Talk:Framing (social sciences)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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...


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)