Talk:Downtown Eastside

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	British Columbia Portal This article is part of the British Columbia WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	Assessment comments.

Contents 1 First Nations 2 East Hastings and the Downtown Eastside 3 The Cited Articles in the Georgia Strait and by the Canadian Press 4 Dead Links 5 DTES Style 6 Poorest postal code? 7 Enormous Bias 8 Completely inaccurate account 9 Neutrality tag 10 Comments by anon 11 Slanted and highly biased early version

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)