![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Since this has gone back and forth now in the article it should be resolved quickly. If we mean to say that the the raw enumerations of PP's services are technically correct but that these numbers have been criticized as misleading (because frequent and routine services get the same weight as abortions) then "challenged as misleading" is correct. If we want to say that these raw numbers themselves are disputed then "challenged" by itself is fine. It seems to me that the consensus here has been that the raw numbers have been accepted by reliable sources but that they have been criticized as misleading, therefore "challenged as misleading" should go back in the article. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point, Somedifferentstuff, but I'll address yours and readdress my own. If PP's numbers have been challenged then there must be a basis for that challenge. "As misleading" gives the reader a clue as to the basis (that those numbers may be technically accurate but . . . ) which is then fleshed out in the body of the article. Wikipedia would not be implying judgement about the numbers here, it would rather just be giving the reader the basis for the challenge that others have made. Additionally, a problem I mentioned earlier about simply saying that the numbers "have been challenged" after presenting the 97 to 3 figures as fact is that it poisons the wells against those who have challenged the figures. Wikipedia would be telling the reader, in effect, that PP's figures are correct but that some people who don't accept reality object to them. "As misleading" solves this problem by cluing in readers about the basis for the objection. Motsebboh ( talk) 15:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed this but was reverted. Strongly suggest that it does not belong - there is no indication that the specific protest treated there is notable, and the source it's hung on sucks. As I said in my original edit summary, PP has been the subject of thousands of protests over the years, just because this one is recent does not mean that it's encyclopedia worthy.
More generally, the entire section on the CMP videos is too long, and needs to be trimmed per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Right now it's at risk of becoming a POV fork from the separate article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
sources for protests: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Cityside189 ( talk) 19:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
References
The section is fatally flawed as it is obviously an attempt to gain more notice for recent political maneuverings. I removed it because I cannot see a way out of the POV trap. Binksternet ( talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
I notice that the section ( Planned Parenthood#Center for Medical Progress undercover videos) hasn't been summarized nearly enough. There shouldn't be any subsections there either (I fixed the level). I also notice that Briancua tried to do this, but his efforts were rejected as one-sided (or something like that). Somehow a new attempt hasn't really been made, so I'll give it a try.
Generally it's easiest to use the lead from the spinoff sub-article as the content. That is the best summary available. This will take some work to make sure all the refs (quite a few don't exist in this article yet) are transported properly, but I'm going to do it now so we all can see how it looks. I will also add hidden editorial instructions to prevent problems in the future. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Another editor thought it was appropriate to add this: [1]
Bruce Rigby, who organized the protest at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City, said that prior to the recent outcry over "the selling and harvesting of body parts", he had "no idea abortions were taking place in Utah — not in my state."[152] "Babies don't have the choice. Consenting adults can do what they want, but babies don't have the choice," Rigby said.[152]
— Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865635143/Utahns-join-nationwide-protests-against-Planned-Parenthood.html
I've left this content in place and placed a POV tag on the containing section here. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Solely disruptive.-- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If so many Wikipedians cannot bring themselves to countenance even a mere semblance of
objectivity in the "
Planned Parenthood" article --- and continually insist upon reverting and undoing even any whiff of a dissenting viewpoint --- perhaps the simplest solution would be deletion of the article altogether.
|
I have fully protected this article to give people more time to discuss rather than revert each other. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
my comments here may not belong in this section but when the editors go back to editing, I wanted to say when I added the 10 sources above, none of them seemed to cause concern for the RS question, I do think that they suggest, at least in part, the notability for these recent protests. Another editor wanted to use the Deseret News as a RS, which editors questioned whether it was an acceptable RS for this topic. I looked up the Deseret News in the RS noticeboard and found an entry there. So I will provide that link for ongoing discussion leave for the editors to determination whether the deseret news should be considered an RS in this context. here it is here -- Cityside189 ( talk) 03:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Attn: Doc James: Per WP Administrator Guidelines, page-locking and user-blocking are not allowed to be used as a cooling off tool and can in fact "backfire". Checkingfax ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Planned Parenthood launched on August 18 ads against Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey, four senators who voted for the bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood. FactCheck.org states these ads exaggerate, mislead and deceive. This is quite interesting noting how several well established editors here constantly referred to politicians speaking against Planned Parenthood as "political posturing" and now Planned Parenthood itself is outright spending funds to air attack ads against some of these same politicians. This should be in the article as an example of political retaliation from Planned Parenthood..
