Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 9

Planned Parenthood eugenics link
There is disagreement on Talk:Planned Parenthood amongst several editors including myself over whether or not a See also section containing a link to Eugenics in the United States should be included in Planned Parenthood. As we don't seem to be working towards an agreement, I think some outside opinions would be valuable.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment. I have never edited this page before, and I've read the talk section above. Oh for goodness sake! Birth control is not eugenics. The claims above, of sourcing for eugenic motivations of early activists (as opposed to humanitarian motivations), are blatant cherry-picking. No, the link should not be in the See also section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. No one argued that the see-also link should be included, stating that birth control is eugenics. But that there is an historical connection betwwen birth control, eugenics and PP. Sources shows that birth control has been used on eugenics grounds. First birth control organizations were founded mainly by the eugenics moevement and also on eugenics grounds. There is an historical connection. the see-also link helps anyone interested in go deeper and investigate into a related subject. These are related subject and has not to be exactly the same thing which is an absurd demmand. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, even if the the origins of the Birth Control Movement had links to the Eugenics a 100 years ago, that does not provide grounds for inclusion as a see also link in an article about Planned Parenthood. See Also suggests a more immediate and important companion article.  You also ignored several past discussions that concluded Sanger's philosophies are best discussed in her article since Planned Parenthood is not the individual.Mattnad (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * exclude I try to imagine whether encyclopedia brittanica would include a link like this. The answer is probably not. this effort, if not misguided, would be better in the birth control article. Also there seems to be a lot of involved editors commenting. Wouldn't it be better if they stepped back for a second?173.220.126.202 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment. (I haven't been involved in editing the article.) The link to Eugenics in the United States should not be included here; the connection to the article is tenuous at best. There there has been a stable version of the "See Also" section without mention of eugenics for a long time, and its recent addition has been reverted by at least 4 different users, so it doesn't look like the edit has consensus. I strongly agree with the others who have called this cherry-picking. --Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude link to Eugenics - There is no objective connection between Planned Parenthood and eugenics.  There may be some indirect connection, in the sense the critics of P.P. accuse it of supporting or encouraging eugenics.  However, opponents of abortion make that  association  for virtually every entity that provides abortions or birth control.    Should every article in WP about abortion or birth control  in the US contain a link to  Eugenics in the United States?   No.  A  link to Eugenics in the United States in this article could probably be included if either (a) P.P. itself discussed eugenics in its official literature; or (b) unbiased independent sources made a direct, strong association between P.P and eugenics.  But I dont see either of those litmus tests being met in the sources. [from uninvolved editor:] Noleander (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Here some sources demanded:


 * Thanks for providing these sources.  The latter three do not mention Planned Parenthood at all (although they do discuss Margaret Sanger, the founder, but Sanger's article already includes a section on eugenics).  The first source one does mention P.P., but it is about the International Planned Parenthood Federation, not the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest to take a look on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was obviously part of the birth control movement, actually predecesor organizations of PP were called "...Birth Control...". Are you pretending, against each reliable source, to disengage PP history from Sanger, which it is not even done by the PP self? Are you pretending that the history of PP started when it was founded with that name (PP) and has nothing to do with the birth control and we must exclude its grounds and the history which led to its foundation? It also sounds a little bit absurd to disengage the International Planned Parenthood Federation from the Planned Parenthood, the mentioned aims adopted by the IPPF were decided for and binding to all the national PPs, being Sanger the president of both. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC comment from an uninvolved editor: No, get rid of it. There's no connection except through pointy cherrypicking or logic-chopping. bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC comment. The insertion is obviously inappropriate and politically motivated. Xanthoxyl  < 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing the alleged motivations of an editor is not an appropiate reason and against WP:GOODFAITH policy. And solely claiming "obviously" is also inappropiate as RfC is not a voting per WP:RFC.


