Talk:Exit International

Neutrality disputed

This article reads more like an advert than an objective article, no critical views are given.

Big deletion

ClaudioSantos has made a large deletion of text. I ask him to peruse the Google News archives to see the many references to the group that can be brought in to expand and source the article here. Please do not try to stub-ify the article again on specious grounds. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Except the own web site of EXIT, all those news just say Exit international is a pro euthanasia organization and dealing with some specifica events (legal procedures, etc.). That is far than enough to include in this article, and perhaps does not deserve an article itself as the relevancy of that organization is only that mentioned in those news. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you put that into plain English please? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not a fool and you can think and understand. Or am I a wrong? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note that Exit is one of the few organisations on the planet that deal with euthanasia and peaceful death. It is a highly significant entity on these grounds alone. It is not one of thousands of organisations in the field. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you think about that organization is irrelevant. The news mainly mention it as a pro euthanasia organization. Nothing about all the irreevant details you try to force into the article. explainme in plain engish how each of those details are relevant in this article? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with one thing: membership. "Our organisation is now 3,500-members strong" from The Sunday Times in London. [1] Would you consider that significant? Jabbsworth (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Then what about the average age being 75, which you deleted, but which was reported in the The Daily Telegraph [2] ? Jabbsworth (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

what makes it relevant or encyclopedic? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot see why it's relevant is why you shouldn't be editing this article.

Oh, and you deleted about his staff, the non-profit status etc. But The Daily Mail reported [3] : "The proceeds go to Exit International, the non-profit organisation Nitschke founded and runs with five staff — including his 42-year-old girlfriend Fiona Stewart, a former journalist who acts as his personal assistant and describes him as ‘funny’ and ‘brilliant’." So that must go back in too.

These are all major newspapers, which English speaker will know. Jabbsworth (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That those data appeared in some few articles does make them encyclopedic or relevant?. And it must be noticed that these data are hardly marginally mentioned in those articles which deal mainly with other info and even with criticism against EXIT. Then, at least you are cherry picking that info and giving it undue weight into wikipedia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my position on these deletions: the material should be restored using the new and verifiable sources I give above. Note that the content you deleted has already been here for years, read by many admins and millions of readers, without complaint or modification, before you came here, apparently wikistalking me to all the articles I have edited or created. So your purpose here is not to improve to the project but to vandalise pages. If you revert my changes again on this page, I shall escalate this to a RfC and then to ANI. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BADFAITH and WP:PA does not change that WP:CCC -- ClaudioSantos¿? 08:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop this edit war! I have to support Claudio in this case that the current (his) version is the most neutral by now. We provide information, not promotion! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I thought you knew what you were doing, NoBW! What's "promotional" about providing details, on Exit's own page, about the staffing, non-profit status and membership numbers? Jabbsworth (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I an not kidding. I am just not interested in a biased article. Nor anti, nor pro. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think my latest edit cannot be construed as promotional, nor can it be seen as "con". As they said in Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'am!" Jabbsworth (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed some unusefull information. I request the replacement of the references of Dottie and Kennedy by reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You've removed some basic facts about the organisation on the basis that it is promotional and "unusefull"(sic). I give up trying to humour you. Shall we RfC this? Jabbsworth (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The number of staff and the names of staff are irrelevant for an encyclopedia. And please be aware that English is not my first language and that I regard attacks on my spelling as PA's. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, the number of staff is actually part of the infobox on the page, so your statement that staff numbers is "irrelevant for an encyclopedia" is prima facie wrong. Can you admit that? And so all I have to do to complete my edits, and restore all wrongfully deleted information, is to add Fiona Stewart's name to the list of key people in the infobox, which I shall do as soon as it is unprotected. I'd appreciate you agree to this here to prevent more ridiculous edit wars. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At your request, I will remove the number of staff member out of the infobox! I admit that I have overlooked that and that it should be removed as quickly as possible. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, Eddy, you are making a fool of yourself now. The non-profit infobox template actually requires that staff numbers and key people be inserted, see Template:Infobox_non-profit. Also see it used, for instance, at DeSmogBlog. Time to stop this behaviour please! I don't want to have to ANI you. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Please add the name "Fiona Stewart" to the infobox on the page so:

| key_people        = Philip Nitschke, Fiona Stewart

and please insert the number of members so:

 | num_members       =  c. 3,500 (2011) 

These changes are fully in accordance with WP rules and can be verified with RSes if reqd. Thank you. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Only Philip Nitschke is relevant. His partner Fiona Stewart, number of staff and number of members are not relevant. Stronger, is Exit International relevant as organization? Or is it only relevant because it is an opinion-maker? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr Fiona Stewart is mentioned in several major newspapers as a key member of this organisation, eg [4]. She also co-authored The Peaceful Pill Handbook. And who the hell are you to say that the number of members and staff are irrelevant to this page, when the infobox calls for the information? Jabbsworth (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The source does not state she is a key member of the organization. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of RSes that mention Philip Nitschke and his professional and domestic partner, Dr Fiona Stewart, together as the key people who run Exit International. She is even cited as a co-director [5]. You are wasting everyone's time. Stop beating a dead horse. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I added the number of members to the template. This is a standard parameter of the template, and sourced information is available.
2. I added the name of Fiona Stewart to key people. She is listed on the organisation's website as executive director, and independent reliable sources also mention this. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I undid the adding of Fiona Steward, as it is under discussion on the talkpage here, just under this contribution. Let us first talk about the need and use to add her, before doing so. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind. I saw the discussion, and as an uninvolved editor, after seeing this article on an administrator's page, I resolved it, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and some common sense. You are not supposed to revert without bringing better proof than you have so far. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So you willingly ignored a discussion request to solve a dispute? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I made the edits, explaining very clearly in both the edit-summaries and on this talkpage why they should be made, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a bit of common sense. Your revert and demand for more discussion were out of place, and I came close to asking that sanctions be taken against you, rather than the article protected. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion opening

