Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Boomerang effect (psychology)"
imported>Peabunny m |
imported>KolbertBot m (Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v475)) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{#if:no|<noinclude>[[Category:Failed DYK nominations from December 2013]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
| − | | | + | :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|the article's talk page]] or [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]]), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. '''No further edits should be made to this page'''.'' |
| − | + | ||
| − | | | + | The result was: '''rejected''' by '''[[User:Harrias|<font color="#00cc33">Harrias</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Harrias|<font color="#009900">talk</font>]]</sup> 07:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)<br />}} |
{{DYKC}} | {{DYKC}} | ||
====Boomerang effect (psychology)==== | ====Boomerang effect (psychology)==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Boomerang effect (psychology)|Boomerang effect (psychology)}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Boomerang effect (psychology)|Boomerang effect (psychology)}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that a persuasive message that creates an attitude change in the opposite intended direction is called a '''[[boomerang effect (psychology)|boomerang effect]]'''? | * ... that a persuasive message that creates an attitude change in the opposite intended direction is called a '''[[boomerang effect (psychology)|boomerang effect]]'''? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* | :* | ||
<small>Expanded by [[User:Peabunny|Peabunny]] ([[User talk:Peabunny|talk]]). Self nominated at 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)</small>. | <small>Expanded by [[User:Peabunny|Peabunny]] ([[User talk:Peabunny|talk]]). Self nominated at 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)</small>. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] There seem to be several problems including: | :* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] There seem to be several problems including: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 23: | ||
[[User:Peabunny|Peabunny]] ([[User talk:Peabunny|talk]]) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) | [[User:Peabunny|Peabunny]] ([[User talk:Peabunny|talk]]) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | + | |
| + | *<s>[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] New reviewer needed. The above reviewer is indefinitely blocked. For the record, DYK says this article was at 5X expansion on the date of its nomination. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)</s> | ||
| + | ::Apparently, the reviewer has been unblocked. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] The article still lacks citations for entire paragraphs such as the one starting "''The tactic of reverse psychology...''". More seriously, I am not sure that the article has a solid foundation. The basic idea seems to be to equate the boomerang effect with [[reactance (psychology)]] but that would make it a redundant [[WP:CFORK|content fork]]. But if you look at the history of the article, one finds that it started as a general account of boomerang effects, i.e. when an action backfires and is counterproductive. This is surely the general meaning of the phrase and we even have the concept on Wikipedia - see [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article states that "''Hovland, Janis and Kelly first recorded and named boomerang effect in 1953.''" but this strong claim is supported only by a citation of their own paper and that's not good enough. I find that [[Robert K. Merton]] identified multiple types of boomerang effect in his study of WW2 propaganda in 1949 - see {{citation |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=REN6c5KvZs0C&pg=PT34 |title=Media And Audiences}}. That sociologist seems prominent in the study of such [[unintended consequences]] and it might be best for this article to be folded into that one again. | ||
| + | |||
| + | With such a major structural issue hanging over the article, I don't think we can promote it here. Sorry. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 14:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC){{#if:no|</div></noinclude>|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:Pending DYK nominations]][[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]]|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Did you know nominations/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]][[Category:Pending DYK nominations]]}}}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:42, 2 November 2017
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Harrias talk 07:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boomerang effect (psychology)
- ... that a persuasive message that creates an attitude change in the opposite intended direction is called a boomerang effect?
Expanded by Peabunny (talk). Self nominated at 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
-
- The expansion doesn't seem to be x5. My calculation is 14312 / 3817 = 3.75.
- There are many paragraphs without citations.
- The English seems weak. For example, the word intension in the lead seems to be a misspelling of intention.
- Andrew Davidson (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for the feedback and comments.
- I have corrected the misspelled intension.
- Regarding the calculation, the last 13996 and 2803 are both edited by me. I just realized that the edition I submitted earlier was not right and corrected it yesterday. so the calculation might be instead 14312 / (3817-2803) = 14 ish.
- Regarding the reference. I think there might be some issue with my ref editing. I noticed that user Mandarax has been helping to correct the ref mistakes in wiki editing.
I will keep correcting the wiki syntax. Thank you again for the comment and please let me know if there is more I can do.
Peabunny (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
New reviewer needed. The above reviewer is indefinitely blocked. For the record, DYK says this article was at 5X expansion on the date of its nomination. — Maile (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The article still lacks citations for entire paragraphs such as the one starting "The tactic of reverse psychology...". More seriously, I am not sure that the article has a solid foundation. The basic idea seems to be to equate the boomerang effect with reactance (psychology) but that would make it a redundant content fork. But if you look at the history of the article, one finds that it started as a general account of boomerang effects, i.e. when an action backfires and is counterproductive. This is surely the general meaning of the phrase and we even have the concept on Wikipedia - see WP:BOOMERANG.
The article states that "Hovland, Janis and Kelly first recorded and named boomerang effect in 1953." but this strong claim is supported only by a citation of their own paper and that's not good enough. I find that Robert K. Merton identified multiple types of boomerang effect in his study of WW2 propaganda in 1949 - see Media And Audiences. That sociologist seems prominent in the study of such unintended consequences and it might be best for this article to be folded into that one again.
With such a major structural issue hanging over the article, I don't think we can promote it here. Sorry. Andrew (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)