Talk:Framing (social sciences)

Experimental Demonstration Citation

This section does not link to any data. I would like to see the actual study and methodology and p-sample size. This section just links to a paper that cites a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Framing (communication theory), Framing (psychology), Political frame, Loaded language and Frame analysis into this article

I have already done a haphazard merge to this page, but if consensus is reached for any of these articles to be merged, they can be changed to a redirect to this page. In order to reach consensus please state what you think should happen and your reasons for that. This is not a vote, just a good way of gathering information. Grumpyyoungman01 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support With the exception of rethorical phrase 'Loaded language' I guess its a good idea, all of those stub/start size articles reffer to the same concept. But perhaps framing (social sciences) would be a better title, if we are to include points of view of psychology and political science, too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Sample blah. blah, blah...

Discussion

I can see the merit of merging most of these articles, but I think Loaded language belongs in the category of propoganda rather than framing. Need to see more discussion before I jump into the poll.--Cberlet 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I support the idea, but I am not sure about Loaded language either.1Z 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If a reader wanted to end up at rhetoric or Propaganda they would go to those pages dreckly. But I agree that loaded language does fit into a number of different umbrellas. If there is concensus that loaded language should be merged somewhere, and no placed agreed upon, then turning it into a dab page would be best. Grumpyyoungman01 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Consider merging talk discussions and project headers from merged pages...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

Are you proposing to keep the current title? Shouldn't it just be called "Framing".1Z 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Framing" is currently a disambiguation page. If the dab page were to be moved to Framing (disambiguation), then Framing (construction) and Picture frame would have first dibsies on the clean title. I am not proposing that the title be kept, Framing (social sciences) is a good alternative proposal, but that is the sort of stuff that can really be figured out later. Grumpyyoungman01 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will go with framing (social sciences) per my above proposal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Framing effect into this article

I have no idea what this article is all about, it makes no sense to me, apart from the fact that it is probably identical to "Framing (social sciences)" or Framing (economics). Grumpyyoungman01 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support As nominator. - Grumpyyoungman01 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose example. remember to sign.

Political framing POV

Having read this section, it would seem as though "progressives" don't participate in framing. The word progressive is an example of political framing by those on the American Left. If this section is to have an NPOV, there needs to be a mirrored structure for the two sides:

1. Charging that conservatives think that all people are bad should be removed (it is another example of framing);
2. Examples should either be given for both side or neither (thankfully they usually come in diametric pairs);
3. Demographic info should probably be removed from the conservative side unless there is

(1) a source,

(2) insertion of weasel words, or

(3) admission that liberals tend away from "…white, male, Christian, etc., values"

Please respond by changes or challenges.—Red Baron 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you should delete what you find to be unsourced crap. Be bold. Grumpyyoungman01 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary/viable re: frames

I removed the evidently objectionable line about "contrary and equally viable" frames, then restored the quote, which I see as essential to the comparison there. I agree that it should not be described as "contrary"--good point, User:TedFrank, although I disagree with your claim that the frames presented are not "equally viable." Viability in this context means viability as a frame and does not admit of questions about viability of frame-based policy, right? (I'll cut "viability" if only to resolve this ambiguity.) Cyrusc 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

anti-choice redirect

I have to ask, why does "anti-choice" redirect to "framing"? Shouldn't it redirect to "Pro-life"? I do realize that it is an example of framing, however, shouldn't it redirect towards the intended meaning, rather than wikipedia trying to teach me a morality lesson? 68.222.92.76 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems right to me. There were several other redirects in "What links here" that also appeared mistargeted. The pro-choice/life articles deal with framing and the controversy. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

split

Any clarification on the suggested split? I see this article as needing cleanup rather than splitting, but I could well be missing something. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: merge Framing (economics)

I think there's a very clear case that Framing (economics) is about the same topic, and deserves to be merged into this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done MartinPoulter (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent re-framing of framing article

I have just proposed a kind of re-framing of this article at Talk:Framing effect (psychology). I'll apologise in advance but I've been bold and just done it - changes are very minimal, if I have done this correctly, no material should have been deleted, just re-ordered. Please feel free to revert and discuss furhter per WP:BRD if you think this is a step too far. As a non-sociologist and non-expert please also feel free to set me straight if I've misunderstood the background to those sections...

My comments from Talk:Framing effect (psychology):

Framing (social sciences) considers framing from the point of view of at least four social sciences : politics, sociology and psychology/economics. I see the framing effect discussed by Tversky and Khaneman as a specific concept different to the political and sociological interests in framing. I think that in fact different sections of Framing (social sciences) are dealing with framing from the point of view of different social science disciplines. This is fine but they could therefore be labelled more explicitly.

• Framing (social sciences)#Experimental_demonstration is psychology/economics
• Framing (social sciences)#History seems to be sociology - Erving Goffman seems to be a sociologist
• The politics section is clearly labelled
• Framing (social sciences)#Analysis seems to be sociology - the article says so
• Framing (social sciences)#Effect is psychology/economics again - clearly talking about the framing effect discussed in Framing (social sciences)#Experimental_demonstration

Furthermore I have suggested the following, which I have not done anything about yet...:

I think there could be a case for demerging some of the detail in all sections of Framing (social sciences) into Framing (sociology) Framing (politics) Framing effect(psychology) etc. which would be the main article for each respective section. This would result in a more concise overview article with detail for each discipline in a sub-article. I'm not a framing expert, these are just my initial thoughts so pleased to hear other views.

