Talk:Exit International/Archive 1

Why the weird name that doesn't match the organisation's name?
Why is this article titled "EXIT (Australia)" when the organisation clearly calls itself, and is known as, "Exit International"? The "Exit" isn't in all caps, the name includes the word "International". There's even a redirect from Exit International to this article. The organisation refers to itself as "Exit International" and is referred to as this in the media

So why is Wikipedia naming it completely differently? Shermozle (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
"Exit International has a full time staff of 5.5 workers" I changed this passage because it is impossible to have half a full time worker. If someone is able to verify, perhaps, that EXIT has 5 full time and 1 part time worker, that would be excellent. Until then, I feel it is best to round down. 210.9.141.178 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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. 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 ? 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 : "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? [[Image:Face-surprise.svg|25px]] 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 . 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. 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)