 * Keep. By the logic in this discussion we should get rid of all references to American slavery. Whites don't own blacks now so it's not relevant. The link should stay. You can't whitewash your own history, no matter how much you want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the logic would be that we should add See also links to Slavery in every article about the founding fathers.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude link Three of the quotes above deal with Sanger, rather than Planned Parenthood specifically. The remaining one doesn't show that PP actively engaged in eugenics. Including the link would be WP:Undue weight.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: I suggest to take a look on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was obviously part of the birth control movement, actually predecesor organizations of PP were called "...Birth Control...". Are you pretending that the history of PP started when it was founded with that name (PP) and has nothing to do with the birth control and we must exclude its grounds and the history which led to its foundation? Are you pretending, against each reliable source, to disengage PP history from Sanger, which it is not even done by the PP self? It also sounds a little bit absurd to disengage the International Planned Parenthood Federation from the Planned Parenthood, the mentioned aims adopted by the IPPF were decided for and binding to all the national PPs there, being Sanger the president of both. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

About alleged WP:UNDUE (for a single link!!!):


 * "However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense"-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a matter of non-sense to pretend disengage Planned Parenthood history from Margaret Sanger (its founder), or pretend to disengage birth control movement history from Planned Parenthood history, or to disengage Planned Parenthood history from Iinternational Planned Parenthood Federation history and aims. Not even the PP self disengage itself from Sanger or from IPPF, as you claimed above in an attempt to disquilify some sources and quotes. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are now trying to say that the birth control movement and eugenics are the same thing? They aren't.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The quote itself separates the two. Yet more cherry picking.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Falcon, again stop putting words in my mouth and stop awarding to me false statements that clearly I heve not claimed at all. This is the third time I have to tell you to stop doing so. It is disruptive now. I am not arguing that eugenics are the same than birth control or the same than planned parenthood, but they are historically connected, they are related subjects. I have repeated it a lot of times and you have replied the same non-sense. Stop wasting our time and editing disruptively. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just calling it as I see it. It seems every opinion I have is disruptive. You said "non-sense to pretend disengage Planned Parenthood history from Margaret Sanger (its founder), or pretend to disengage birth control movement history from Planned Parenthood history, or to disengage Planned Parenthood history from Iinternational Planned Parenthood Federation history and aims", and then quote an abstract from a journalistic paper that only states the origins of Planned Parenthood has roots in the birth control movement. So, I don't think it's to much of a stretch to infer that you are either trying to imply the birth control movement is related enough to eugenics that we can use the above as a source for putting the see also link into the article, or you are misunderstanding the abstract. If that is disruptive, accuse away.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will not repeat to you the same thing again and agains and again. I suggest you to read and to think it over, again and again and again and all the times you need or want. If at the end you feel you did not get it yet, then we already read your point, so don't you worry. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ClaudioSantos, could you consider cutting back on the bold? It appears you're shouting. Jesanj (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep See all quoted and non-quoted sources. The link is useful for any one interested in investigate deeper into the topic. Planned Parenthood, birth control and eugenics are related subjects due referenced historical connections. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep keep link after establishing reason for link in the History section.Marauder40 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude, obviously. A context-free "See also" link gives the impression that PP is currently involved in eugenics, and the fact that this is what the people advocating it prefer, when I've suggested numerous times that they link it in-text in the history section, speaks volumes about their real motivation for wanting to include it. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEEALSO you are able to add a brief annotation to contextualize the link. But given your arguments and that you whimsically want to solely delete the link, then it speaks loud about the real motivation to white wash the planned parenthood and birth control of its own history and historical grounds. Other users have noticed it as an obvious thing, given the overreaction for a single link. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusations about individual editor's motivations, and be civil. We're here to discuss this article not have a fight. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude - as per the comments above. The subject does not seem to be linked to eugenics in any important way and without context it reads like an unwarranted accusation. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude - the quotes above provide only a very indirect link, including it would mean putting an undue weight to it. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/plea: Claudio, could you please resist the temptation to argue with every single commenter? The RfC is intended to gather outside input from previously uninvolved editors, not for people already involved in the dispute to repeatedly restate their viewpoints. By my count, you've already made about 30 edits to this RfC. Please, chill out a bit and let others comment here. MastCell Talk 19:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered the explicit request for specific sources made by a commenter. Two involved authors came to comment my quotes and my comments which were not addressed to them, and also they came to repeat their viewpoints here. So a I suggest you to refrain from pleading me and address your pleadings to them, also to avoid the appareance of double standars. At any rate, to listen the comments from non-involved users does not mean that the other user have to refrain from comment them. This is not a voting place. If you do not want to read my comments then you are allowed to simply do not read them. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to look back here, and I have to agree with MastCell. Claudio, I am sure that you mean well, but the appearance here is that you are merely badgering every editor who disagrees with your position. The purpose of RfC is to get input from a broader segment of the community, in order to help editors move past an impasse. You may well have to accept that most editors are not finding your arguments persuasive. As you say, it isn't a vote, but a refusal to accept consensus may come to be seen as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonably related See also link per sources provided. – Lionel (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude What's next?  