Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Woozle effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be non-notable jargon. It covers a very large subject, and appears to be a psychological effect, yet it's only discussed in low quality social science articles on domestic violence. It doesn't appear to have any real backing by the social sciences or by cognitive psychologists. Unless someone can show how this is an "effect" or how it applies to more than just a few papers on domestic violence, it should be deleted. Using jargon in a Wikipedia page violates WP:MOS, so I'm assuming creating a page for that jargon does the same thing. It's typically a contested rule as well, so I would like the advice of anyone in the cognitive science field. It appears to be a mix between cognitive bias and meme so maybe it should be merged with on of those? Countered (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2014


 * Keep First of all, nominator gives no policy based reason for deletion. Second of all, these are not "low quality social science articles" that discuss this topic, they're published in refereed academic journals and are already cited in the article.  Finally, the main sources do not just use the term "woozle effect," but in fact discuss it.  For instance,
 * The 'Woozle Effect' begins when one investigator reports a finding, such as Gelles's (1974) report [omit a number of overly specific details] In the 'Woozle Effect,' a second investigator will then cite the first study's data, but without the qualifications (such as done by Straus, 1974a). Others will then cite both reports and the qualified data gain the status of generalizable 'truth.'
 * This source discusses it in detail for half a page.
 * These sources alone seem to me to be sufficient to establish notability. There are other sources in the article as well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to read like original research. Also, mentioning a word in an academic article does not give it notability - if it's only supported by citations within articles, and not articles that talk about it on it's own. It's not just that it doesn't have enough citations, because it clearly has many, it's that the citations are all within one field, and none of the articles are dedicated to the topic itself. It appears that it is nothing more than jargon taken from multiple article, and spliced together here in a format that would give it notability. If there was a source which talked about it on it's own then it wouldn't violate WP:RELIABLE but as of right now it's clearly written like original research because the original research doesn't appear to exist. The sheer scope of the topic merits more than a few mentions in articles not focused on the subject itself. Countered (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There don't need to be any sources which talk about it on its own.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where it's gotten more than just a passing mention? It seems to me like significant coverage backs up what I've been saying about the article appearing to be original research. Countered (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per alf laylah wa laylah --Penbat (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- there is nothing wrong with this article, except that it has offended the feminists at the anti-mens rights subreddit /r/againstmensrights. You can see that here: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1wxaoa/discovered_wikipedia_page_with_clear_mra_bias/?sort=confidence with a backup here: http://archive.is/YjXMQ


 * Their brigade against this article is not primarily because they perceive it to be a poor article, but because they believe this article, this word, is used for anti domestic violence purposes.


 * I recently stumbled upon this[1] wikipedia article about the "Woozle Effect." A quick perusal of the article pretty clearly reveals the work of MRAs, and a google search[2] makes it very clear that the term is a favorite tool of MRA rhetoric:
 * Additionally, if you do a reddit search for the word "woozle"[6] most of the results are either posts in /r/MensRights[7] or those same posts mirrored in /r/POLITIC[8].
 * While the term itself may have some merit[9] as a rhetorical device, it appears to be used almost exclusively in discussions of domestic violence from an antifeminist perspective. As a result, it seems dubious whether it deserves its own wikipedia article, and it would be nice to either have the article revised to reflect a more neutral stance or have it deleted entirely.


 * Personally I think that not only should the article be kept, but the editors who created this deletion nonsense should be sanctioned for wasting time and trying to corrupt the wikipedia

