Talk:Sweater curse

message: The description of it not as a superstition but a real phenomenon seems very odd to me given that the source cited describes it as "one of the most pervasive superstitions of knittingdom". Ziggurat 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ziggurat, that's a good insight.  I merely wanted to call attention to the fact that the Sweater Curse is different in kind from those other superstitions.  Hopefully, we agree that there is no plausible mechanism for a connection between encountering a black cat and "bad luck" (e.g., getting into a car accident the next morning).  But there are several plausible mechanisms that connect knitting with breaking up.  By assumption, the knitter and the beneficiary are close, and so have lots of interactions, some of which might be correlated with breaking up.  By contrast, the cat and the car have no interactions.  Does that seem reasonable?  Hopefully, you won't ask that we carry out a statistical survey of knitters (broken into control and test groups) to measure the temporal correlation(s) between breaking up and the giving of a knitted sweater. ;) WillowW 22:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstition vs. mechanism

message: I came over here after seeing a note on the Paranormal project page objecting to this article being tagged by the project.  After reading the article and the entire talk page, I feel that this article is being too jealously protected no matter how sweetly framed the replies are to suggestions.  The replies are dripping with barely disguised hostility and sarcasm while at the same time reading a great deal that was not said into the suggestions. That kind of behavior is not particularly productive since the the sting of the reply is evident to the person posting the suggestion and has what appears to be the desired effect of sending AWAY from this article.  Making sly comments about how a person "ever" found this article etc. etc. is unwarranted. Trust me, no "Bona Fide" Scholar is gonna come near this article as long as one user shoots down all comers in this manner. 
This IS a superstition/curse and while there may be scientififically collected data attesting to knitters' BELIEF in the curse, there is no cited scientific evidence that such a phenomenon exists.  The psycho-babble about relationships borders on original content and appears to reflect the article's author's opinions and experiences.  To avoid that appearance, cite the appearance of similar theories and observations in published knitting articles.   This article would benefit from skilled editing by wikepidians with experience in writing about curses, alleged phenomena, folk beliefs among hobbyists, etc.  I hope to see that soon and further hope well-intentioned edits are not subjected to reverts.Lisapollison 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to believe that this "curse" could be supernatural in origin. It seems to me that there are numerous completely plausible explanations for it, without resorting to the supernatural. And I am not aware that WillowW has been reverting contributions. I looked at the history and I see no evidence of it. I did look and found a huge number of references to this curse on knitting sites, so it does look like it is a well known belief.--Filll 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "folk beliefs among hobbyists" is an excellent way to characterize this. I have a specific objection: The recommendations for what to knit for "significant others" - you might as well come out and say "men" or "boyfriends" from the way they are characterized - are certainly original content and are not at all WP:NPOV. Bulky yarns vs. finer ones may not be as geopolitically significant as, say, India vs. Pakistan, but it's still a matter of opinion. Wikipedia doesn't make recommendations. FreplySpang 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lisa, I'm terribly sorry to have given you the wrong impression about me.  I have tons of faults, but scornfully mocking people is thankfully not one of them.  I sincerely enjoyed my conversations with everyone here, and I hope that they did, too, and that they think as well of me as I do of them.  In particular, I think Apus and his wife are wonderful people and I've been meaning to ask them more about their sweaters and Denmark; I hear for instance that Aerø is a great place to bicycle (as I like to do) and thought I might visit the island some day when I have more money.  Of course, I do have a POV — I'm keenly conscious of my failings there — but I try hard to be fair and to incorporate others' suggestions, which almost always improve the article.  I hope to learn from you, too, if you'll give me a second chance; I see that we share a love of physics and of gardening.  Please, please forgive my unintended slights; I'm really nice once you get to know me. :) Willow 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hostility to suggestions on this article & general problems with the article

message: Sorry, just a word about the design suggestions that FreplySpang brought up.  They were not original content; rather, they were taken directly (albeit summarized) from the Tara Jon Manning reference which, regrettably, does have a gender-specific title.  Looking at page 5 of that text, you will find the rather POV section title, "The Dreaded Boyfriend Curse", which reviews many of the mechanisms discussed in this WP article.  It seems reasonable for Wikipedia to mention that published authors have offered design advice to avoid the sweater curse, no?  We can drop the specific advice (e.g., bulky vs. fine), certainly, and I'll defer to the consensus decision in any case. Willow 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own personal conjecture is that nonitchy is better than itchy.--Filll 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mentioning that published authors have offered design advice is okay, but it's important to be clear that you're doing so. Also, it might get into an issue of "undue weight" - does Tara Jon Manning's POV represent what many other people are thinking, or is it just her opinion? It seems kind of unlikely that we'd be able to find a solid answer to that. Peer-reviewed ethnographies of the "sweater curse" are probably a bit thin on the ground. So my inclination would be to describe the advice only in general terms. FreplySpang 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Design suggestions

