Talk:Sweater curse

Experimental data?

Removed this line: Although counter-intuitive, the Sweater Curse is supported by a large body of experimental data.

Let's see some of that experimental data before making assertions like this. 64.178.101.32 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi 64.178.101.32,

Thanks for your message -- it's nice to have visitors to the page. I added an external link to the Knitty magazine article that mentions "scores" of knitters with "sweater-curse" stories. Is that OK, or should I track down more references?

I also restored the emoticon ";)" for which I hope you and Wikipedia's other readers will forgive me. Although such emoticons are not typical of encyclopedia articles, a little knowing humor is well-placed in this article, don't you agree?

Please consider becoming a Wikipedian yourself by creating an account here; it's that link in the upper right of your screen. Thanks again and much success in your own contributions, WillowW 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the 'experimental data' claim (a collection of anecdotal evidence is basically the opposite of experimental data) and the smiley (which is certainly, as you note, inappropriate :) The article needs to be reworded to achieve WP:NPOV, and I made a start on that in the intro. Ziggurat 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ziggurat, and thanks for coming to this page. I understand now about the ASR thing on the Wikipedians crafts pages, and the emoticon here is admittedly not encyclopedic. I'm wondering, though, whether we can cite the anecdotal evidence at all? Also, I think it's "that", not "which" in the first sentence -- perhaps a participle would be better, e.g., "A common superstition among knitters, the Sweater Curse states that..."? What do you think? Anyway, thanks for your help! WillowW 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to cite anecdotal evidence as long as it's not presented as experimental data ;) I wasn't happy with the 'which' either; a participle would be fine by me. Ziggurat 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence as a source of belief, or as evidence of a belief's existence, is OK, so long as it is not portrayed as scientific. - perfectblue 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Superstition vs. mechanism

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)

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)

Counterexamples

12 years ago my girlfriend knitted a sweater for me, and after we had married she knitted two more, and we are still happily married. How many of this kind of anecdotes are needed to disprove "the sweater curse"?

I think the "Suggested mechanisms of the curse" section should be deleted, unless the content could be made traced to serious publications. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Apus 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Apus, I'm so glad to hear that your girlfriend/wife is keeping you warm and happy! :) As the article says, the Sweater Curse is pathological, not normal; your world is as it should be, no? If you write again, please describe them for me; I drink in sweaters just as a cat laps milk.

I have long intended to reference that section fully, which is not original research. Would you be so kind as to indulge me with a little time? I'm trying to bring another article up to Featured Article status. Thanks for your patience! Willow 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. How did you find such an obscure article as this one, which seems to lie so far from your other interests? I'm always surprised when anyone finds it — perhaps your knitting wife chanced upon it?

Apus, this is an urban myth and anecdotes against a myth count for little as they are not a source that has any real impact on the myth. - perfectblue 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as finding the article, how about this:

Dick Cheney
Acting President of the United States
Reagan assassination attempt
Curse of Tippecanoe
Curse of the ninth
Star Trek movie curse
Sweater curse

--Jwinters | Talk 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Hi, Apus, I've added a few references and will continue to do so over time. How do you like them so far — are they OK?

I have a premonition that, some day, this article will be a Featured article on the Main Page, despite its humble beginnings. ;) Willow 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the references have added great value to the article, especially the mention that (only) 15% of active knitters have personally experienced the sweater curse :-)

It could be interesting to know where in the world the belief in the curse exists. My active knitting Danish wife had never heard about it. Apus 10:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cry

This article makes me cry.--Filll 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't; if the knitters don't pity themselves, why should you? Such sweaters are usually made with the best intentions, and reflect some of the best parts of human nature; the knitters can be justly proud of themselves. There's nothing to mourn or be ashamed of, except perhaps the loss of some really nice yarn. ;)

I do sense that there's something deep to be learned here, but it's shadowy and eludes me. It seems like a complex of phenomena, which would need to be teased apart carefully, just like a strand of yarn. Perhaps someday a bona fide scholar will consider it worthy of their study and clarify it for us all, to everyone's happiness. :) Willow 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the recipient I feel most sorry for. The knitter will go back to the knitting, and will thus get over it. Perhaps the recipient should take up knitting as well. --Publunch (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hostility to suggestions on this article & general problems with the article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Design suggestions