Editing the article on art school to include See also:Adolf Hitler? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Why are we even having this discussion?  This kind of thing is exactly why we have NPOV and UNDUE and other policies.  It's so mindbogglingly obvious that we should not have this link that I think either some do not fully understand how Wikipedia works or are pushing an agenda.  Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude - I'm an involved editor, but since other have commented, I guess it's Ok. Violates all sorts of POV and UNDUE guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude. This is a smear tactic against Planned Parenthood, not relevant or even tangential to that organization. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Include It is a relevant and notable part of Planned Parenthood's history. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude from see also. As WP:See also makes clear, links in the see also are primarily intended to provide links to related articles that should be but are not currently in the main article (or in templates) because of insufficient development. (They may also be used when the article is deliberately kept short.) When there is dispute such as here, the obvious solution is that those who argue there should be a link should instead find where it fits in the article and link it there. If there is no where, then exclude it until and unless there is consensus to expand the article to where it fits. If it never fits, then it seems it doesn't belong in the 'see also' either.I have no comment whether a link belongs in the body of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Update much of this discussion has been rendered moot as there is now a section which puts the link between Planned Parenthood, Sanger, and eugenics in proper context. The discussion below is extremely long so i'll summarize. Anti-abortion groups bring this up all the time, Rick Santorum even brought this up as a rationale for a recent campaign to defund Planned parenthood, anyways it's a real criticism that is substantially related to Planned parenthood so the paragraph explains what the connection is (and is not) with references, and in NPOV. Since there is already a link in the body, there's no need for one in the See also (as per WP:SEEALSO). Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is good the way it is at the moment - the balance and context are appropriate. It's also been stable, relative to how frequently the article and talk page were edited for the past few days. Perhaps consensus has been reached? Dawn Bard (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions apply to this article
This article is under a 1RR restriction per the General Sanctions on all abortion-related articles. At least two editors seem to have recently gone past 1RR in 24 hours. If this continues, admins may issue blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested I am one of those editors, oops. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Template:Editnotices/Page/Planned Parenthood, which clearly announces the 1RR restriction to anyone who tries to edit this article. The notice has been in place since February. Let me know if anyone thinks that additional steps should be taken to publicize the 1RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per a request on my talk page, I made a new template Sanctions-abortion and put it at the top of this page. This explains the 1RR restriction in a more obvious way. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed concerns about eugenics paragraph
None of the cited sources supports that phrase claiming that Sanger argued against many of the eugenecists' positions. A quote should be provided here. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  23:46, 14 August 2011(UTC)


 * Did you notice that this page was peaceful and that this matter was completely settled while you were blocked from editing. Well, welcome back anyways. I can reassure you that your concerns are completely unfounded. Those references cited support quite clearly the two parts of the sentence. Again it is not a quote, the refs do not have to use the same words that we do, its summary. If you read the sources, try google books, you will see that they all support the sentence, otherwise they would not be there. I checked pretty closely. You should either be more specific in your complaint or move on. Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you see the sentence saying that in the 1922 book Pivot of Civilization Sanger "argued that eugenic measures in and of themselves were not practicable", and that only birth control could improve the human condition?
 * In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger writes that the eugenics emphasis on the dominance of 'fit' breeders was a mistake, that it was a 'cradle competition' to see which group—fit or feeble—could outbreed the other. She goes on to point out that high fecundity among the fit often results in poverty for those unable to support so many mouths. She differentiates sex as a possible "psychic and spiritual avenue of expression" compared to the eugenicists who had only a restricted and limited view of sex as conception. She said eugenicists were largely blind to the argument that fewer children might yield higher quality adults, more capable of advancing society. Sanger deplored the observed class bias and sex bias shown by the Eugenics Education Society. Sanger wrote against proposed eugenics legislation.
 * The NYU article is sufficient in supporting the statement that Sanger argued against many of the points of eugenics. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The summary seems to be a sort of WP:SYN. For example, the word "many" seems to be a synthesis made by the WP-editor while it is not stated by none of those sources. Take the source cited by Binksternet in his last comment. What I found is that NYU article clearly states that Sanger supported and promoted eugenics possitions: "[Sanger]discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, 'unfit' or 'feebleminded,' those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control." Who decided that these fundamental eugenics possitions and measures supported by Sanger are "few" and other possitions are "many"?. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't synth because any reasonable educated person would read those refs and come to the same conclusion. Its not an original argument, we are just stating it in different words. See above for why "many" is the word that we use. Your comparison of few and many is not appropriate. "Many" is not a portion. In other words that she supported many of the eugenics positions (though I would say "few" actually) doesn't mean she didn't also speak out against many others. So that argument is not logical. If you need more help with this read WP:SYNNOT. Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of reading comprehension. You read about what she supported and you read about what she argued against, and you do the math. Math is not synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes math is a synthesis as your dealing with it as it was an alleged list of possitions when the author does not. You are assuming that the mentioned possitions are the unique eugenics possitions. You are also assuming that any position is equiparable to any other, while some possitions could be more relevant or fundamental than other, so the quality and not solely the quantity is relevant but excluded in your alleged summarize. At any rate, when you sum up you must do assumptions that are not supported nor done by the source. Why not to change "many" for "some"? why not to mention that some relevant and fundamental possitions were supoorted by Sanger? or why not to mention some of the eugenics possitions supported and not supported by Sangers, and let the reasonable readers to judge themeselves?. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the familiar argument "Why don't we let the readers judge for themselves?" That argument is the favored one of those who go against mainstream viewpoints. The beauty of that argument is that it takes very well established truths that you don't like and it pairs them up at equivalence to fringe viewpoints that you hold dear. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not the one playing mathematics, neither to pair nor to sum up as a "dear". At any rate, I was not inviting anyone to tell me that he/she favored "mainstream viewpoints" or that he/she assumed them as "very well established truths". Anyone can address such comments to my email, perhaps they won't be answered at all. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, the text you are reffering to is not synth or original research and it is directly supported by three reliable sources. The paragraph as a whole is a neutral summary of the controversy as it applies to planned Parenthood, its not a trial of Margaret Sanger. we don't have to "let the readers judge for themselves" as there is not judgement to come to. She was involved with eugenics and subscribed to some of its ideas while rejecting other ideas it promoted. We've gone into a little bit more detail but that is all that is necessary. Your suggestion that we include quotes and have the reader evaluate her position on every eugenics-related idea is a complete waste of the readers time and a distraction from the article. The article is about planned parenthood. The section is about a controversy related to planned parenthood, it is not about Margaret Sanger, though you seem to want to make it about her. We have to respect neutrality and in particular WP:UNDUE. If readers want to understand more about Margaret Sanger they go to her article. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ClaudioSantos is taking nearly the exact same strategy doing the same thing over at Eugenics in the United States - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI thread about this behavior started here.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 05:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Metallunch: it seems you misreaded me. I have not asked for quotes to be merged into the article, but here to check verifiability of the alleged reasonable summary. Whatever anyone thinks my "strategy" is, at any rate at Eugenics in the United States a sentence had to be reworded by you due in the way it was worded before it was not supported in the source. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did misunderstand you and I am glad that you are satisfied about that citation over at Eugenics in the United States. I will also admit that strategy is a poorly chosen word. Are you satisfied that the statements made in this articles section about Margaret Sanger and Eugenics are supported by the sources cited? Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are being distorted. Sanger does not solely "teamed" with eugenics supporters nor solely argued against "many" of their positions, but she openly advocated for some of their most prominent positions and aims, while that fact was white washed by some editors. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, whatever the conclusion you can develop with other editors, this is about Sanger rather than Planned Parenthood and belongs in her article.Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

VPR source?
The VPR source was used to rebut the claim that "PP was the largest preventer of abortions". But I cannot find that in the VPR source. The only material I see is (quotes from VPR source): None of those mention PP (it is speaking about abortions in general, not PP specifically), let alone the specific claim that PP is the "largest preventer". --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "As the money (for family planning) goes up, so do the number of abortions," she said. "We have not seen a reduction in abortions since the full funding of family planning. We have seen an escalation."
 * "Abortion opponents are correct that widespread access to birth control hasn't eliminated abortions in the U.S. — although the number has declined considerably over the last two decades."
 * "Still others, like Marjorie Dannenfelser, of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, insist that providing birth control doesn't even work at preventing abortions."
 * Also, I suggest that detailed analysis of the statistics and importance of PP's role in abortion should be placed in the existing "Abortion" section in the article. Putting this kind of detail in the lead will lead to endless edit-warring and does not help readers (and, as I've said earlier, I have no objection to moving the Richard's quote from the lead into the Abortion section). --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more; although I don't have a lot of experience interpreting WP:SUMMARY, I can't imagine WP wants articles with a bunch of statistics front-loaded in the opening paragraph. My intuition is also that this will be a more conducive place for editors who feel that pro-life views are underrepresented to "run things up the flagpole" without inspiring an immediate backlash because the material is being inserted in the lead (a sensitive place).
 * At the same time, I'm thinking the Richards quote deserves a spot in the lead since it is a sort of "mission statement". Of course, I am not opposed to material summarizing notable opposing views that wind up in the article text. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. How about this:  what if we work on the Abortion section exclusively, and improve it and include all relevant material and statistics.  And when it it finished, then summarize it in the lead?   Trying to write the lead before the body is fleshed-out is backwards. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like one of those typical "moving targets" on Wikipedia, sort of like saying "we'll first build consensus, then write the section" only to have 10 new editors show up in the next few days. But it makes good sense and we shouldn't stop aiming at ideals just because we may never hit them.  ;)  Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Noleander> for a reasonable reader it is clear that VPR article is notifying the debate around the claimed argument made by Planned Parenthood, as even explicity it quotes Emily Stewart, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood saying: "Without a doubt, when women have access to birth control, it reduces unintended pregnancies". --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the random anti-abortion activist quoted is not notable enough. Additionally, however, it doesn't actually contradict the claim by Richards.  It contradicts the claim by Stewart -- which is not in our article.  Even if the source were plenty notable, it shouldn't be reflected here merely because the quote is about abortion and PP is an org that provides abortions.  My understanding is that WP:COATRACK tells us to avoid this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @claudio: (1)  PP representatives have made thousands of public comments over the years.  