Talk:Drug User Liberation Front

Independent secondary sources

@DERPALERT: I don't believe we need to itemize very specific test methods, let alone using highly POV, organization involved Nyx/Kalicum authored work. Trying to illustrate what you think is important and using the company/organization's own website can be considered POV pushing. Please try to base contents on independent secondary sources. WP:PSTS. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Funding

DULF's partner, VANDU was awarded a grant for street cleaning, but had their grant terminated due to diversion of funds. https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/01/20/Donors-Step-Up-Vancouver-Council-Axes-Funding-VANDU-Art-Program/ https://fraservalleytoday.ca/2023/10/25/your-perspective-b-c-tax-dollars-fuelling-the-illicit-drug-trade/

So, did the money VANDU take from the grant get diverted to buying drugs from the dark web? @DERPALERT: ? Graywalls (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have a WP:Reliable Source that clearly says that, by all means, write that. This is not the place to bicker over politics or "own the libs" or whatever. Also the second article uses the phrase "diverting funds" to mean just the government spending money on something in their budget that they believe to be useful, not actual corruption. If that was the case, I could argue that Trump was "diverting funds" to build the border wall or something. The concerns about the illicit drug trade could literally have been handled by DULF's proposal to Health Canada to buy drugs from a licensed, regulated provider. I'm not saying unregulated safe supply is good policy (my personal opinion is that the Portuguese model of harm reduction that is tied with manditory psychological help is the best model but that has nothing to do with the article) but the people involved with DULF are good people and they believe in what they believe in. If you keep doing immature shit I will invoke WP:AN3 inshallah.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I was simply asking whether if they did or not... and depending on the response, I could look for reliable sources. This is not the place to discuss whether we believe DULF is a good or bad existence and we should try to remain dispassionate and leave personal opinions behind when we edit. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/premier-tries-to-distance-bc-government-from-drug-trafficking-it-enabled/ might be of use in helping further research on what exactly happened with VANDU grant money and if it relates to DULF even though I wouldn't directly use this as a source. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing

@DERPALERT:, please explain why you removed the use of crypocurrency, which was detailed in highly reliable, mainstream, journalism based reference that meets reliable sources guidelines here while you re-added DULF, Nyx and Kalicum authored articles in later edits. I believe that selectively picking out things that is directly supportable in the economist artile, then adding minutiae details using COI sources is POV pushing. You also did not address these concerns when it was first brought up. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure I can re add cryptoᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to reword it to sound less like the writer had a chip on their shoulder. I accidentally removed the"delivered over mail part but I added it back in once I realized.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DERPALERT:, I've condensed the constitutionality challenge and merged it into the chronological event. Why did you re-create a section devoted to it, for the second time, and reinserted using a dulf.ca a self published reference in Special:Diff/1325362350 ?? Note if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

MJust merged it back into the constitutional challenge section. Why are details of the case like what the plaintiffs are challenging the crown on not significant to the article? If anything, DULF is notable primarily for challenging the laws on these grounds. We should also probably include the judicial opinin//argument against DULF as well. Like I'll add it if you don't want to.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary in that edit said Unnecessary detail, POV, so the impression I got was you removed it simply for not liking it given that it was a properly cited item. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DERPALERT:, you again removed something from that particular area of the contents. DULF not knowing the identity of the seller was something expressly discussed in the Economist. May I ask if you've read the full text, subscriber version of the Economist article rather than just the preview summary? Graywalls (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I put anonymous sellerᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit comes across as original research and POV pushing. It cites a primary source John Rustad press release and a Wiipedia editor framed him as "attacking" DULF, an analysis that was not from a reliable independent source. I have removed it. Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

I have asked DERPALERT 2 or 3 times if they've actually read the entirety of the source https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/09/08/the-drug-dealers-leading-a-public-health-revolution rather than the beginning available in preview and they have not provided a direct answer. I have asked, because they were making comments like this and edit summary like Unnecessary detail, POV here despite having been discussed in this source, so I was of the impression they have only read the preview and not the whole subscription required article. Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I recall you referring to the Economics article in the reply you made to the comment linked here and me not being able to access it as it is behind a paywall. My earlier edits were not about the factual accuracy of what was pulled from the Economist article but about the relevance and weight of those additions, as I discussed in the linked comment.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@DERPALERT:, I can't make assumption if you have access to it or not. This is why I asked if you've read it all. All I was asking was a yes or no answer. I only asked, because the comments you were making suggested you haven't read it. On Wikipedia, as said in WP:SPS is if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources.. Therefore, information in question you've said I "kept writing stuff" carries greater weight for inclusion, because the fact it was published in Economist carries significant heft than something you want to include but can not do without relying on dependent sources like Nyx/Kalicum paper or self published primary source like DULF documents. Graywalls (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Structure Section

@Graywalls If you want to find a second, independent source for the structureof DULF. Go ahead. I see no reason to doubt their statistic that they had 49 members, 2 of whom dropped out. If anything, news outlets have gotten really lazy over the years and they don't have the numbers right. There are literally news outlet sources in this article that say DULF was founded in 2021 when any deeper digging clearly shows independent news reporting of DULF activity in 2020.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I already found a reliable source for it and cited they have 47 members. Did you not see my edit? It's not necessary to re-add Nyx/Kalcium authored reference to say the same thing plus minutiae. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If you found a DULF associated source that said so and so liked Big Mac for lunch and chicken nuggets for dinner, I won't doubt the reliability that they do, but that's unnecessary inclusion, although that could be different if even such trivial details are detailed in multiple independent (not related to people associated with what article is written about) talks about it. It's like saying as of 2025, place x had y number of employees that cites a mainstream source only to tack on an essay authored by company to say there were ten more but they quit. Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I also don't think the name of the attorneys need to be named in article space. They're not even notable and that's name dropping. Why would they need to be named by name? Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@LonaArugula had originally added that and I had just copied that text. I have just removed it.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DERPALERT:, you will also see that they're a very inexperienced editor with exactly two edits, and one of that being that edit. It's almost a WP:SPA and probably unfamiliar with our sourcing and NPOV guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Including technical details only citing Kalicum/Nyx/DULF sources

@Agnieszka653:, Like the point I made in NPOV/N that including things like number of times a vodka is distilled, the origin of glacial water used to dilute or the number of times it's been through Herkimers citing the distillery's website would be trying to infer quality or importance. I feel rattling off specific analytical methods citing Kalicum Nyx or DULF is the same thing. From seeing this comment I'm of the impression you're not in full support of retaining the text in Special:Diff/1325807228 or are you? Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am conflicted about it. It's definitely a primary source and yes the study its extremely flawed. I can see the reasons for deleting being WP:NPOV and also WP:NOTNEWS but I also think it's an important document for what makes DULF notable as an organization--as it perfectly encapsulates in a lot of ways why the organization is on trouble and also why their methods for drug testing were probably flawed. I think the work around would be to remove that citation and find a secondary source that quotes and cites the study, or possibly multiple sources that do. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

conflicting sources

@DERPALERT:, The nutshell on WP:V, WP:VNT as well as the essay WP:CONFLICTING suggests how to go about when reliable sources conflict. I over-wrote 47 with 43 initially, because a mainstream journalism source with reputation for fact checking was used to replace the more disreputable DULF.CA WP:SPS source. However, you overwrote this and omitted 43 in favor of the original value from the less reputable source, which I don't think was justifiable. At this point, the proper action would be to just omit... or have both values reported, as it is now so as to not give bias in favor of DULF associated sources' information. This sort of source disagreement happens with properties of some of more obscure chemicals too where there's no generally accepted established value. Graywalls (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, idk. Mainstream sources nowadays don't know shit. The first source in this article is a CBC article (titled "Drug User Liberation Front founders found guilty of drug trafficking") that states DULF was founded in 2022 when digging for more than 5 seconds reveals that they were doing public operations dating back to May of 2020. I think journalists just got lazy.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

See our policy against original research. If it's not verifiable with sources that meet the definition of reliable sources, we don't include it. I understand what you are saying, but if we allowed anyone and everyone to simply insert things they swear is the "correct information" and allow it to be cited with blogs, Tweets, Instagram, Facebook posts, it will be information pollution. For example, if a restauranteur started as selling Tamales on the street corner before becoming a business, mainstream source might identify the start as when it was formally established as a registered business while social media and anecdotal accounts might have someone saying they've seen owner selling them on street corner as much as two years earlier. Unless different sources that meet reliable per WP:RSP and/or WP:RS consistently stick to one value, you can't bias the choice with your personal knowledge or information from garbagey sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm OK with having both values reported.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)