"

 What on earth are you babbling about. Where did I mention a personal connection? What definition do you think I changed (I didn't even define any words...)? In any event someone going on and on about ""objective rationality"" needs to drop the ad hominems.
Listen, the point of wikipedia ledes is not to present the results of peer reviewed studies. And you haven't even cited any peer reviewed studies. It certainly is not the case that in the absence of peer reviewed studies, any lead is acceptable. I have instructed you to cite a characterization of PTC as primarily a 'censorship advocacy group' so any viewer can see whether the source is worth crediting. You still have not done so. Instead you have done independent research to edit in your conclusion that PTC's arguments have no ""objectively rational"" basis, which is already a violation of wikipedia guidelines, and further you have made this conclusion the centerpiece of the articlethe intro lede. The point of the lede is to objectively encapsulate the topic. I have suggested a lede that is completely analogous to another media watchdog group, GLAAD, yet you have given no basis for reverting (and please don't say some nonsense like ""but GLAAD supports policies that are ""objectively rational"" and PTC doesn't"")."