Source: [9] 186.120.130.16 ( talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
While I wasn't a big fan of the way which news of the very recent anti-Planned Parenthood protests (now removed) was placed into the article, I did notice something strange about Wikipedia's article. Unless I missed it, protests against the organization, and by that I mean the frequent, persistent, ordinary, sign-carrying type of protests, aren't mentioned at all. There's mention of bombings, arson, chemical attacks, and murder, but nothing that indicates the existence of the more mundane, vastly more common anti-Planned Parenthood activity. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the content was blocked and continues to be. The GENERIC sub-sub-subheading and its referenced content was blanked and reverted until it was finally blanked and locked to editing. Checkingfax ( talk) 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
A rather complex(?) edit by Briancua removed a number of specific percentages and numbers for PP's services, based on an article by one fact checker, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who partially relied on doubts and figures from an anti-abortion organization, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBS List).
Well, part of the job of a fact checker and an anti-abortion group is to question the claims made by PP, and that's fine. Their input is definitely worth considering, especially if they publish their doubts in RS, and that is the case here. So, what concerns might there be with this edit?:
The problem for me is that the actual figures and percentages were removed, even though they were reliably sourced. We don't normally do that. Since we have a conflict between PP's claims and the objections of critics, and both are questionable, I think we should keep those figures as they were, but add a note, with sources, that the figures are disputed. The exact wording can be worked out.
While the actual number for PP's abortions is likely higher than 3%, it is still a minority percentage of their services. Of course critics and SBA List would try to make them the majority portion of PP's work, but they have no evidence for such claims. We just need to point out that there are those who question the 3% number. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How so? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There other, higher quality sources (at least compared to Slate and the NY Post!) that we can use here. this report from NPR states that "abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does — 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report." It also notes that "this 3 percent statistic has many critics, who point out, for example, that it doesn't explain how much of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortion. Others note that the figure counts services provided, not patients served — and some patients receive more than one service from the organization." But the central point which it emphasizes is that "The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception."
This Politifact report points out that SBS List analysis of the issue is also misleading, and manipulates the data in a deceptive way. It concludes, like the NPR report, that STD testing and birth control are by far the largest share of services that Planned Parenthood provides. On abortions, it notes the 3% claim, but suggests that "looking at the share of abortions per patient (and assuming one procedure per patient), the figure rises to 12 percent."
This source (the Washington Post), notes Planned Parenthood's 3% figure and cites it as a fact. It also points to this FactCheck.org analysis, which cites the 3% figure but (like Politifact) suggests that "Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients," does that analysis (using data from 2009) and comes up with a figure of 10 percent.
Most sources report the 3% figure and take it seriously, even if they note that it's not the whole story - so we need to report that, and note that that is PP's position. We can balance that figure by noting that it's been disputed by others - but we should be careful whose critiques we use, and attribute them. There's zero need to cite SBS List of the NY post directly here, we should be directly citing and discussing sources like Factcheck and Politifact instead. Finally, we should stress that virtually all reliable sources agree that the vast majority of PP's services are not abortions. Even if you side with the critics, roughly 90 percent of PP's services are still STD testing, birth control, etc. That's the central point that needs to be made here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Abortion section of the article there is this sentence:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report indicated that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, while African-Americans make up 13 percent of the total population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, according to that report, and 7 percent were performed on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions performed on minority populations.