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)

My own personal conjecture is that nonitchy is better than itchy.--Filll 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Alternate explanations

This isn't paranormal at all. It's just sod's law. Totnesmartin 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be sod's law. It could be that men feel cornered and get panicky when confronted with a sweater (sort of fear of commitment issues). It could be loss of interest (sweaters might make things seem sort of dull or maybe the thrill of the chase is gone?). It could be he feels insulted by sweaters (too itchy? weird pattern? too maternal? looks funny?). It could be embarassment (she likes me more than I like her, I better get out of here). It could be overconfidence (wow if I can get this hot babe to like me enough to make me a sweater, what other hot babes can I land?). I could probably come up with more hypotheses if you wanted.--Filll 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are all valid points, and underline my point that there's nowt paranormal here. having the tag here makes the paranormal project look silly, as if we'll call any old strange thing paranormal. What next, the Hello magazine curse? Totnesmartin 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree here. In no way is this paranormal. Was it someone from the project that placed the tag? David D. (Talk) 09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag was placed here initially by Badbilltucker, who graciously allowed it to be removed. Lisa restored it as you see, feeling that it hadn't been discussed sufficiently. Although her name isn't on the list of participants, Lisa is definitely a contributor to the Paranormal project.

In Lisa's defence, I don't think she was claiming that the Sweater curse is caused by supernatural forces. Rather, I think she was objecting to it being granted validity as a real phenomenon, without scientifically collected evidence, rather than as an unsubstantiated superstition like the ghost of "Bloody Mary". As I understand it, she was asking for a reliable source stating that significant others are indeed more likely to break up with you if you knit them a sweater than if you — hmm, what's the right control/null hypothesis? — do nothing special, perhaps? Give them Super Bowl tickets or a Wii or some other big gift?

I would reply that the "Sweater curse" does have plausible real-world mechanisms — as you've listed, thanks, guys! :) — which makes it different in kind from "Bloody Mary" and similar superstitions that must invoke supernatural effects. Also, there does seem to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence; if indeed 15% of all active knitters have personally experienced it, that could be over a million people. Perhaps a solution could be a re-wording that clarifies all this with a light touch, in a lively, well-written way?

If you all can be patient, I'm committed to keeping the tag here until Lisa has a chance to reply herself; I might've misinterpreted her and we are striving to edit by consensus. I'm sure that the article will be better for her input and insights! :) Willow 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is more similar to Murphy's law and I don't think anyone would consider that paranormal. In fact, it may well count as a variant of Murphy's law? David D. (Talk) 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Murphy's Law is a superstition. As I mentioned above, The Sweater Curse could be described as a Superstition or if you want to get heavily academic about it, a Folk Belief. There are similar superstitions amongst authors about dedicating a book to a current lover and tattoo artists about having a lover's name tattoed on your body. All are superstitions and therefore fall under the Wiki Paranormal Project. All we do is try and keep an eye on these articles and make sure that they don't succumb to vandalism. Nobody is trying to weight to article one way or another. That would violate Wiki NPOV. In fact, many of us in the project are skeptics or rational skeptics. I consider myself the latter. it's my background as an Anthropologist and Folklorist that brought me to the project. See my talk Page for more aboout my interests. My User name is LisaPollison, not Lisa.Lisapollison 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another apology for having abbreviated your username inappropriately; I do seem to have a gift for getting off on the wrong foot! :(

Luckily, the article has not attracted much vandalism hitherto, but has steadily improved thanks to the complementary insights of the various editors who have visited it. In my opinion, it might be helpful to discuss our apparently differing definitions of "superstition", before reaching an apodictic conclusion about whether the Sweater curse is one. There are surely concrete criteria by which we can decide the question, no? Please see the discussion above as well. Willow 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This could actually come under unintended consequences as well. Totnesmartin 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Significant others

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Definition of superstition and classification of Sweater Curse

As a Folklorist and Anthropologist, I believe that the Sweater Curse falls loosely into what Anthropologists sometimes refer to as Folk Beliefs rather than curses, along the line of Murphy's Law which has been mentioned. Folk Beliefs often derive from real world experiences that are abstracted and then generalized into a superstition. This does not make them less of a superstition any more than a legend based in fact is less of a legend. It can be good to enumerate the potential real world origins of a superstition so long as those origins are sourced and referenced. Without citation, they are original research.