message: It does make me wonder. Do guys who knit sweaters for girlfriends or boyfriends ever get dumped after? What about lesbians who knit sweaters for partners?--Filll 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a WP:RS to say that guy's could correctly identify either a ball of yarn or a knitting needle? I've yet to experience a guy knitting a sweater, ever. - perfectblue 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that's just about the most ignorant and sexist thing I've heard of. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can identify knitting needles, balls and skeins of yarn. I know the difference between yarn and embroidery floss. What if I said "is there any WP:RS to say that girls could correctly identify a steering wheel or windshield wiper? You would call me sexist. Tongue-in-cheek or not, it's still patently sexist. If I were to make a tongue-in-cheek joke about someone of a particular race, it would be racist, even though I'm just joking. Same thing applies. -- Jwinters | Talk 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additional -- flippant comments that are meant to be funny is what took Don Imus down. -- 12.116.162.162 17:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I have to agree that that was silly humor.  Knitting was originally an all-male profession, no?  The beautiful hand-knit vest of Charles II (preserved after his beheading) was knit by a man, if I'm not mistaken.  Many men own yarn shops and can be observed knitting sweaters every day.  Speaking for myself, I've met an amazing male knitter who hand-knit the beautifully intricate sweaters worn by the Norwegian Olympic ski team.  Although guys are usually in the minority among knitters, they're found everywhere (including here at Wikipedia!) and they're often accomplished and insightful. :) Willow 12:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant others

message: Sorry, I mis-remembered the AfD; it was for Sweater design, not Sweater curse.  Anyway, I think this subject is notable and the article is referenced as you see.  To be sure, the article can and should be improved, as Lisapollison has suggested, but I don't think that it's deletion-worthy.  But I'm open to other ideas; please fill us in on your thoughts! Willow 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, this article has proven to be resitant to improvement and change due to the instant reverts of any attempt to bring it into line with encyclopedic standards.  As it stands now and since any changes will be reverted instantly, I would strongly support any move to delete the article.  If however, improvements were allowed and edtors other than Willow were allowed to have their edits left unmolested, I would support keeping.  Past experiences lead me to believe that we will never be successful in making this article reflect more than one editors opinion and therefore, this article shouldn't be here.LiPollis 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the article and see that it is still unencyclopedic.  Whether one editor has time to deal with this or not is immaterial.  Wikiepdia doesn't support sole authorship of articles nor ownership of articles.  DO NOT remove the tag unless you make substantial efforts to improve the article.  I've sat by patiently while one editor has impeded this article's progress through reverts time and time again and I will no longer stand for it.  I will take this to arbitration if I see the same pattern of disruptive edits or edits attempting to prevent any changes to the article.  Articles need to improve.  Any third party looking at this article's history can see what is going on here and it is unwikipedian.  I have restored that tag and the tag should stay unless major changes are made.LiPollis 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Willow, if others were truly free to edit this article, than why have YOU reverted every change?  I had given up hope on this article back when you reverted every change I made and every change others made but I kept it on my watchlist in the hopes that some other editors might be able to do something about your ownership of this topic. Of course editors don't actually own articles but they can effectively shut down any and all edits by others as you have done in the past.  If you are willing to step aside for a week or so and refrain from reverting non-vandalism edits, great!  Yippee.  Maybe this article can make a case for itself.  If not - I'll support a nomination to delete.  The evidence for your reverts is in the article's edit history.  My past experience here has taught me that it is very easy to get bogged down into unhelpful interchanges with you.  If you now say that you will cease reverting new edits and that you will assume good faith on the part of editors making changes to the article, well great!  That's a step forward.  I do hope you mean it because with some editing, this article could come up to standards quickly and will then be in no danger of deletion.LiPollis 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic tag

message: As noted in the  tag itself, the criteria at WP:NOT determine whether an article is "unencyclopedic".  There are ten such criteria, reproduced here for convenience:
* 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
* 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
* 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
* 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
* 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
* 1.6 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
* 1.7 Wikipedia is not a directory
* 1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
* 1.9 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
* 1.10 Wikipedia is not censored
I would like the people who placed the tag on the page to specify which criteria they feel render this article unencyclopedic, so that we may amend the problem(s) and move on.  I'll leave messages with everyone involved in the recent tagging.  I'll be away from home at another college graduation from Friday to Monday, but I'll try to address your concerns as best I can when I return.  Thank you for being patient and for assuming good faith about me, Willow 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.3, 1.4, 1.8 Dreadpiratetif 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In what way is the article unencyclopedic or nonsense?

message: Should it be "Sweater Curse" in text, or "sweater curse"? TimVickers 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: Is this a joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.227.55 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a genuine urban myth, in that the myth/idea does exist. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke 

message: Isn't that picture crocheted? 2600:100A:B122:89BC:9C02:9AD2:7DE6:172B (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. Perhaps we need an article on Crochet curse. EEng 01:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture