Wikipedia:Peer review/Economic abortionism/archive1

Economic abortionism

It was a little bit too overtly political when I came to it this morning. I've done some work on it; however, it may require further attention. Crocogator 18:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The bulk of the article seems to be a portrayal of the issues surrounding socialized health care in the U.S., with an undercurrent of justifying use of the phrase that should be the main topic of the article. The article quotes no sources for the following assertions:

• "The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide subsidized healthcare for all citizens"
• "A large proportion of its citizens, however, feel that..."
• "A large proportion of the uninsured are lower-income children, who have a higher risk of preventable death than middle- and upper-income children and, to a degree, healthcare costs are responsible."

The article also makes statements that are essentially content-free due to their vagueness or tautological nature, and some are POV in their choice of what to emphasize. They include:

• "On this controversial issue, political beliefs occupy a wide range."
• "Some propose" X, "while others believe" rebut X, affirm Y (and alternatives Z through RR are not remarked upon)
• "Even some liberals believe that..." (pattern here is: Even some STEREOTYPICAL_LABEL believe that AUTHOR'S_FAVORITE_IDEA)

In addition, I think much of this background stuff (especially the second paragraph) is extraneous and belongs better as a "See also" link at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see some information about who coined the term, in what contexts it has been used and with what persons or groups it has been identified, how popular it is in political discourse, etc. In short, the article should focus on not just the idea behind the phrase, but its origins and use.

Alanyst 19:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article endorses the POV of "pro-life" groups in the US that equate abortion to murder, which is a whole another issue, separate from the debate whether healthcare should be universal or restricted. Etz Haim 22:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a bizarre title! The topic here is universal health insurance, a legitimate and important topic. Although the rest of the content isn't bad, the title is not explained until the last paragraph, and it's a crappy paragraph. I've never heard the term and I've been interested in the topic for decades. It's stupid. It's like entitling an article on the gun control debate "second amendment genocide" because African-Americans suffer disproportionately from gun deaths. The author didn't even back up the allegations of differential early childhood mortality with links or references. No one except the creator of the article would ever think of looking for this topic under this title. What is the procedure for retitling an article? Alteripse 14:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)