EncMstr: as you seem to be still semi active on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo:, in your edit Special:Diff/1251030645 here, WP:ONUS is incorrectly applied. Concerns about where it is located in the article or how it is worded are relevant to WP:BRD, not WP:ONUS. ONUS is not for asserting your preferred form of expression over that of others. The prose should be written without close paraphrasing such that it becomes a copyright violation, but phrased such that it doesn't change the meaning/strength of the wording in the source. There is no policy mandating destigmatizing/person first language when they're not used in the sources referenced. Also see WP:WEASEL.Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn’t have gotten drawn into this. This website is addictive to me. Do whatever you want with this article. Prezbo (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outside_In_(organization)&oldid=1251426509"