— Source: Arina Grossu - "Margaret Sanger, Racist Eugenicist Extraordinaire: The founder of Planned Parenthood would have considered many Americans unworthy of life" - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/
Does any other editor see a problem here? -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Go to Needs better coverage of negative reactions at sub-article. Do not edit this section. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am surprised the article carries no reference to widely reported (or curiously completely unreported [13]) outrage and disgust at PP's distribution of body parts (including harvesting from donors with beating hearts [14] and the transfer of whole heads [15]) from terminated foetuses, which is widely regarded as a 'disturbing' 'scandal', irrespective of the distraction about edits, the whole videos now having been released. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]etc etc By exclusively focussing on the legal question it has missed the point, and effectively whitewashed the organisation. There was very widespread disgust at the same practice in autopsies children in the UK at Alderhay, this article ought to allude to this widespread repulsion. Cpsoper ( talk) 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed editHere is a proposed edit for the current censors of the page to implement if they deem it worthy:
In 2015, controversy and widespread revulsion was expressed by many sources at reports that PPFA was involved in the sale of foetal body parts, including whole bodies, and intact foetal heads.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] Many described the affair as a scandal.
[3]
[4]
[5] The PPFA countered by claiming their practice was strictly within legal bounds, and no profit was sought.
[2] I am also posting this edit proposal on the wholly disgraceful page on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, I have rarely seen a page characterised by such tendentious editing in years of involvement with wiki. Had I greater confidence in it I would link to it. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
|
As I'm learning more about Wikipedia articles, WP:LEDE says that some note of controversies can be included in the lede at times if warranted. I like including user:Cpsoper's idea (above) because it puts the controversy right up front, gets it out of the way, and might better allow the article to do it's job, discussing Planned Parenthood. People coming to PP looking for controversy would be redirected right away to the appropriate place for that and the article can be better stand alone. Side note about locking the article, if this article becomes a Featured Article wouldn't it always be locked in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC) -- Cityside189 ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Since this has gone back and forth now in the article it should be resolved quickly. If we mean to say that the the raw enumerations of PP's services are technically correct but that these numbers have been criticized as misleading (because frequent and routine services get the same weight as abortions) then "challenged as misleading" is correct. If we want to say that these raw numbers themselves are disputed then "challenged" by itself is fine. It seems to me that the consensus here has been that the raw numbers have been accepted by reliable sources but that they have been criticized as misleading, therefore "challenged as misleading" should go back in the article. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point, Somedifferentstuff, but I'll address yours and readdress my own. If PP's numbers have been challenged then there must be a basis for that challenge. "As misleading" gives the reader a clue as to the basis (that those numbers may be technically accurate but . . . ) which is then fleshed out in the body of the article. Wikipedia would not be implying judgement about the numbers here, it would rather just be giving the reader the basis for the challenge that others have made. Additionally, a problem I mentioned earlier about simply saying that the numbers "have been challenged" after presenting the 97 to 3 figures as fact is that it poisons the wells against those who have challenged the figures. Wikipedia would be telling the reader, in effect, that PP's figures are correct but that some people who don't accept reality object to them. "As misleading" solves this problem by cluing in readers about the basis for the objection. Motsebboh ( talk) 15:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed this but was reverted. Strongly suggest that it does not belong - there is no indication that the specific protest treated there is notable, and the source it's hung on sucks. As I said in my original edit summary, PP has been the subject of thousands of protests over the years, just because this one is recent does not mean that it's encyclopedia worthy.
More generally, the entire section on the CMP videos is too long, and needs to be trimmed per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Right now it's at risk of becoming a POV fork from the separate article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
sources for protests: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Cityside189 ( talk) 19:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
References
The section is fatally flawed as it is obviously an attempt to gain more notice for recent political maneuverings. I removed it because I cannot see a way out of the POV trap. Binksternet ( talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
I notice that the section ( Planned Parenthood#Center for Medical Progress undercover videos) hasn't been summarized nearly enough. There shouldn't be any subsections there either (I fixed the level). I also notice that Briancua tried to do this, but his efforts were rejected as one-sided (or something like that). Somehow a new attempt hasn't really been made, so I'll give it a try.