Why should one comment be selected (by you) for the lead paragraph?  See WP:CHERRY.  (2)   Why do you say that there are "replies" to Stewart?  Can you provide quotes from the source that show that they are "replying" to Stewart, and not merely commenting on abortion in general?  Generic abortion material belongs in the Abortion article, not an article specifically on PP.  (3) the Lead is supposed to summarize the body.  You are adding material to the lead that is not in the body.  Why is that?  --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The counter argument has been also published a lot of times during the years. Why it is not yet included in the body?. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  16:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (inserted out of turn to reply to Claudio) Why would it? This is an article on Planned Parenthood, not Whether birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies.  Did you see my comment above regarding WP:COATRACK? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Claudio: could you respond to the three questions I posed to you?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or we could just pull this out of the lede, including items of "leading abortion provider" etc. etc.  In the spirit of brevity, we could leave these stats and opinions for the rest of the article?  I'd support that.....Mattnad (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you on the stats, but as I mentioned above I think the quote by Richards is fairly "mission statement"-like and seems especially appropriate for the lead. Unless there's a clear reason to reject that position (I'm all ears!) I don't think it's best to give this up just to mollify a single stubborn editor. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

← First of all, we should be clear about facts. Access to contraception does prevent abortions, assuming that fertility is held constant (see, for example, ). That paper opens: "Common sense and an elementary understanding of the biological determinants of human reproduction indicate that contraception and induced abortion represent alternative means of achieving the same aggregate level of fertility in a population... Why, then, does the relationship between levels of contraceptive use and the incidence of induced abortion continue to provoke heated discussion?" The authors go on to address the question in great detail. There is a clear scholarly understanding that access to contraception reduces the rate of abortion, assuming other factors such as fertility are held constant. It is fair to say that some partisans in the abortion debate refuse to accept scholarly opinion on the subject, but incorrect to assert or imply that this is an area of actual scientific disagreement. That said, I agree with many of the above comments. This article is not the place for a lengthy discussion of the relationship between contraception and abortion. I provide the above information mostly out of a desire to make sure we're on the same page, and perhaps to do my small part to correct the massive prevalence of misinformation about abortion (cf. ). For the purposes of this article, I'm not sure we should even get into it at all, much less in the lead. MastCell Talk 17:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that promoting and providing abortions increases abortions demand or at least it is far from being an evident effort to reduce abortions but rather the opposite. But the case is: if providing contraceptive means decreases abortions demand, then there is still not evidence that Planned Parenthood "does more than any other organization to prevent abortion". At any rate I am still not convinced that this self-promoted and evident inflationary claim belongs to a paragraph dealing with facts, unless the purpose is to echo promotional claims from PP. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Claudio is right; the article does not exist to repeat PP promotion, which is what the quote is - at least when it's in the lead. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in general, is not a place for axe-grinding editors to selectively interpret sources in order to reflect their own bias and manufacture controversy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

VPR source added to Abortion section
I added the VPR source to the "Abortions" section, with the line "anti-abortion activists dispute the claim that increased access to contraceptives reduces abortions." I'm not comfortable with the fact that the VPR source is really a generic source about abortion in general, not PP specifically, but in the interests of balance I see no harm in including it. --Noleander (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have two concerns with this wording. First of all, I'm not convinced that all anti-abortion activists dismiss the effectiveness of contraception. Secondly, I don't think we should characterize this as a "claim" - it's a reality generally accepted by the relevant scholarly community that access to contraception reduces the need for abortion. MastCell Talk 20:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Go ahead and edit the section and improve it.  I only posted here to let interested editors know that the VPR source was now used in the Abortion section. --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Richards quote
The claim that "Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America" is simply unusable. ("prevent unintended pregnancy"; "the need for abortion" is true and verified.) We need an independent source to verify this, especially if it's going in the lead. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. On the one hand, this is clearly attributed as a claim by the president of the organization. It's clearly marked as a matter of opinion, and the source of that opinion is clearly identified for the reader. On the other hand, I agree that it's a bit out of place in the lead, and might be better off in the body. MastCell Talk 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The president of PPFA made this statement on TV, so it is clearly attributed. Megan Crepeau of the Chicago Tribune said that, because of its birth control and family planning services, PPFA could be "characterized as America's largest abortion preventer." It's an independent opinion which is in agreement with the PPFA one, though it is not an accountant-quality verification of the numbers. What Crepeau does for the Richards quote is support the concept in the article body so that the same information can be summarized in the lead section without being repeated exactly. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those quotations are very misleading without the relevant background information. Specifically, Planned Parenthood performed 332278 abortions  and prevented 291000  in 2009.  This data should be in the article if those quotations are to be included.  Of course, these numbers rely on two questionable premises (their contraceptive programs are as effective as they say they are, and they never underreport abortions). 174.2.68.142 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an agency that prevents more abortions in the USA than PPFA, more than an estimated 291,000 per year? Richards says there is not. I agree that the numbers should be in the article, but I disagree that the quotes are misleading. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I put some more statistics (from the sources identified above) into the "Services" section in the article, and tried to clean it up. --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think the numbers should be in the article. Without any kind of context (context which we may be unable to give due to Wikipedia's other content policies, ie. SYN), the effect is rather "OMG a big number SO MANY ABORTIONS" rather than anything that actually advances the reader's understanding of the topic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I hear what you are saying, but the abortion issue is so prominently discussed in the world, I would think that when someone comes to the WP article on PP, at least they could get some good data.   But you have  a good point about context.  Let me see if I can find some more sources that give context to the data (e.g. proportional to total number of births, or vs. number of abortions in Russia, etc).  There must be some good reliable sources that give context.   Also, if we remove the statistics, that could be claimed to be censorship by liberal editors to "hide the magnitude of PPs crimes" or whatever.  --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a source in a footnote which says PP provides 27% of abortions in the USA (according to Politifact, I think?). I'm not sure how relevant other comparisons would be (eg. you mention Russia, but "performed by one American organization":"performed in Russia" doesn't seem too useful. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My example of Russia was a throw-away concept just illustrating the sort of good context some sources may provide (something like "There are 6M abortions in China every year, 10M in Inda, 1.3M in Russia, and 0.5M in the USA.  Planned Parenthood ...").   But that was totally off the cuff, and I have no source (yet) that says anything like that.  It was just for illustrative purposes. --Noleander (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I also would like more numbers than not. Trouble is, it's much easier to count abortions than abortions prevented.  How many pregnancies are prevented by giving away a thousand condoms, and how many of those would have become abortions?  Unfortunately, the abortion thing has become more prominent than the give-away-condom thing, or any of the many cheap or free things PP provides far more frequently than abortions.  You're better at this sort of research than I, Noleander, and I thank you for your fine work. PhGustaf (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A statement can be technically correct but still misleading. If the governor of Texas said, while trying to promote his record on education, that his state had one of the highest numbers of students writing the SAT nationwide, he would be technically correct.  His claim, however, would be misleading because it excludes the fact that Texas has the second highest population.  When this fact and the students' actual SAT scores are brought into the equation, the picture changes considerably.  If we were to include the former piece of information in the Texas article without any of the other facts, readers could easily get the wrong idea (even if the source was clearly identified as the governor).


 * Similarly, if someone claimed that Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion preventer, they may be technically correct. But someone reading a Wikipedia article with that claim in it wouldn’t get a complete understanding (and wouldn’t form an educated opinion) if they didn’t know that, according to Planned Parenthood’s own estimates, they performed more abortions than they prevented in the most recent year available.  If editors here believe that citing Planned Parenthood’s numbers will be somehow problematic (ie that it overemphasizes a certain aspect of the organization or that their estimates are unreliable), the questionable quotations should also be excluded to avoid bias. 174.2.68.142 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Big and blatant POV violation of WP:LEAD. (The lead should ... be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.) Cloonmore (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline at LEAD says to summarize the article body in the lead section. The Richards quote serves as a summary of the in-article fact that PPFA is provides the most contraceptives of any organization operating in the USA. I don't see the notional POV violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The capo di tutti capi of PPFA waxes glowingly about ... (wait for it) ... PPFA!, and you don't see a POV violation? Once again Binx, words fail. With a newbie, I'd go thru POV For Beginners. But you already know all that stuff (right?)  Cloonmore (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Mafia analogy falls flat. Cecile Richards is a prominent public figure, not an underworld Don hiding in the shadows. She cannot make shit up or it will be immediately thrown back in her face. If you can find somebody who tackles her quoted statement head on and disproves it, I will applaud and relent. In that case, both the rebuttal and the Richards statement would go in the article body, per NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Richards' quote is unverifiable puffery that certainly has no business in the lead and probably none in the article. - Haymaker (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should take another look at WP:V... the Richards quote is certainly verifiable. Perhaps you meant to say that the quote is unanswerable, so you don't like it. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the statement can be verified, it should be verified with a reliable source. At that point, there should be a statement of it, not a quote, sourced to the RS. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DemocracyNow is not a reliable source for this statement. Remember WP:BURDEN - I think there is rationale there to remove it entirely right now, but it also says, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." So, if you want to include it, this is your time to find a reliable source and I put it in the article body for the meantime. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to read or re-read WP:BURDEN... it is fully answered by the DemocracyNow source in which Richards says her bit rather than commentators giving their opinions. If you consider DemocracyNow to be unreliable, take it to RSN, where I am certain you will find it accepted for this usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a debate about how many abortions, if any, PP "causes" and "prevents". The article can and should present both sides of the debate.  The president of PP makes a claim about preventions.  Her claim can be included in the article, of course.  The source of the claim must be identified, of course, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which requires potentially biased or POV statements to include the source of the statement (when the statement is being included to demonstrate a claim).  The important thing is that Richard's statistics are not presented in WP's voice, instead they are presented in Richard's voice.    --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of Democracy Now!'s article says it is a progressive program; that automatically disqualifies it as an RS for this topic. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're grabbing at straws... there is no guideline to back up your assertion. We do not require our reliable sources to be neutral, just reliable. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To address the sourcing concern raised by NYyankees51, the quote (or a quote much like it) appears in the New York Times ("Planned Parenthood serves five million Americans and concentrates 90 percent of its efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancies, Ms. Richards says, not terminating them. 