Talk:Exit International

message: My text in this case:
Jabbsworth text:
;Comments
# 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)
thread_title:  Fiona Stewart 

message: Is it useful or not to add the number of staff in the text. Mentioning in the infobox seems enough.
;Comments
# 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)
thread_title:  Staff number 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bilboard 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ABC 7.30 story