Talk:Exit International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality disputed[edit]

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

Discussion opening[edit]

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)[reply]

Fiona Stewart[edit]

My text in this case:

Jabbsworth text:

  1. ^ Jones, David (2011). "Why is Philip Nitschke allowed to promote euthanasia in our schools? | Mail Online". dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
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)[reply]
    Indeed, your proposal is better then mine. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Staff number[edit]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Bilboard[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Tentative conclusion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So that we can get a consensus on this issue, I started[1] a thread at WP:NPOVN. Jesanj (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Unprotected[edit]

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)[reply]

ABC 7.30 story[edit]

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)[reply]

There's also a media release from Exit International on the issue, it could be a story of more outlets pick it up. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exit_International&oldid=1207160902"