'No one does more to reduce the need for abortions in this country than Planned Parenthood.'") I do agree that this quote doesn't rise to the level of belonging in the lead, though. MastCell Talk 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote, verbatim, does not belong in the lead. But the next question is:  Should the lead summarize one aspect of the debate?  Something like:  "Critics claim that PP is responsible for X number of abortions, but supporters of PP claim that PP prevents Y number of unwanted pregnancies, and its contraception services prevent Z number of abortions".  That seems like a rather important point that could be made in the lead, without using any quotes. --Noleander (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how specific to PP we should be. Most of the reliable sources I've seen address the issue of Title X funding as a whole, with PP being the largest recipient of such funding. There is a clear, reputable literature indicating that doing away with Title X funding would lead to a massive increase in both unplanned pregnancies and abortions. See, for example,, in which researchers found that abolishing Title X funding (of which PP is the largest recipient) would lead to an estimated additional 1.4 million unintended pregnancies and 600,000 abortions annually. That speaks to the role that these organizations play in preventing abortion by providing contraception to low-income women and families. And if we address that topic, then I would prefer we use the scholarly literature rather than quotes by partisans on either side. MastCell Talk 18:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but that kind of material would be better in the Abortion article. This article focuses on PP, and if there are sources that discuss PP's cause/prevention statistics, that could be in this article (and is, in the "Abortion" section).  The only question is whether that debate (about PP's impact on the stats) should be in the lead or not. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to your first comment, MastCell, saying PP concentrates 90% of its efforts on prevention is not the same as saying they do more than anyone else for prevention may be true, but doesn't speak to its effectiveness in doing that. In regards to your second point, it should be noted that the study you cite was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood. That doesn't necessarily disqualify the study, but it is an important fact that should be noted if we are going to include it in either PP or abortion. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The study was published in the peer-reviewed literature. And the Guttmacher Institute's research is "generally respected even by experts and activists who don't share its advocacy of abortion rights." I'm not aware of any dissenting scholarly views on the topic, but if there is an actual scholarly debate on the topic then we can reflect dissenting views. It seems self-evident (but also evidence-based) that contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, and unwanted pregnancies often end in abortion. But I suppose that's neither here nor there. MastCell Talk 03:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Guttmacher is highly respected. There's no need to qualify their data. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead calls for a brief overview, not ruminations on that overview. PP is the largest provider of abortions in the United States and from what I have seen that is their principle claim to fame. As such, that fact probably belongs in the lead in some manner. A discussion about how people feel about that fact has no place in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which non-lead section?
If we move the Richards quote out of the lead, where does it go? It is in two places now: (1) Services; and (2) abortion. The latter seems better to me. --Noleander (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make a big difference to me between them as long as it's out of the lead, if we are going to include it at all. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind everyone that this is an article about Planned Parenthood and not about Abortion Providers in the United States (as some would like to make it). While I personally favor a shorter lead in general as a matter of editorial style, a quote from the organizations' president is not per se out of line. Mattnad (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense in the services section as it dwells on the contraception market. - Haymaker (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the "Abortion" subsection down in the "Controversies" section?  Wouldn't it be better to consolidate all statistics/viewpoints/debates all in that one section?  --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it makes more sense down in the article body why did you delete it entirely, and not move it down to the article body? Your suggestion here does not match your actions. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I dont understand your question. By "it" do you mean the quote from Richards?  If that is what you mean:   I have no problem with the quote in the body or not.  At the moment the quote is in a footnote, but it could be in the body.   I tend to avoid quotes, and instead prefer paraphrasing the quotes in the article. See WP:LONGQUOTE.   If you want it in the body, I have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In this reply you made to my talk page entry, you added indentation that I did not intend. Your indentation makes it look like I was responding to you, Noleander, but I was responding to Haymaker. His entry was at three levels of indentation and both yours and my responses were at four levels, originally, so that Haymaker would know we both were talking to him. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sourcing. If anyone disagrees, they should either cite a clearly applicable policy justifying their objection, or keep it to themselves. Second, there is discussion of PP's prevention of abortions throughout the article text, so I'm puzzled by the objection that this cannot be discussed in the lead. The following objections have been raised: To name a few. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell; "Seems out of place in the lead"— fair enough but highly subjective and open to debate;
 * NY Yankees; Can't be in the lead if sourced to PP— I'm unaware of any such policy;
 * Cloonmore; NPOV violation because it is from PP President and reflects a viewpoint that is not even remotely refuted in the article text?— I find this claim confusing as NPOV is supposed to be about not under-emphasizing notable opposing views; without one, there's no threat of NPOV problems, I would think?;
 * NY Yankees and Cloonmore; can't be included because not a reliable source— this claim seems to be directly contradicted by WP:SPS; as I understand it, we don't automatically suppress statements of a subject about itself, especially when there is no sign that the statement is likely to be contradicted or controversial;
 * NY Yankees; DemocracyNow cannot be used, even where it is merely being used for a quote by the article subject— I have been editing WP awhile and although I have repeatedly heard editors suggest there is some kind of partisan "gut check" that must be applied to determine whether a source is reliable, I have yet to see any WP policy supporting such a view;
 * NY Yankees; scholarly study was performed by an institute founded by PP, and we should reflect that in the article text— this would seem to be plain OR and forbidden.
 * I agree there is nothing wrong with the Richards quote, which is why I put it in the lead section. It summarizes PP's position regarding their strengths. It counters the POV version which stated in the lead section that PP was the biggest abortion provider. Of course, PP is both the biggest American abortion provider and the biggest American abortion preventer (in terms of contraception services and family planning information), and I think both of these facts should be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it POV to say that PP is the largest abortion provider in America? - Haymaker (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's POV in the sense that people who don't like Planned Parenthood emphasize the abortion services and minimize or ignore the other services. To make the lede more npov, it helps to provide a more complete and balanced view of what PP does. Mattnad (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whats that saying? We report you decide?  PP is the largest provider of abortions and that is what they're most know for so we put that in the lead.  Let people think about what ever they want to think about that, if we go out of our way to frame how people absorb that fact then NPOV is out the window. - Haymaker (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we can agree to disagree on this point. I believe that an encyclopedic article should do its best to provide the fullest accurate picture.Mattnad (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is facts, why would we wrap the abortion stat in opinions in the lead? We can let people give their thoughts on what these numbers mean in the body of the article. - Haymaker (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPFA is known as the largest provider of contraception to Americans. It is also known as the largest provider of abortions to Americans. The presence of both of these pieces of information makes it NPOV. The presence of only one of these is POV. Binksternet (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why do we need Richards' quote to say that they are the largest provider of contraception and abortions? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That PP is the largest provider of abortions and contraceptions are well established facts while that PP "does more to prevent abortions than any other organization" is a self promoted claim which is disputed by other accounts. A claim that does not deny nor balance the mentioned facts. A claim that is POV due there is not mentioned at all the claim is disputed. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Planned Parenthood is in a position to assess the impact of their contraception programs and the quote is attributed to them so a reader can clearly know the source. And really, don't confuse statistics with facts.  See How to Lie with Statistics. Mattnad (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found no other sources disputing the Richards quote. PPFA is certainly the largest dispenser of contraception in the USA. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Biksternet no one is disputing that PP is the largest dispenser of contraceptions, that is a fact, but it is disputed that PP "does more than any one to prevent abortions". There are sources like this disputing Richard's claim, but also reliable studies against PP's arguments like this showing that providing contraception does not reduce abortions. Therefore, Mattnad, at any rate that claim is POV due it is a disputed claim and the counter argument is not represented in the paragraph.  -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  14:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Claudio: Your first source was retracted (see  which was updated to state: "Author's Note: I made a serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew.... I am deeply sorry for the error, which invalidates my piece.").  Your second source only studied one very narrow kind of contraception (day after pill). --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the cited study is so narrow at any rate we can not speak in favor of the reliability nor accuracy of the PP claim, because it is just a PP's claim which does not say nothing about the grounds or studies it is based on, perhaps none. But even letting aside the cited study and the retracted article, there are still other sources like this one, that clearly states that PP's claim is a disputed matter, therefore it is POV if solely representing PP's claim. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a given that some folk will dispute planned parenthood's claims. Some of these people quoted in that article are also against contraception as well and are also against any kinds of family planning etc. etc.  That a comment is disputed does not mean we don't include it.  At any rate, this is an article about Planned Parenthood.  A comment from the organizations president on the topic of their perceived value, while certainly a point of view, is still relevant.Mattnad (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not 100% sure what you're saying, Claudio, but the fact that there is an anti-abortion activist, possibly living in Vermont, that says (without clear explanation) that contraception and family planning don't reduce birth control, does not mean we need to reflect that view in WP. Various policies such as WP:NPOV have a notability component built in.  It's great that this is sourced to a secondary source, but I'd say your primary source is not significant enough to mention.  Furthermore, as recently noted by Noleander, this narrow claim doesn't actually contradict PP's claim; some synth would be required to get from point A to the point B you're aiming at. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker> as you claimed in your user page that you are a native spanish speaker I could waste my time explaining it to you in spanish, but I strongly doubt that you will understand. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a native Spanish speaker would have trouble understanding an explanation in Spanish!? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)