On a different topic, Folk beliefs are sometimes called curses and unfortunately, some people see the word curse and assume the supernatural is involved. We at Wikiproject Paranormal watch over a huge variety of topics but just because we tag an article under our project does not mean we believe in the phenomenon or any of the "rules" described in the cuse. I'm currently working on an article about something called the Curse of the 7 Knots (among many other names) but I don't believe in it. Be that as it may, some people do and it has rules and is sufficeintly interesting to merit an article. The bottom line is that beliefs such as The Sweater Curse and Murphy's Law have a connection in the general area of superstitions. The Sweater Curse, which I have also heard referred to as the Knitter's Curse, is similar to the belief among authors I know that if you dedicate a book to a current lover, they will break up with you. It is also similar to the belief amongst tattoo artists that getting one's lover's name tattooed on your body will lead to a break-up. This article might benefit from a discussion of those types of comparisons. Further, this page is for discussion of this article and its content, not for making personal friendships, commenting on the weather in Denmark or any other topic. Please let's try and remember that when choosing to make a comment here. Lisapollison 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that Wikipedia is not a chatroom and have no wish to make it so. I was caught off-balance by other personal remarks, and replied more cordially than thoughtfully, which was perhaps inappropriate. I apologize and I'll try to keep the discussion professional and on-topic, to improve the article.

The pivotal discrepancy between our two viewpoints appears to be the definition of the word "superstition". To my understanding, a superstition must invoke supernatural forces, which — probably you'll agree — no one believes are operational here. The books, etc. cited in the article seem to treat it as a potential real-world problem with a real-world solution. It would be inaccurate — or at least unnuanced — to depict knitters as supernaturally credulous, and to say that the Sweater Curse is a superstition no different from chanting "Bloody Mary" three times while facing a mirror.

The name itself, Sweater curse, may be exerting an unconscious influence on how the problem is perceived. For illustration, suppose that it had been named instead the Sweater Pitfall and defined as "a mistake sometimes made by knitters of giving an overly magnanimous hand-knitted gift at an inappropriate stage of the relationship". Seen in this light, it would be little different from any other knitted-sweater mistake (say, putting too much ease into the bodice, as some students like to do). Would the "Sweater Pitfall" fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal? My guess is "no", although others may feel differently.

It is my experience, and I think that the sources cited in the article back me up, that the Sweater Pitfall (as defined here) is closer to how the problem is truly perceived by knitters; the name "Sweater curse" is used for brevity, humor and — delicacy in conversation, because it's painful to admit that so much time, energy and yarn were wasted because of one's own failings as a designer/knitter and personal delusions.

However, I would be interested in hearing your definition of "superstition", and your argument for classifying the Sweater curse as one. I'm sure that we can reach some satisfactory compromise that honors all viewpoints. Willow 12:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do agree that the tattoo and book-dedication examples would complement the article nicely; perhaps you would be willing to add a comparative section yourself?

