Talk:Insite

message: I think undue weight has been given in the article to people whom have no scientific or health-care background, and specifically the Barbara Kay article mentioned comes from someone who either misunderstands, or willfully misconstrues, what "peer-reviewed" means. In fact her article goes out of its way to ignore the fact that Insite is not the only legal safer injection site in the world, and that research on other injection sites (as well as harm reduction methods), done properly, has borne out harm reduction and its advocates. SiberioS (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: An article in CMAJ by Karr and Wood  warns of the worrisome trend of web pages posting as "open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals" and referring to the journal the critic section has as source - the one mentioned in the topic. How should wikipedia handle it? Steinberger (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck it. Wikipedia is exceptionally clear about what constitutes reliable sources, and the burden tends to be higher for things of public health and science. While we can certainly include the opinions of individuals such as Barbra Kay, astroturf projects, such as the ones often baked up by corporations and lobbying groups, deserve to be chucked out, especially when they fly in the fact of scientific or public health consensus. Wikipedia can deal with, appropriately, minority view points, but its not a dustbin for cranks either. SiberioS (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

message: The removed paragraph had to have had the most convoluted logic ever. First, whilst it is true that daily intravenous administration of any drug has risks, due to scarring, vein collapse, and infection, there are a number of ways to mitigate the risks to acceptable levels, something in fact, that harm reduction promotes. Second, the ethics of a procedure are not merely assessed by whether or not it causes "hurt"; if that were the case, surgeries, by their invasive and damaging nature, would be ethically wrong. But they aren't because the benefit gained is far beyond the pain inflicted in the operation. Same applies here; while continuation of heroin abuse is not ideal, the safe and sterile administration of drugs is preferable over the alternative of spreading disease and risking over-dose. SiberioS (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: User Steinberger has several times deleted a relevant source  a report by  Colin ManghamA Critique of Canada’s INSITE Injection Site and its Parent Philosophy: Implications and Recommendations for Policy Planning The Journal of Global Drug Policy And Practice January 17 2007 So it is obvious done with a purpose. The report has by Collin Magnaham has been used by former Health  minister (until end of Oktober 2008).  The report points at several problems with Insite for example, there is very little or no evidence of any long term recovery from drug addiction in the project. User Steinberger probably do not like the Magnham report but that is no reason for deleting the source from the article about Insite since the report without doubt has been used by Tony Clements.  Anyone who Google about Insite  find a lot of articles that mention the Magnham report. Dala11a (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete it because I didn't "like" it. I deleted it because I did not like your summary of it and I really don't understand why the findings of a highly disputed report are relevant to this article. The report were mentioned even after I deleted the reference to it and your cherry-pick abstract. I opt for deleting it again really. Why are the findings of the report relevant of mentioning in this article when they are so highly disputed? Steinberger (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to find anything about Insite that is not highly disputed, that something is disputed is not a strong reason for deleting. You used both the argument that it was cherry-pick abstract (text in the article = the sourse) and a personal synthesis (text in the article not equal to the sourse), two obvious conflicting reasons.  The critera for including the Magnaham report is very simle, it has been used by the responsible Health Minister, it has become a part of the history of Insite and it is not relevant if you or somebody else think it is good or bad. It has been used and therefore it is relevant.  Compare with the article Legal history of cannabis in the United States. That article refer to documents about to The Second Opium conference, the hearings before the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 with Harry J Anslinger, a book by Jack Herer etc etc, totally 50 different sources from different years.Dala11a (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never disputed that the Mangham report should be mentioned, and especially not the connection between RCMP, the report and the Canadian federal governments attempt on closing Insite. What I have disputed is that the content of the Mangham report should be referred to as it is now. And when you say that the program is disputed, that is true. But the research on Insite? I don't think so. Steinberger (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Magnaham report identifies for example a number of hot issues that had very little or no attention or little data behind the conclusions in the reports published in scientific journals. For an interested reader, it is naturally of interest to know, what hot issues is it?Dala11a (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? A "number of hot issues that had very little or no attention or little data behind the conclusions in the reports"? The "hot issue" is that Mangham dislikes the present scientific discourse with its findings suggesting a different path then the one they want to pursue. It's that simple. Steinberger (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "What do you mean" Reply: Mangham is well worth a short abstract and reference because he is pointing to a number of real weaknesses in the project Insite and his report was used by the former Health minister.  It is that simple. If the article only includes an abstract of what the supporters believe is the merits of Insite, then the article becomes POV. Dala11a (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clement used the report to say "There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite."  and refering to the Mangham report. He didn't go deeper then that into the content of Manghams report. However the report is "fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims" . During the same conference that Clement made that judgment on the science base, questions about the article's trustworthiness were arisen. Clements press secretary later said in reference to that, that "We are going to take all research into account when we make our decision [on the future of Insite]." This was in August. In October 2007 the government lengthened the legal exception for Insite. A strange thing to do if they really believed that Mangham were right. The Mangham report is fraudulent and, with support from sections above, I say that its content should not be mentioned. Steinberger (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed to quote the conclusion in , the report you quoted above: "We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area."(Evan Wood (2007-09-07)  I agree with this conclusion. Wood E. is one of the authors of the reports about Insite, I guess it is the same person as Evan Wood.Dala11a (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the source again, Mangham, Colin A Critique of Canada’s INSITE Injection Site and its Parent Philosophy: Implications and Recommendations for Policy Planning The Journal of Global Drug Policy And Practice January 17 2007 Why??? Dala11a (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, and not only this section. Steinberger (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: My opinion is still 1) The section shall include  Magnahams report as a source.  2)The section shall also include a very short abstract of the Magnaham report with his own words, for eg. a direct quote from the summary in the report, like  “The published findings actually reveal little or no reductions in transmission of blood-borne diseases or public disorder, no impact on overdose deaths in Vancouver …  no movement of drug users into long-term treatment and recovery…” .  Evan Wood stated, se above,  let the readers "judge for themselves".Dala11a (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we disagree, and SiberioS have above also opted against summaries of non-peer review articles. And on the Woods part, readers of scientific journals are not your everyday people. The people wikipedia is intended for. Wood also suggest this affluent scientific readers to read all of the articles, assessing there methodology and see if Manghams critique has merit. So we can't do his suggestion justice here on a wikipedia article anyway. Steinberger (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Insite is primarily presented as a medical issue and not a social issue and the report is not on social issues related to Insite but a dismissal on the research done on it. There are links to articles on this page to "outlets" like Open Journal, National Review of Medicine, CMAJ and Medical News Today (the latter refers to an article in the Lancet) who all dismisses the report as non-trustworthy. I think it is appropriate to keep it as it is now. With it mentioned, and maybe more elaborate then it is now, but not directly represented with its "findings" summarized. Steinberger (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If others have criticized the source, then include and source those criticisms, don't remove the criticized source--Dialecticalism is a great way to take an NPOV approach to disputed subjects.  If you really think the report should be excluded entirely, I'd suggest you take that up at WP:RS/N, but I doubt they'll sympathize. The article is currently only tagged as being included within Wikiproject Vancouver, so  there doesn't appear to be any well-established basis for saying that this article is focused on medical rather than social issues. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it further, the Global Drug Policy position paper is in no way an unreliable source.  What it IS is a POV-source supported by the U.S. Department of Justice.  Trying to eliminate it from the discussion of Insite would be inappropriate censorship.  It should be critiqued as POV, unscientific, policy-driven, US meddling, or whatnot. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They give an open presentation of their relation to the U.S. Department of Justice in http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/aboutus.php  I thank you for your support.Dala11a (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting of a relevant source