Generally it's easiest to use the lead from the spinoff sub-article as the content. That is the best summary available. This will take some work to make sure all the refs (quite a few don't exist in this article yet) are transported properly, but I'm going to do it now so we all can see how it looks. I will also add hidden editorial instructions to prevent problems in the future. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Another editor thought it was appropriate to add this: [1]
Bruce Rigby, who organized the protest at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City, said that prior to the recent outcry over "the selling and harvesting of body parts", he had "no idea abortions were taking place in Utah — not in my state."[152] "Babies don't have the choice. Consenting adults can do what they want, but babies don't have the choice," Rigby said.[152]
— Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865635143/Utahns-join-nationwide-protests-against-Planned-Parenthood.html
I've left this content in place and placed a POV tag on the containing section here. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Solely disruptive.-- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If so many Wikipedians cannot bring themselves to countenance even a mere semblance of
objectivity in the "
Planned Parenthood" article --- and continually insist upon reverting and undoing even any whiff of a dissenting viewpoint --- perhaps the simplest solution would be deletion of the article altogether.
|
I have fully protected this article to give people more time to discuss rather than revert each other. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
my comments here may not belong in this section but when the editors go back to editing, I wanted to say when I added the 10 sources above, none of them seemed to cause concern for the RS question, I do think that they suggest, at least in part, the notability for these recent protests. Another editor wanted to use the Deseret News as a RS, which editors questioned whether it was an acceptable RS for this topic. I looked up the Deseret News in the RS noticeboard and found an entry there. So I will provide that link for ongoing discussion leave for the editors to determination whether the deseret news should be considered an RS in this context. here it is here -- Cityside189 ( talk) 03:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Attn: Doc James: Per WP Administrator Guidelines, page-locking and user-blocking are not allowed to be used as a cooling off tool and can in fact "backfire". Checkingfax ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Planned Parenthood launched on August 18 ads against Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey, four senators who voted for the bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood. FactCheck.org states these ads exaggerate, mislead and deceive. This is quite interesting noting how several well established editors here constantly referred to politicians speaking against Planned Parenthood as "political posturing" and now Planned Parenthood itself is outright spending funds to air attack ads against some of these same politicians. This should be in the article as an example of political retaliation from Planned Parenthood..
Source: [9] 186.120.130.16 ( talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
While I wasn't a big fan of the way which news of the very recent anti-Planned Parenthood protests (now removed) was placed into the article, I did notice something strange about Wikipedia's article. Unless I missed it, protests against the organization, and by that I mean the frequent, persistent, ordinary, sign-carrying type of protests, aren't mentioned at all. There's mention of bombings, arson, chemical attacks, and murder, but nothing that indicates the existence of the more mundane, vastly more common anti-Planned Parenthood activity. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the content was blocked and continues to be. The GENERIC sub-sub-subheading and its referenced content was blanked and reverted until it was finally blanked and locked to editing. Checkingfax ( talk) 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
A rather complex(?) edit by Briancua removed a number of specific percentages and numbers for PP's services, based on an article by one fact checker, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who partially relied on doubts and figures from an anti-abortion organization, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBS List).
Well, part of the job of a fact checker and an anti-abortion group is to question the claims made by PP, and that's fine. Their input is definitely worth considering, especially if they publish their doubts in RS, and that is the case here. So, what concerns might there be with this edit?:
The problem for me is that the actual figures and percentages were removed, even though they were reliably sourced. We don't normally do that. Since we have a conflict between PP's claims and the objections of critics, and both are questionable, I think we should keep those figures as they were, but add a note, with sources, that the figures are disputed. The exact wording can be worked out.