Finereach (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lakoff

This removed material is referenced to someone who writes prominently on framing, and who in that bit is directly addressing what he sees as an issue of framing. He might be completely wrong, but as part of being neutral, we shouldn't be the ones deciding that he's wrong. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph: the sourcing was dubious (as are some other sources in that section). For scholarly points, we should be using reliable scholarly sources. WikiFlier's edit summary describing Lakoff's scholarly contribution as "ranting" was unhelpful to say the least. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

MartinPoulter doesn't like WikiFlier's description of Lakoff's effluvium as "ranting", but makes a valid point: "we should be using reliable scholarly sources". Just because somebody is a Berkeley prof (like John Yoo or Lakoff) does not mean that his writings represent a significant opinion in the field. Anti-Bush or anti-Obama editorializing by "academics" angling for government jobs is not authoritative. WikiFlier (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But Lakoff does represent a significant opinion in the field, his work is central to critical discourse analysis and has been highly influential on many other notable scholars in that field (many of whom refer regularly to his texts), including Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Michele and Annita Lazar, and pretty much all CDA scholars of at least the last 10 years. These seem like the comments of an individual who is either unable to comprehend the notion of socio-linguistic analysis which has a 'critical' (emancipatory) intent, or holds some sort of personal vendetta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.60.38 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Experimental demonstration is clearly incorrect

Experimental demonstration is clearly incorrect. Programs A and B are NOT identical. A has a guarantee that 200 people will live, B does not have such a guarantee. Can someone knowing the subject replace it with less ridiculous experiment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.59.151.134 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: Semiotic analysis of 2016 Republican primaries

While this section starts off with a reasonably neutral tone, its lack of diverse sources and unsubstantiated statements snowball, until the highly opinionated final paragraph, in which the author's bias is apparent, and the topic of "Framing" is all but lost.

Other than the very beginning and very end of the section, the author only cites one source (Lewis 2009) throughout the section, leaving most of the assertions unsubstantiated. Below are examples of statements that I believe fail to reflect a neutral point of view:

As a particularly powerful organizing principle, the War on Terror created a supportive political climate for what has been called the biggest US foreign policy blunder in modern times: the invasion of Iraq.

While it's likely enough that somebody has called it that, the author does not indicate anyone in particular who holds that view. The view itself does not represent a preference for non-judgemental language, and reflects an opinion rather than a factual assertion.

Presenting himself as God's agent, Bush's Manichean struggle pitted the USA and its leader against the evildoers (Lewis 2009).[43]

The views that President Bush presented himself as God's agent, and characterizing him as a "Manichean," are not widely held. Insofar as facts suggesting otherwise were not provided, this statement should be regarded as a seriously contested assertion presented as fact.

This argument is being played out in the 2016 Republican primaries, especially by Donald Trump. Trump has portrayed the Syrian refugees as foot soldiers for ISIS, coming to America to kill us in our main streets. Trump's rhetoric appears to be working; many middle class Americans are consuming his rhetoric.[citation needed] The Americans that are supporting Trump and the Republicans in general, many of them are working class and the Republican agenda although it appears to be in their favor it is not. Framing their message to say one thing and mean something completely different is what the conservatives have become masters at. The 2016 Republican primary has been a knock down fight since it started in August 2015. Donald Trump has approached this contest as if Vince McMahon were the promoter and the rest of the field are a bunch of jobbers (persons who are paid to lose). Trump was inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Hall of Fame in 2003. Even his attacks on Megan Kelly from FOX News are straight out of the WWE's playbook. Roland Barthes analyzed wrestling and boxing in his book Mythologies.

It is unclear what the relationship is with this final paragraph and the topic of "Framing." The author seems to have shifted purposes by this point in the section, making a number of contestable assertions with no citations to support them:

Trump's portrayal of Syrians:

• Does not accurately reflect statements made by Donald Trump (Or if it does, does not cite them)

Whom the Republican agenda is in favor of:

• Opinion presented as fact.
• Judgmental language

Conservatives are masters of saying one thing and meaning another:

• Opinion presented as fact.
• Overly generalizing
• No citation or example provided

The Republican Primary has been a "knock down fight":

• Contested assertion
• Informal language, meaning unclear

Simile with Vince McMahon:

• Inappropriate use of editorial language with no factual basis

Assertion that the rest of the field are "jobbers":

• Highly contestable opinion used in the context of a simile

Irrelevant statement regarding WWE Hall of Fame

Association between Megan (Megyn) Kelly controversy and "WWE's playbook":

• Editorial opinion not based on facts.
• No citation of specific page or section in WWE playbook.

My assessment is that while this section promises to address a very interesting and pertinent example of "Framing" in the social science context, it offers mostly editorial commentary while losing sight of the topic at hand. In its current form, significant changes would need to be made to achieve a neutral tone and to shift the focus back onto "Framing," rather than a criticism of the recent Republican administrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.68.137.134 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Framing (social sciences). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707192530/http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/07/some_framing_advice.html to http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/07/some_framing_advice.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Consciousness engineering" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Consciousness engineering has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 31 § Consciousness engineering until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback

My first thought was to check out the references, the references appear to be reliable and extensive. However, based on the rating this may not be a great article to rely on for relevant information. Based on the articles talk page, the discussions do seem outdated and some major gaps in adding to the article. The tone does seem neutral and there is organization within the article breaking out sub-categories further linking examples to the overall theory. Overall, I think more history and where the theory derived from could have been explained in great detail at the beginning of the article. LNTAYLOR (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)