184.101.115.101 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar lists 440 different results for Woozle: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle
 * Can someone seriously look at those results and claim it's not notable in Academia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Compare it to a concept that is relatively similar, the meme, which has over 2 million results, or cognitive bias, which has over 1.5 million results, it clear that it isn't nearly as notable as the current article claims it to be. Countered (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS - and also WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , 184 wasn't relying on raw goog, but upon GoogScholar, which is more 'reliable' at indicating wikiReliability (as WP:GHITS mentions near the bottom). 184 *was* failing to be WP:NICE enough for my tastes as well, though I don't see any direct personal attacks... and a mitigating circumstance is they had only been an editor for 58 minutes when they posted above, prolly arriving straight from reddit. They were angry enough they might not have been salvageable beyond the total of 89 minutes that they lasted, but then again, maybe they koudda. Your response was about six hours after 184 had already had called it a night, so you didn't impact their feelings one whit. Nor did I. Anyhoo, figured I would mention the search thing, and while I was here, suggest that you might in the future suggest WP:AGF (rather than WP:NPA) to future 184-types, who get hot under the collar. This particular 184 *had* heard of AGF at some point, and was loudly complaining elsewhere that they weren't getting it, but again, that's nothing to do with either of us. Hope this helps, and hey, thanks for improving wikipedia, I see your name at the noticeboards, which is tough work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice sources.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Related question about sourcing: before reading this page I was only aware of "Woozle Effect" as used in creationism discussions (creationists tend to cite each other so that one uncited claim grows into a list of citations in later books) A quick search didn't find any reliable sources for that usage -- just blogs and discussion forums -- but if such sources can be found it might help to make this page be more about the general concept and less about the concept's use by one particular group. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reference to the woozle in social science research and publications dates back to at least 1963 1953 (see below).
 * --Godot13 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, yet the article lists two other creators of the term after that date. How can a well known term have such an unknown history? The article actually lists three possible creators, with three differing dates, all after it's mention in this essay. To me this doesn't seem to be an effect that has any notability, it seem more like a way that differing authors attacked on another over the years, making it jargon and not a real "effect". Countered (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how well known the term is either within or outside of academia, but the flawed research phenomena it describes is very well known. The article demonstrates the evolution of the term and its increasing "popularity" (I use that word loosely). I'm not sure that who created the term is as important as the fact that there is a term to refer to a specific phenomenon of flawed methodology.  suggests that the woozle connection dates back to 1953. It seems that a few researchers initially referred to it as hunting for the woozle or woozle hunting, but later research studies suggest that it has gained traction as the "Woozle effect." (see  and ). I have written and published research in academic journals and am very familiar with the pitfalls of the Woozle effect. However, until I read this article yesterday, I couldn't have told you, with confidence, that these research pitfalls had a specific name... --Godot13 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, the idea is very well known in academia, but not as a "woozle". In "Better Angels of Our Nature" Pinker refers to bloated combat death statistics which are cited over and over as a "meme" - which is the actual term for it. This page only exists because a few people called it a "woozle" instead, either not knowing of the term meme, or in an attempt to create jargon. It's not as widely used as meme either, and has only been used in passing by a handful of domestic violence researchers. It's clear to me that it isn't a valid term at all, just some jargon that someone made up to reference something that already has a name. Countered (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The words "meme" and "woozle" mean very different things. "Meme" can be used to connote false results the perception of whose truth is reinforced by repetition, but this is far from the only meaning and is a more modern, minor, and metaphorical usage relative to Richard Dawkins's definition when he coined it, which is still the most widely used meaning of the word in the scholarly literature as opposed to on chat forums.  The word "woozle" in our context not only connotes these kind of results but actually denotes them.  You're comparing one fairly minor connotative meaning of the word "meme" as if it were comparable to the one and only denotative meaning of the word "woozle."  Also, if you're seriously making the argument that the words are synonyms, which they're most emphatically not, you ought to be sending "meme" to AfD.  Dawkins invented the word in 1976 whereas the word "woozle" has, as  shows, been in use in the sense at hand for longer.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The example that gives isn't "the woozle effect" but "to chase the woozle": this is why there are 4 different sources for the creation of the term. The way that Pinker uses meme is exactly how woozle is described in this wikipeida page - "when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals". Also, calling it a "word" is even more out there as it's more a neologism, or like I've been saying, jargon, for something that has been documented in higher number as "meme". Countered (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. In English and in every natural language, many words have more than one meaning.  The word "meme," invented in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, has as its original meaning this per the OED:A cultural element or behavioural trait whose transmission and consequent persistence in a population, although occurring by non-genetic means (esp. imitation), is considered as analogous to the inheritance of a gene.  It has since acquired another meaning, not yet documented by the OED but certainly valid, which is more or less synonymous with the equivalent expressions "woozle" and "woozle effect."  And as for me calling "woozle" a word when "it's more a neologism," I think you're certainly confused.  After all, as the OED tells us, a neologism is A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined.  A neologism is a kind of word.  In fact, "meme" is a neologism, and of more recent vintage than "woozle (effect)."  Jargon is made of words too, you know.  I'll spare you the definition, but I encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me.  None of it is relevant. The question is whether it's notable.  I think it is.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-sourced article on a notable phenomenon.  