Talk:Old-age-security hypothesis

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article and hook concerns remain unaddressed.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that there is a hypothesis that the refusal of the state from old-age benefits increases the birth rate and the well-being of the country?
- Reviewed: (exempt)

Created/expanded by Vyacheslav84 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comment (not a review). The article does not support the hook, in several important ways. (1) It is about a decrease in fertility caused by adding pensions, not about an increase in fertility caused by removing them. The phrasing in the hook, suggesting that cutting pensions will cause fertility to go back up is an inference (WP:SYNTH) rather than something directly supported by the sources in the article. (2) Linking Welfare state to "well-being of the country" is a violation of WP:SUBMARINE. (3) There is zero support in the article for the claim in the hook that cutting pensions will increase well-being. It links low pensions to "overall income growth" but that is hardly the same thing as well-being. The only connection to well-being is an opposite one to what is in the hook: "although it increases household savings". The article is also quite problematic in its context-free presentation of various opinions with no evaluation of what local circumstances they are based on or how widespread those opinions are, and in its base assumptions that greater fertility is a greater good and that individual hardship (based for instance on involuntary childlessness) can be ignored. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions for the wording? — Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding pensions cuts fertility? — Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the refusal of the state from old-age benefits..." is downright ungrammatical anyway. What does it mean? Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cancellation or rejection of the state pension.", "abandonment of state pension", "cancellation of state pension". — Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A full review of DYK criteria is still needed for this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is confusing, and the suggested alterations aren't any better. Since there has been a failure to create a suitable alternative hook in two months, it's time to pass on this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know. — Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]