"

I am not the founder, I am a contributor citing the founder's definition which I was able to find online, as the most appropriate definition of what the organization is. 

What you are suggesting is absurd. You are saying that it is not appropriate to inquire what the group is about directly from the creator instead relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly is opposed to what the group represents. 

Lets look at this from a more personal view. Do either of these argument examples seem resonable when applied to other topics?

Example 1. You are Jewish and tried to argue that; in a Wiki entry about ""Nazisim Beginnings"", Hitlers definition of how the Nazi party got (perhaps extracted verbatim from Mein Kampf, would be less relevant than say Alan Dershowitz's thoughts on the topic extracted from an Op-Ed peice in the Times, because in your view, Hitler's definition seemed to one-sided and preachy.

Example 2. I am black and tried to argue that Louis Farrakhan would more neutrally write the ""Overview"" entry for the ""Leakey Foundation"" than the groups namesake Louis Leakey. The reason I give for this choice is that ""to use Leakey's comments on the subject, no matter how precise his summary, could only be a ""soapbox"" for his opinion and agenda.

Does either example seem reasonable to you if you can access the source and get an unadulterated definition?

The entry I am including is very thorough, and includes highly important information such as founding members, date of origination, what they believe, what they don't believe, and anything someone researching the group would want to find out. You have a userbox for ""This user is opposed to online censorship."" but that is clearly your intent here as you are simply removing relevant information under the thin argument of ""saving the world from a soapbox"". I am not on a soapbox. I want to get the most information out there as possible. "