Mini  apolis  00:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW ? --Penbat (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate to suggest that as SNOW in these cases usually suggests a bad-faith nomination, which this clearly does not appear to be ES  &#38;L  12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With all respect to the panda, I've never heard "SNOW being an indicator of bad faith" before. A perfectly good-faith nomination can have not a snowball's chance of having any other result after a certain point, and keeping it open past that point is just bureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. That's not the case at all. —  Scott  •  talk  17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep- Well sourced and clearly notable. That the existence of this article has annoyed a gang of pro-censorship idiots on Reddit is not a reason to delete it. Reyk  YO!  10:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there were more information on it outside of papers on domestic violence I wouldn't be contesting it. So far no one has shown how it's actually an effect that has any real notability: for example, all you done is call me a "pro censorship idiot". Perhaps if you showed evidence that it's used as a term in the way it's described in the article, outside of a few papers that span 50 years, then it might be notable. Countered (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Godot13. NE Ent 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination was in good-faith, but WP:GNG applies, and academic sources from 'just' one field of inquiry are still WP:RS, after all. Besides, GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar show evidence of use outside the original niche, in any case (our article could use broadening/expansion to mention operations research e.g. employee productivity). Gelles'80/82/85/88 are cited between 50 and 400 times each; Straus'07 has 29+10 cites. There is one paper by Schumm/Martin/Bollman/Jurich with 21 cites called "Classifying Family Violence: Whither the Woozle?" which has the keyword in the title (and the "woozle effect" in the abstract-paragraph). Notability is not temporary, and this term is still found in books and papers from the past decade, not just the previous millenium, in any case. That said, Woozle effect could use some background which explains that this is a particular mostly-field-specific variation on a broader theme. Suggest adding a sub-sub-section Confirmation bias which summarizes this type in a sentence or two. It *is* distinct from the usual sort of "testing ideas in a one-sided fashion" seen e.g. in early medicine; woozling is specific to citing-valid-research-in-an-iteratively-invalid-way... hence the nod to A.A.Milne is apt. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – As one can see, this is an article that can't be deleted because of sources. The articles seems well-cited, with citations to reliable source. Additionally, it's about a notable topic; while not known as well to the general public, it is well-known inside some circles (like psychology). Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator did have some points, although asking this to be deleted per MOS/WP:JARGON was seriously misguided. The actual points/concerns are that (1) while this topic does come up in a fair number of publication over the last three decades (2) most have only brief coverage of it, at the level of a sentence or two, e.g. . Scarcity of in-depth coverage (empirical studies of this effect) basically leaves this page at the level of WP:DICTDEF + mostly anecdotal evidence. There are a couple of "surveys" like the one from the Vera Institute of Justice, but these were not published to study the effect simply from a psychological perspective, but rather to argue it exists in a specific field of study/publications in order to advance their own agenda in that area: "This trend underscores the general neglect of methodology in research on human trafficking." (The VIS study is part of larger self-published report, submitted to the DOJ, although it was financially supported by a NIJ grant.) I think the article is going to have hard-to-solve WP:NPOV issues as a result of that. The 1953 "Modern psychologists: scientific woozle hunters? An opinion in outline." seems to have exactly one citation in Google Scholar (and that is a self-citation in the author's subsequent publication ), so I wouldn't hold by breath as to its value to the field. And if you think Donald G. Dutton doesn't have an agenda, you should read a summary of his research findings here, which starts with "Lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering." (That finding of his is often quoted on counter-feminist blogs.) Or listen for couple of minutes to him speaking here: his main research seems to be overcoming/replacing the Duluth model. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I thought some more about this, and unfortunately this can't quite merged with confirmation bias. There is only one book which even discusses them close together, but without saying they are the same or even what their relative relationship might be. The examples section is unfortunately all sourced from the primary sources actually using the term (rather than any secondary sources observing that others use the term), which is generally discouraged by WP:NEO. The people theorizing about the woozle effect are generally also those using it as a rhetorical instrument (to smack their opposition), so we can't easily separate primary and secondary sources. There are some exceptions to this, for example the Father-Daughter Relationships book I've linked in this paragraph only cautions about the woozle effect in general, but doesn't target it at any one issue in particular either on that page or anywhere else in the book (using that term anyway.) On the the other hand, if we remove all the examples, all that's left is basically a WP:DICTDEF and some thin theorizing as to what it relates to. Its use in a few different sub-fields of social science (human trafficking, domestic violence) probably qualifies this for WP:GNG in some way. We do have a somewhat similar article called just-so story, which is based on a fairly similar choice of sources (mostly users of the term). Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There is some (but not alot) of evidence of generalising to human trafficking and cancer - indicating some sort of general uptake of the term and hence notability.....and it doesn't quite fit elsewhere as it has a rather specific connotation in sourcing from one journal to others that cite information from it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I've missed the cancer book, which doesn't quite give any examples of what it considers woozles in its own field, but uses it in an advisory fashion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this law paper by Michael Sarbanes (who seems to be the son of Paul Sarbanes, but that's not really important) seems to give an interesting example (GS snippet): “Indeed, the rule appears to have grown into a "well settled" doctrine by "Woozle" reasoning alone. [...] In the Winnie the Pooh story, Pooh and Piglet, looking for a dreaded Woozle in the snowy woods, walk in a circle and come upon their own tracks.” I don't have (free) access to the full paper though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almost 200 hits on Google books suggest it is not a "non-notable jargon". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Commment WP:GOOGLEHITS style arguments aren't true indicators of notability. Quality matters, no numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.