Talk:Woozle effect: Difference between revisions
Sonicyouth86 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I removed the content because it was a textbook example of [[WP:original research]] and [[WP:Synth]]. There is no evil agenda as one user alleges in his edit summaries. --[[User:Sonicyouth86|Sonicyouth86]] ([[User talk:Sonicyouth86|talk]]) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
I removed the content because it was a textbook example of [[WP:original research]] and [[WP:Synth]]. There is no evil agenda as one user alleges in his edit summaries. --[[User:Sonicyouth86|Sonicyouth86]] ([[User talk:Sonicyouth86|talk]]) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
Someone woozling won't say their woozling. Thus these are all excellent examples. Reverting censorship. |
|||
Revision as of 20:31, 14 May 2013
 | Psychology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Sociology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Original research
I thought that the reasons why I removed the Examples section and the last paragraph in the Origin and usage section were obvious but perhaps I need to explain. Let's look at the Domestic violence section. There isn't a source in the Canada subsection that mentiones the woozle effect. What someone did is take Statistics Canada stats and OCTEVAW statements and criticize them as an example of the woozle effect. The sources do not actually say "woozle". The same problem in the United Kindom subsection. Someone used official stats and statements by organizations like the Women's Aid Federation in England and made the argument that this was an example of the woozle effect. The same goes for the USA subsection where not even Gelles [1] who according to some sources coined the term uses the term woozle effect. What remains of the section Examples is the Battered child syndrome subsection and it's the only section that contains a source – Gelles & Straus (1988) – that actually says "woozle". The ref is used for only one short sentence and I won't object if someone expands and rewrites the section based on the Gelles & Straus source and writes something like "Sociologists Gelles and Straus argue that this and that is an example of..." but the rest, the Kempe study and the newspaper articles that are used as "examples", do not actually say anything about the woozle effect.
The last paragraph in the Origin and usage section contained a sentence based on a study by Gelles that didn't discuss the woozle effect and a claim that was sourced to a document by the organization "mediaradar" which appears to be a obscure advocacy group. What that document says is that VAWA advocates "misrepresent the truth of partner abuse" and that Gelles "dubs these factoids the 'woozle effect'". If that's the case then it should be possible to cite Gelles as a source and not this organization which doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
I removed the content because it was a textbook example of WP:original research and WP:Synth. There is no evil agenda as one user alleges in his edit summaries. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone woozling won't say their woozling. Thus these are all excellent examples. Reverting censorship.