If the name that you chose for the article is what is causing you to have all these conflicts, then perhaps you might want to change the name to one of the other alternate terms for this Folk Belief or Superstition. I have seen the Sweater Curse referred to as "The Sweater Effect" (which may imply an unproven scienticif basis for it) as well as the term "The Knitters Curse. I actually like "The Sweater Effect" quite well since it fits with the article's creator's firm position that there may be underyling psycholgical causes for the "effect." However, if you rename it as such, be prepared to come under the extreme scrutiny of skeptical activism which I assure you can be far more intrusive than the attention this article has received thus far. It might aslo get the article tagged as Psuedoscience, something I do not believe it to be but see that it could be interpretted as such. People have innapropriately strong reactions to the categorizations of behavior and beliefs believing that the majority rule should apply when in fact, if a significant minority believe in something, it is in fact a belief or behavior worth description, categorization and study. I personally feel "The Sweater Effect" would be a fine title since it emphasizes the nature of the belief - a sweater is given, an effect is allegedly observed - sort of like the Three On A Match effect which is alleged to have become superstition because soldiers in trenches in WWI noticed that if you lit more than 2 cigarettes on one match, an enemy sniper could sight you in and shoot at you. Is that a 'Curse", a "Superstition or an "Effect"? It could be one or all three depending on who describes it. Think about "Sweater Effect" for a few daysWillow if you might and let me know if you find it a good compromise. I know that Wikipedians usually go with what has the most Google hits, but sometimes that's not always best for clarity. You can always add in the opening line "Also known as "The Sweater Curse" and "The Knitter's Curse."Lisapollison 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that the "Sweater Effect" would be a good title. The problem is that it evokes certain images in a heterosexual male mind (and possibly some lesbian minds) that are not consistent with the article. Remember the "sweater girls"? And that well known ditty "We must we must we must...we must improve our bust...The bigger the better, the tighter the sweater", which was supposedly sung by women doing bust exercises (I think in a movie). --Filll 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I only suggested it because the use of the word "curse" is sending people off the deep end. Since Willow is the primary author of this article and the editor with the most interest in it, Willow's opinion is likely to carry the most weight with regard to the usefulness of any potential name change. I only suggested it because it would serve to end the personal debate over what the word curse or superstition means to various individual wikipedians that appears to be serving as an obstacle to further development of this article.Lisapollison 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Principles and definitions

It's probably wise and courteous to avoid speculating on each other's feelings, particularly in edit summaries. Let's focus on the article, shall we? I feel certain that we can resolve our differences if we stick to accepted sources and are conscientious in our reasoning.

I went to the library and looked up "superstition" in the Oxford English Dictionary (page 3163 of the 1987 two-volume edition). It has four accepted meanings, quaintly phrased:

1. "Unreasoning awe or fear of something unknown, mysterious, or imaginary, esp. in connexion with religion; religious belief or practice founded upon fear or ignorance."

2. "An irrational religious system; a false, pagan, or idolatrous religion." (Now rare or obsolete)

3. "Over-nicety; exactness too scrupulous." (obsolete, rare)

4. "Irrational or unfounded belief in general; an unreasonable or groundless notion."

Of these, only the fourth definition seems possible for the Sweater curse, right? However, I would argue — and will provide citations in the article — that knitters and recipients do not believe that paranormal forces are at work. If anyone feels otherwise, they are welcome to offer counter-citations; the burden of proof would seem to fall on them, since it seems less likely that 21st century knitters would believe in paranormal forces than not. Do we agree so far?

If this argument is accepted, the fourth definition, which requires "irrationality" or "unfounded belief", does not seem to pertain, either, since no paranormal belief is present. One might object that the S.c. involves an "unfounded" belief that there is a temporal correlation between giving a sweater and breaking up. However, we all have conceded that there is ample anecdotal evidence and several plausible real-world mechanisms for such a correlation; therefore, such a belief in the correlation cannot be called "unfounded", although it may be "unproven". (The wording of the article should perhaps be improved to clarify this point.) This line of reasoning suggests that the S.c. is not a superstition in the paranormal sense unlike, say, the "Bloody Mary" ceremony cited above; this in turn suggests the tag should be removed.

Well-reasoned and well-cited counterarguments to this reasoning should be given our common respect and considered seriously by all editors. I have laid out my arguments clearly, I hope, and I ask that the rebuttal be similarly precise and clear in its postulates, so that we can identify our points of disagreement quickly and resolve them. All editors are warmly encouraged to weigh in on the question. Serenely, Willow 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The public has all kinds of unfounded and unreasonable beliefs. Some turn out to be true, when examined carefully some do not. For example:

• people think they are safer driving in their cars than flying. This of course is not true.
• people think that lightning will not strike in the same spot twice. This is definitely not true.
• people at least in some cultures, want to believe that men and women are identical, although obviously they are not, including brain structure
• some people claim that homosexuality is a choice, and others believe it is innate. There is not much solid evidence yet in any particular direction, and the evidence we have is contradictory.
• a large fraction of the public believes in ghosts and UFOs, but we have no evidence that they exist.