message: Looking at the disputed source and the argument above, I see no reason why it should NOT be kept in the article.  Having said that, ever source should be properly represented.  There's no reason a non-peer-reviewed report should be excluded from a social issues article which also references court cases and news outlets. I've supplied some tagging for folks to work on as well--the article has multiple issues beyond this one reference. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Insite is primarily presented as a medical issue and not a social issue and the report is not on social issues related to Insite but a dismissal on the research done on it. There are links to articles on this page to "outlets" like Open Journal, National Review of Medicine, CMAJ and Medical News Today (the latter refers to an article in the Lancet) who all dismisses the report as non-trustworthy. I think it is appropriate to keep it as it is now. With it mentioned, and maybe more elaborate then it is now, but not directly represented with its "findings" summarized. Steinberger (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If others have criticized the source, then include and source those criticisms, don't remove the criticized source--Dialecticalism is a great way to take an NPOV approach to disputed subjects.  If you really think the report should be excluded entirely, I'd suggest you take that up at WP:RS/N, but I doubt they'll sympathize. The article is currently only tagged as being included within Wikiproject Vancouver, so  there doesn't appear to be any well-established basis for saying that this article is focused on medical rather than social issues. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it further, the Global Drug Policy position paper is in no way an unreliable source.  What it IS is a POV-source supported by the U.S. Department of Justice.  Trying to eliminate it from the discussion of Insite would be inappropriate censorship.  It should be critiqued as POV, unscientific, policy-driven, US meddling, or whatnot. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They give an open presentation of their relation to the U.S. Department of Justice in http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/aboutus.php  I thank you for your support.Dala11a (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Dala11a have cherry-picked a piece from Clements speech in August, attributing its relevance to that he was the Heath minister at the time. I don't find that "A better thing to do is to treat people, to prevent people from going on drugs in the first place." is a particularly relevant quote and I would want Dala11a to motivate why it is? However I think the speech is relevant enough to be mentioned, because Clement said a lot of other things. Most notably he questioned if it's "ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?” This and his general questioning of harm reduction and insite in particular promoted a response and notably a majority of MD's disagrees to Clements stance. CMA's president calling it "Wrong".  Steinberger (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that you do not understood the third opinion above, see the text about dialektism as a good method to write about a controversial subject. If you want to include comments from CMA's president you don't start with deleting the parts that Mr Clements probably thinks is the most important.Dala11a (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a motivation for cherry-picking a out-of-context line to present as a central statement. Steinberger (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am convinced that Mr Clements do not see it as a out-of context line, the source clearly say that he was speaking about Insite. Your are replacing Mr Clements opinions with your own opinions about what is significantDala11a (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not substituting my own opinion with Clements. He was speaking about Insite, but in the context of its costs, the alleged "uncertainty" of its effectiveness and, according to him, derailed ethics. So a what he believes to be "better" thing to do should be put in that context. Steinberger (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clemensts speech in August 

message: hey, there might be some useful updates to the article in here: 
92.225.83.147 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a couple of statements from this article. Thanks for the notice. -Gump Stump (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  update? 

message: I have previously taken the time to carefully demonstrate over on the Harm Reduction Discussion page that the assertion that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is not peer-reviewed has no basis whatsoever in fact, and that the charge has only been maintained by a spurious appeal to the clearly un-evidenced OPINION of commentators who obviously have not asked the relevant question of the journal or read its submissions page.  To that end:
  
# I had previously reproduced an e-mail from the journal’s editor, Dianne Glymph, here stating very clearly that the journal is indeed peer-reviewed.  There is no higher authority on this question than the journal’s own editor and any assertion to the contrary is simply absurd. 
# The attempt in the Reliable Sources Forum and various discussion pages to elevate commentators’ or protagonists’ opinions above the testimony of the journal’s own editor are rationally vacuous and would not be entertained in any forum elsewhere, so why is it even advanced at all on Wikipedia?  
#  The attempt by a contributor here to elevate the unedified opinion of two researchers, Wood and Kerr,  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, where they asserted that the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice “POSES as an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal”,  thereby claiming that the word of this medical association has more credibility than the journal’s own editor and webpage’s own statements fails on two grounds a. nothing is more authoritative than the journal editor’s own word b. the contributor failed to note that the two researchers he quotes as authoritative are the very researchers whose work is being criticised by Colin Mangham in the JGDPP – hardly a case for a neutral point of view by these two.  This appeal to their ‘greater credibility’ on drug policy issues is akin to someone quoting the UK Tories’ views against the UK Labour party’s social policies as authoritative, rather than merely being an opposing view in a conflicting argument.
# The final fall-back position for another contributor, where he/she says here about the journal’s own indisputable claim to be peer-reviewed - “ I really read it as a token to mislead the unsuspicious, then something that should be taken for real. Steinberger (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstrably false objection that journal is not peer-reviewed

message: Over at the Needle Exchange Programme discussion page the reliability of the JGDPP as a source has been firmly established.  The second Palmateer review of reviews on the effectiveness of needle exchanges promotes its ‘core reviews’, including the JGDPP Käll et al review, as meeting more rigorous standards than various other discarded reviews not included, clearly discounting this spurious objection. Palmateer does not concur with the spurious objection that the review derives from an unreliable source – no such criticism is entertained by her team.  Nor are any NPOV issues stated.  The reliability and notability of the Käll et al review is clearly established, and from a source over which there can be no quibbles regarding reliability as Wikipedia defines it. This exposes the objections about the reliability of the JGDPP as fatuous and fanciful.
Citing the criticisms of Mangham's article which coincidentally have derived from the very same researchers whose work he has exposed is equally as invalid. As in the climate change debate there are numerous scientists on both sides of the debate each claiming that the other side is wrong, and Wikipedia editors who claim that one side is more authoritative than the other while deleting text about the opposing view would never be countenanced there, and neither should it be here where there is science on both sides of the debate. Of course these sciences and their protagonists are critical of each other, but claiming the criticisms of one side does not make the critic authoritative for merely having voiced the criticism. Wikipedia's discourse in this situation must necessarily remain dialectical, accurately recording both sides of the debate and allowing the reader to form their own opinions.
The fact that Mangham’s article has been used as a central rationale by the Canadian Government for questioning the reliability of the conclusions of certain researchers is grounds enough for its inclusion.  The article is historically notable and must not be deleted. Attempts to water down his critiques by removing relevant and important descriptions smells more of censorship where this has been done by editors clearly sympathetic to Insite or other harm reduction initiatives (which can be judged by looking at their contributions on other harm reduction-related pages). And I am not willing to go on tolerating Steinberger's removals of large slabs of text without any discussion or rationale, and if it continues I will take the issue further as blanking vandalism amounting to censorship.Minphie (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The journal that it is published in does not appear legitimate. It is not indexed in pubmed. Read comments here  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reinstated citations and text related to the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice.  It has been established elsewhere that the journal is most-definitely peer-reviewed, that it is treated as a reliable source for one of the most authoritative reviews on needle exchange (see Needle Exchange Talk) and that contributors to the journal share hundreds of PubMed articles between them, making it compliant as WP:MEDRS.  Added to this is that the relevant injecting room articles are largely not addressing medical data, but rather discussing data within a psycho-social context, which makes WP:MEDRS superfluous. Furthermore deletions of sections on the Expert Advisory Committee, which are not relevant to criticism of JGDPP, should be treated as blanking vandalism - censorship, if it continues. Minphie (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It have been properly established elsewhere that JGDPP does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal (here). It is in no way WP:MEDRS. And while some think articles might be usable to cite in some circumstances anyway (when called for in the specific case, while not giving its findings undue weight - as I read Timidguy and Whatamidoing), what circumstances is not properly settled just yet as it seems. Under all circumstances using anything in JGDPP should be properly discussed and motivated in the specific case. Such as in this article, where Magnham's findings are briefly refereed to as his article is used by Clements. Steinberger (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of the journal as source established by Needle Exchange article

message: I find it odd that the BC Minister of Health is not mentioned.  Health is a provincial matter under section 92 of the Canadian constitution.  The Federal minister is really just the money man for the provinces; see the Canada Health Act.  Argolin (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the BC Minister of Health? 

message: What can be considered a credible external link for the article? There are only three listed. 
Sepideah OSF (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia's external links policy. In general, the official website should be included and then other sources should appear as citations to support text within the article.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121016184729/http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Harper+protesters+doors+Chinese+cultural+centre/2549728/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Harper+protesters+doors+Chinese+cultural+centre/2549728/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Supervised+injection+site+exempt+from+drug+laws+court/5482761/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313183753/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/vancouver_safe_injection_060718/20060718?hub=Health to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/vancouver_safe_injection_060718/20060718?hub=Health
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822162534/http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm to http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022190600/http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/12thandcambie/archive/2008/10/03/gregor-robertson-and-peter-ladner-square-off-in-first-public-debate.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/12thandcambie/archive/2008/10/03/gregor-robertson-and-peter-ladner-square-off-in-first-public-debate.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813170440/http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n21jy06a.htm to http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n21jy06a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723075254/http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php to http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701055026/http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/09_15/4_policy_politics01_15.html to http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/09_15/4_policy_politics01_15.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105110520/http://www.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/opinion/story.html?id=00476559-9173-4d1c-9bec-018fd834ab3a to http://www.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/opinion/story.html?id=00476559-9173-4d1c-9bec-018fd834ab3a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211194138/http://www.openmedicine.ca/comment/view/128/52/6 to http://www.openmedicine.ca/comment/view/128/52/6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206203947/http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/10/18/allegations-against-ubc-researchers%E2%80%99-study-on-insite-%E2%80%9Cwithout-merit%E2%80%9D-independent-reviewer/ to http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/10/18/allegations-against-ubc-researchers%E2%80%99-study-on-insite-%E2%80%9Cwithout-merit%E2%80%9D-independent-reviewer/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719233834/http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/02/12/supporters-rally-to-defend-insite-from-feds/ to http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/02/12/supporters-rally-to-defend-insite-from-feds/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629213926/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514152034/http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/pdf/report_vancouver_2005.pdf to http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars//pdf/report_vancouver_2005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309145143/http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=5fd518f7-dfbe-4a5c-9e42-6c81e6eabca3 to http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=5fd518f7-dfbe-4a5c-9e42-6c81e6eabca3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified