This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Removal of sentence sourced to the Witherspoon Instituteedit
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In the first place, a right-wing think tank is not a good source. In the second place, the statement is misleading. El Salvador's criminal code does not penalize spontaneous abortion, and no one was claiming that it did. However, spontaneous abortion has been misinterpreted as induced abortion, as reliable sources have reported, and so in practice it has been penalized. NightHeron (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@NightHeron:The source has no issue as it is reliable. Since the section is about continued practice, in agreement the source could be removed.Manabimasu (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The source is from an anti-abortion organization, see its Wikipedia page. In any case, as you say, the section of the article is not about the legal status of spontaneous abortion (which could not possibly be formally illegal in any country, because it's an accident of nature). Rather, it's about the practice of misconstruing spontaneous abortion as induced abortion. NightHeron (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@NightHeron: Amnesty International is an abortion-rights organization see Criticism of Amnesty International and it is also a reliable source. Being an anti-abortion organization does not warrant exclusion only its reliability. Be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight to a viewpoint.Manabimasu (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Amnesty International is a broad-based human rights organization that is frequently cited by mainstream news media. Of course, when they criticize a government or organization for human rights violations, they are often accused of "bias" by those they criticize. The Witherspoon Institute is closely affiliated with right-wing US politics, and is not widely regarded as a reliable source. In any case, even if they didn't have such an extreme POV, their article doesn't contribute anything, because no one disputes the fact that, formally speaking, spontaneous abortion is not against the law in El Salvador (or anywhere else). NightHeron (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