Is the sweater curse real? We would have to examine the data carefully to decide. We have anecdotal evidence, which is basically not particularly reliable, and we have some potential causes. Is it supernatural? I doubt it. I think this article does not belong in the supernatural project myself. It is more like an "old wives tale" which might have a nugget of truth in it, or it might not. We might just be seeing another example of confirmation bias.--Filll 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It should not matter whether the curse is real - it is notable by virtue of the fact that a goodly number of knitters either believe it or refer to it in the context of the documentation of their hobby/craft/art. The primary author of this article has provided enough outside sources to prove that the Sweater Curse is a term familiar to most knitters. Unfortunately, the article has become bogged down in trying to prove that it isn't a curse by speculating on the potential social causes of breakups between a couple where one of the members is a knitter. The article could be improved by letting some other editors clean up the introduction and not having those edits immediately reverted by the original author. Articles tend not to progress well when one editor camps out over it. I will attempt to get some input from folklorists on how this article can be improved. I feel that a more general statement to introduce the article would be helpful, along the lines of

"The sweater curse is a term used withing the knitting community to describe ......Etc, Etc."

In the meantime, interested editors might want to look at other superstitions and curses to get a feel for how such beliefs fit into people's lives and how the truth of them is really immaterial. I posted elsewhere that a former college roommate of mine believed fervently in the sweater curse as being the cause of my decision to pick a new roommate after years of living together. She happened to gift me a handmade, complicated patterned sweater the day we had to disclose our housing requests. Whether she really believed in it as fervently as she claimed or whether she used it as a way to deny that her suicidal tendancies and mental instability were at fault, I'll never know. I mention this to illustrate that the realness of the curse is often immaterial to the people who discuss it and pass it on to other knitters much the same way as the realness of the Three on a Match curse doesn't matter to people lighting cigarettes. When the third person seeks a light from that match and someone brings it up, the belief/curse is transmitted whether the third person lights up or not.

As for whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal should have an interest in this article, we've been through this before. The project's name seems to trip people up. Please look at our project page to get an idea for what we cover. Old Wive's tales, if notable enough to be on Wikipedia can fall under our project if meets the definition of a superstition. Our goal is more to keep articles NPOV vis a vis Skepticism versus True Believers than to insert material that would tip the scales towards the paranormal We cover a wide variety of topics and the rule of thumb is if it is something that can't be proven by current scientific means but is held to be true, we'll look at it. Obviously there is crossover with topics in religion, folklore etc., etc. For example, we don't cover the existence of God but we do cover things like weeping statues. We've tried very hard to rework articles on some of the more out-there topics that were heavily weighted towards the True Believer side of things and we've had good results. I don't want to take up any further space here on the project. The original author of this article began a discussion about whether the project should cover this article[[1]]. Feel free to follow the link and continue that discussion if you wish.Lisapollison 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tag

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)

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)

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)

I admit wholeheartedly that I made a mistake by removing the tag; in my memory, I conflated the above discussion with the AfD for sweater design and thought that we had already handled those issues for this article.

I would like to begin by saying that I feel that I am being characterized unfairly. As Filll notes above, there is no evidence for my OWNing this article and reverting people's edits to it. As may be seen above and in the article history, I have tried hard to accommodate people's suggestions and critiques, while remaining true to the references and my own understanding of the subject. As one may see from my correspondence with the Paranormal WikiProject, I have likewise tried to be civil and assume good faith. More generally, I've tried to be a good Wikipedian and I don't believe that I have ever given anyone a reason to not assume good faith about me or to take me to arbitration. For the record, I am not writing from direct personal experience of the Sweater Curse.

Anyone is free to edit this article, although I do ask two things that are asked of every Wikipedian:

• The contributions should be referenced.

• The contributions should be consistent with dictionary definitions.