While the actual number for PP's abortions is likely higher than 3%, it is still a minority percentage of their services. Of course critics and SBA List would try to make them the majority portion of PP's work, but they have no evidence for such claims. We just need to point out that there are those who question the 3% number. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How so? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There other, higher quality sources (at least compared to Slate and the NY Post!) that we can use here. this report from NPR states that "abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does — 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report." It also notes that "this 3 percent statistic has many critics, who point out, for example, that it doesn't explain how much of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortion. Others note that the figure counts services provided, not patients served — and some patients receive more than one service from the organization." But the central point which it emphasizes is that "The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception."
This Politifact report points out that SBS List analysis of the issue is also misleading, and manipulates the data in a deceptive way. It concludes, like the NPR report, that STD testing and birth control are by far the largest share of services that Planned Parenthood provides. On abortions, it notes the 3% claim, but suggests that "looking at the share of abortions per patient (and assuming one procedure per patient), the figure rises to 12 percent."
This source (the Washington Post), notes Planned Parenthood's 3% figure and cites it as a fact. It also points to this FactCheck.org analysis, which cites the 3% figure but (like Politifact) suggests that "Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients," does that analysis (using data from 2009) and comes up with a figure of 10 percent.
Most sources report the 3% figure and take it seriously, even if they note that it's not the whole story - so we need to report that, and note that that is PP's position. We can balance that figure by noting that it's been disputed by others - but we should be careful whose critiques we use, and attribute them. There's zero need to cite SBS List of the NY post directly here, we should be directly citing and discussing sources like Factcheck and Politifact instead. Finally, we should stress that virtually all reliable sources agree that the vast majority of PP's services are not abortions. Even if you side with the critics, roughly 90 percent of PP's services are still STD testing, birth control, etc. That's the central point that needs to be made here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Abortion section of the article there is this sentence:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report indicated that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, while African-Americans make up 13 percent of the total population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, according to that report, and 7 percent were performed on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions performed on minority populations.
— Source: Arina Grossu - "Margaret Sanger, Racist Eugenicist Extraordinaire: The founder of Planned Parenthood would have considered many Americans unworthy of life" - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/
Does any other editor see a problem here? -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Go to Needs better coverage of negative reactions at sub-article. Do not edit this section. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am surprised the article carries no reference to widely reported (or curiously completely unreported [13]) outrage and disgust at PP's distribution of body parts (including harvesting from donors with beating hearts [14] and the transfer of whole heads [15]) from terminated foetuses, which is widely regarded as a 'disturbing' 'scandal', irrespective of the distraction about edits, the whole videos now having been released. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]etc etc By exclusively focussing on the legal question it has missed the point, and effectively whitewashed the organisation. There was very widespread disgust at the same practice in autopsies children in the UK at Alderhay, this article ought to allude to this widespread repulsion. Cpsoper ( talk) 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed editHere is a proposed edit for the current censors of the page to implement if they deem it worthy:
In 2015, controversy and widespread revulsion was expressed by many sources at reports that PPFA was involved in the sale of foetal body parts, including whole bodies, and intact foetal heads.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] Many described the affair as a scandal.
[3]
[4]
[5] The PPFA countered by claiming their practice was strictly within legal bounds, and no profit was sought.
[2] I am also posting this edit proposal on the wholly disgraceful page on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, I have rarely seen a page characterised by such tendentious editing in years of involvement with wiki. Had I greater confidence in it I would link to it. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
|
As I'm learning more about Wikipedia articles, WP:LEDE says that some note of controversies can be included in the lede at times if warranted. I like including user:Cpsoper's idea (above) because it puts the controversy right up front, gets it out of the way, and might better allow the article to do it's job, discussing Planned Parenthood. People coming to PP looking for controversy would be redirected right away to the appropriate place for that and the article can be better stand alone. Side note about locking the article, if this article becomes a Featured Article wouldn't it always be locked in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC) -- Cityside189 ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)