Talk:Exit International

"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)

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)

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)