Thus, if one says that knitters believe superstitiously in the Sweater Curse, one should be able to reference that, consistent with a specified dictionary definition of "superstition". Personally, I believe that this point should be handled in a nuanced way, but I'm sure that we can reach some consensus. Willow 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dear Lisapollison,

I'm really sorry that you have such a slight opinion of me and, as a sign of good will and in the hope of earning your respect and friendship, I'll be glad to withdraw from editing this article until September. I'll confess to being chatty and overly friendly; but I hope you'll acquit me of OWNing the article and reverting everyone's edits. Please consider Filll's assessment above

“ I am not aware that WillowW has been reverting contributions. I looked at the history and I see no evidence of it. ” — Filll, 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

and the possibility that you may be mistaken about me. I'm very sad that we haven't been able to become more friendly, and that you see me as an obstacle to the article's improvement.

My only wish has been to impress on everyone the possibility that knitters may speak of a "sweater curse" without being superstitious or believing that paranormal forces are at work. I know from personal experience as a knitting teacher that this is so. Of course, my experience cannot be admitted to WP, but I ask that you be considerate and respectful of knitters as a community, and temperate and nuanced in your pronouncements about their "superstitions". Wishing the very best for the article and Wikipedia as a whole, Willow 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is the article unencyclopedic or nonsense?

As noted in the {{Unencyclopedic}} 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)

1.3, 1.4, 1.8 Dreadpiratetif 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? If you can identify the original thought or soapbox position that is being espoused here, we can eliminate it. Perhaps it's the reverse curse thing? I haven't found a published source for that yet. :( Willow 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it sounds rather like a joke or something made-up, but I'll take your word for it that it's not. The point I was thinking of is 1.3, or no original research. >Radiant< 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to article

Have the changes I have made removed the concern that this article is non-encyclopedic? TimVickers 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have done a lot to improve this article and remove the chatty, message-board feel that it had before. I would like to see some discussion of superstition, superstitions among special interest groups or professions and how the sweater curse compares to them. It would also help the article a great deal if a discussion of the primary methods of transmission of this superstition and/or folk belief were included. Ideally, some coverage of the possible origins of the superstition and/or folk belief and it's history would be nice. And, comparison to similar beliefs would be enhance the article greatly. It would be good to have in the See Also section, links to other similar beliefs not mentioned in the text but similar enough to lead an interested reader to a larger discussion of such beliefs. I thank you for your extremely helpful edits.LiPollis 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find any literature dealing with those areas you mention. However, I have further edited the lead and added some additional sources. TimVickers 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits continue to be remarkably helpful. I have written about the subject myself but cannot cite myself due to OR issues. I have submitted the article for publication and perhaps when it appears (not anytime soon, the journal only publishes twice a year), I can forward the link to interested editors who can cite it if they so wish. I compared the Sweater Curse to superstitions and/or folk beliefs among traditional artisans such as stone masons, potters, and seamstresses. I also compared it with folk beliefs of cheesemakers and pastry chefs. Perhaps in time, we may be able to add such comparisons.

You can cite yourself if the material is published because then you are the expert. Original research refers only to non-published material. See WP:OR - "Citing onseself." Awadewit ^Talk 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about the strong resistance to referring to the sweater curse as a superstition or folk belief. In my collections of versions of it, I have encountered no such resistance. In fact, most knitters who give me a version describe it as a superstition. I know the primary editor of the article has extremely strong feelings about this and about the involvement of the Paranormal Project but nobody is suggesting that ghosts or goblins are involved. The very name by which the belief is transmitted indicates that it is a superstition. I do not dispute that there may be some real world reasons that account for the mechanism of the curse as it is transmitted. However, curses are called curses by those who transmit them verbally for a reason. I once suggested a name change to Sweater Effect to try and deal with resistance to the idea that this belief might be a superstition. It is a name sometimes given to me in my collecting. Sadly, I have not seen it labelled as such in any other folkloric publications.