In my opinion several parts are not useful or even irrelevant for the article. I like to hear comments from others about this. Jabbsworth don't need to comment, I know he thinks it is relevant and important. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Stewart

My text in this case:

“ Exit International is a non-profit organisation. ”

Jabbsworth text:

“ Exit International is a non-profit organisation and runs with five staff, including Nitschke's partner Fiona Stewart, a former journalist who acts as his personal assistant. ”

Comments

1. I prefer the present "Exit International, is a pro-euthanasia group founded by Dr. Philip Nitschke." Your proposal is too short, and lacks vital information. Jabbsworth proposal is too detailed, and stresses information of secondary importance. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed, your proposal is better then mine. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Staff number

Is it useful or not to add the number of staff in the text. Mentioning in the infobox seems enough.

Comments

1. Information is usually repeated in the infobox. That is what infoboxes are for, to summarise information from the article. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
2. As Debresser says. It helps the reader to picture how big the organization is. In the current text, it should appear in the same paragraph as the number of members. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bilboard

Proposal to remove this picture as soon as possible. It is ugly and promotes the organisation. It adds nothing to the article. In my opinion the picture is a provocation which should be removed ASAP! Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe it's because I'm not involved in this debate, but I don't see how the billboard image is provocative. The organization is pro-euthanasia, and it's a pro-euthanasia billboard. I imagine that the billboard is representative of the type of publicity made by the organization. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was considered provocative due it was included in the middel of an ongoing discussion on the possible use of wikipedia as a mean of promotion serving the particlar interests of this organization. And the inclusion of this clearly promotional image was not discussed nor the result of a consensus at all, but it was unilaterally added despite the ongoing mentioned discussion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And it was added shortly before the involved editor request page protection without an editwar or other serious problem Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As uninvolved editor, I must state two things. 1. I o not see that this article is unduly promoting this organisation. 2. Night of the Big Wind, please assume good faith and do not insinuate all kinds of hidden motives behind other editor's actions. Also please notice that there was an edit war going on, and you started it. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the history there were 20 edits since 20 July 2011. 5 by DeltaQuad (protecting and unprotecting), 7 by Jabbsworth, 3 by me, 3 by ClaudioSantos and 2 by you. I had two edits on the 23th and one on the 26th. Did I really start an editwar? Claudio did some edits on the 13th, after that a week long nothing happened... Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A picture, meant to illustrate an advocacy group, just might caputure some of their advocacy. This proposition to remove makes no sense. Jesanj (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The billboard seems notable...

  Plans by voluntary euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke to stage an advertising campaign have suffered another blow, with his billboard barred from public view.
  Billboards Australia has written to Dr Nitschke's organisation Exit International, to highlight a section of the NSW Crimes Act which outlaws the aiding or abetting of suicide or attempted suicide.
  - September 15, 2010: Another blow for euthanasia campaign
  
  Exit International also plans to display the billboard in Melbourne and Brisbane in the coming months. The source of the statistic is a 2009 Roy Morgan poll commissioned by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW, Dr Nitschke said.
  A separate poll published by News Limited late last month suggested 78 per cent of Australians want the federal government to rescind laws effectively banning euthanasia in the territories.
  Prime Minister Julia Gillard has promised a national debate on the issue.
  - October 4, 2010: Euthanasia billboard approved

  I see no reason for removal. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion

It seems editors endorse the article in its present form. I call upon Night of the Big Wind to accept the fact that the article in its present form conforms with Wikipedia standards, and to relinquish edit-warring. After that, the article could be unprotected. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith that I will not start editwarring, Debresser. But the article in the present form is unacceptable for me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What edits would you make to the article if it were unprotected? (It doesn't matter if you don't like something, but aren't going to do anything about it.) Jesanj (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a better question! Looking at Fiona Steward, there is a acceptable proposal of Debresser. Looking at the staff numbers, I still think it is too much to put in in the infobox AND in the text. In my opinion, less relevant info can also be put in the infobox alone, as it is now.

The billboard is more tricky. I suggest complete removal. The picture tells nothing new, but is highly political in message. It changes the article from a neutral description into a platform of promoting the cause and the organisation. So the picture is POV and it makes the whole article POV. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question wasn't what your opinions are. They are well know from the above discussions. The question was what edits would you make to the article if it were unprotected in its present form, and at the present state of the discussion(s). Debresser (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the question was what has to be changed to make it acceptable. And the return question is: what will you do about it to make the article acceptable. Because at the moment I only have to say no to keep the deadlock in place... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So that we can get a consensus on this issue, I started[6] a thread at WP:NPOVN. Jesanj (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, before you ask return questions, perhaps you answer the question? Two editors have asked you for it. Your attitude isn't helping things here. My answer is that I would do nothing. In my opinion, this article is in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, e.g. acceptable as is. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

Unprotected Ok, looks like you guys have come to a rough consensus, I will be looking more for blocks this time for anyone who wishes to disrupt the process, but if I deem it necessary, i'll slap the page protection right back up there. The key is not to edit war yourself, but to show that the user is editing against consensus and ask for some help. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

ABC 7.30 story

An article on ABC news including a report from the respected 7.30 program is strongly critical of the group's provision of information (the peaceful pill handbook) outside the organisation's charter. Currently this is in the Australian online, if any other reputable outlets pick the story up it may be worth publishing as it goes to the heart of the scope of the voluntary euthanasia movement. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)