What is the sweater curse most often referred to inside knitting culture? That is what the page should be named, in my opinion. Whether the name is the most precise signification is immaterial. We want people to find the page. A discussion of the name's connotations can then take place in the article. Awadewit ^Talk 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, can we get rid of the unweidly sentence that begins with "although counter-intuitive" by rephrasing? It's awkward and artifical. It's one of the things that just sticks out.LiPollis 01:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with a simpler factual statement on how commonly this is mentioned in knitting publications. Perhaps urban legend would be a better classification? As some musings of my own, I think game theory might contribute a great deal to any future analysis of these social interactions, as the gift of a sweater is a costly and hard-to-fake signal of commitment, this could force an immediate mate-choice decision based on high-quality information of the giver's intention. TimVickers 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Game-Theory, well that's an original observation! It would cool if we could find a parellel situation that would permit us to bring that in!LiPollis 02:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm also working on re-writing the Evolution page at the moment, so this subject is close to mind. Unfortunately, it would be original research for us to discuss it in the article, the most I think I can do is add links to give definitions of some of the terms used in the "Catalyst for analyzing the relationship" listing. I was only mentioning it in case you wanted to add this to any future writing you did on the subject. "Mate choice and the evolutionary biology of the sweater curse." would be a great article title! TimVickers 03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do people feel this article has improved enough for us to remove the non-encyclopedic tag? TimVickers 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but making amazing progress. I would guess that within a few days or a week, it will have overcome the issues that rendered it unencyclopedic. I thank you for your efforts and for your ability to look at your own edits critically. You've been making such amazing progress that I have refrained from making any edits myself for two reasons - one of which is I don't want an old conlfict to be resurrected and the other, I feel that your progress speaks for itself. You are lining up issues and knockin' 'em down all by yourself - you don't seem need my help! I've responded here on the talk page but really, I'm in awe of you and the systematic way you have sought to improve the text.LiPollis 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Review

Willow has asked me to look over this page as an outside, more objective reader. I do have some concerns:

• The "Existence" section seems to me to fall under "original research" because it synthesizes information that has not been synthesized before. This is the trickiest part of the "no original research" clause in wikipedia. Glancing at the available sources leads me to believe that the sources do not all address the knitting curse specifically. WP:OR
• I would have expected the page to take a tone similar to the Macbeth page regarding the "The Scottish play" bit or break a leg. That is, I would have expected the page to approach the curse as a folk belief (in this I agree with some of the posters above, I think). So, for example, the "mechanisms" should be, in my opinion, "perceived mechanisms" and the "avoidance" section to me, anyway, should be talked about in terms of knitting culture's advice to its adherents. The whole article needs to be put inside a larger frame. Would research on urban legends or folk culture help situate this a bit?
• I wonder also about variants of the curse. Most urban legends and folk beliefs have variations. I consulted a friend of mine who knits when I read this article and she said that she had heard a warning specifically against knitting socks, rather than sweaters, for one's boyfriend because "he'll use them to walk away from you," revealing perhaps something about the culture that invented the myth. Again, that is why I would urge a deeper analysis of the curse. Anthrolopolists study folk beliefs for what they reveal about a subculture. You might also do some research on subcultures and how they build up mythical structures within themselves. This would enhance the context of the article. Awadewit ^Talk 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fault may be mine here:

For - "No controlled studies have investigated this phenomenon, and the available evidence is largely anecdotal, which is generally of low reliability due to cognitive bias." the reference discusses cognitive bias in general, I'm not sure if making a comment on the relative reliability of sources is OR or not, that's a tough call. For the other section - "knitters may remember breakups more clearly after giving a hand-knit sweater, which represents a significant investment of money (typically over $100), effort (~100,000 stitches), time (as much as a year)[10] and romantic imagination.[4]" I haven't got the references in ref 4 to see if they only give the fact that knitting involves romantic imagination, or if they state that this investment may lead to knitters remembering breakups more clearly. If the first is true, this is OR, but if it is the second, this is not. TimVickers 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might be a problem to say that anecdotal research is of low reliability due to cognitive bias. What if knitters are for some reason exempt from this? What does the data on cognitive bias say? That all anecdotal ever is unreliable? Somehow I doubt that. I personally doubt that knitters are exempt from this problem, but I'm just trying to point out why this might be considered original research. Perhaps whoever added those other references could recheck them? (By the way, it seems to me that the tag on this article should be "original research" not "unencyclopedic.") Awadewit ^Talk 06:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit , I agree with your observations. In the history of this article, there has been great resistance to calling The Sweater Curse an example of superstition and the various edits over time seem to have enforced this view. I agree that it should be treated in the same manner as the superstition about invoking the name of the play Macbeth because that is a parallel example. Here we have Knitters with a superstition against knitting a sweater too soon and there you have actors and theater personnel who refuse to utter the name of an allegedly cursed play. I once compared the sweater curse to a soldiers belief in Three on a Match but sadly, that article isn't up to standard. I would suggest that you make some of the small changes you outlined. My other continuing issue is in the OR sounding sentences. For example, there is a line that states that:

"knitters have been advised to match the knitted gift to the stage in the relationship, beginning with scarves, socks, mittens or hats before graduating to sweaters."

Although this is cited by source, it is a little bit too authoritative. That one writer gave the advice. The article makes it seem as if knitting instructors everywhere hand out this advice. That's an easy one to fix by just inserting the author's name and saying "Author X, writing in XYZ publication, advises kintters...etc etc." However, there still remains this over-synthesized feel to the article. I have refrained from making any edits myself for reasons best left undescribed. I encourage others, however, to do what they feel is needed to bring this inline with other articles on similar superstitions. Tremendous progress has been made.10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)LiPollis 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the disproportionate contributions to the talk page rather than the article? It sounds as if you have solutions to improve the article to a level for it to remain in wikipedia. Why not just edit the article instead of trying to guide the processs from the talk page? David D. (Talk) 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, be BOLD! :) TimVickers 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers and (Talk), past contributions from me were instantly reverted by one user. That is why I have preferred to let others do the actual editing. I stayed away from this page for months hoping that it would continue to improve. If neither of you two object, I'd like to see the word superstition added back into the article appropriately and this article be added to the list of articles on supersititions. One User objected vehemently in the past but I feel the content now speaks for itslef that this is indeed a supersitition. I will not do it myself until such time as you two have had a chance to respond.LiPollis 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lisapollison,

I know that you believe that I've reverted you, but please consider that others here do not see that. If you review the edit history with an open mind, you might see that my edits here have been innocent. Our views differ, to be sure, but I can truly say that I hold no malice against you and never have; and I hope that we can become friends, or at least work well together to make a good compromise version. I'm very sorry if I ever ran roughshod over your feelings.

In May and in good faith, I promised to withdraw from editing for four months, to allow you the opportunity to edit the article as you wish. You seem to have been busy with other projects, though, so I'll extend it to eight months. You have my word that, after today, I won't touch the article or its Talk page before 14 January 2008. I hope that will convince you of my sincerity to allow your perspective to be heard.

I hold out hope for a compromise. For me, and for the cited references, the Sweater Curse is, at its most basic level, a term that describes a concrete situation: someone knits a sweater for someone they like, who then rejects them and (sometimes) the sweater. Thus, a knitter can roll their eyes and note wryly, "I was struck by the Sweater Curse last Thursday." without ever believing that supernatural forces were at work; it's merely a descriptive term. Moreover, as referenced, there are mundane explanations for why a Sweater-Curse situation might occur — surely you agree? You yourself experienced it, as you described at the Paranormal WikiProject: your roommate knit you a sweater under a mistaken impression of your friendship, which you then corrected. Simple and straightforward, no magical curses were involved, right?

I'm sure that some knitters believe that the Sweater Curse can result from (malevolent) supernatural forces, and, for them, the Sweater Curse is a superstition. Perhaps your old roommate was one such knitter. But to claim that all knitters do so is incorrect, and contradicts the references that provide the mundane explanations, right? So please let's work to find a nuanced, compromise version that conveys both of those conceptions of the Sweater Curse. See you in a few months, Willow 12:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

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

Joke

Is this a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.227.55 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a genuine urban myth, in that the myth/idea does exist. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the best and most interesting article on all of Wikipedia. Congratulations to all who contributed, even to the talk pages.Lynxx2 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't that picture crocheted? 2600:100A:B122:89BC:9C02:9AD2:7DE6:172B (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Perhaps we need an article on Crochet curse. EEng 01:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)