 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Framing an issue is an effective tactic in rhetoric, but we as Wikipedia contributors should be sensitive to NPOV issues. Rather than framing an issue a certain way ourselves, we should describe how others have framed it.
A recent example is the furor over contraceptive mandates in the US. Republicans framed the issue as one of religious freedom:
- No one should be made to pay for someone else's birth control pills, in effect financing an immoral decision to have sex without consequences
Democrats said that:
- Republicans had framed a women's health issue as a religious freedom issue
Should we call this:
- a hearing on religious freedom ("Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?")
- a hearing on contraception and religion
Which is neutral?
Another aspect in this example is framing the hearing as biased against one side:
- There are 10 witnesses testifying at Thursday's hearing. None of those individuals -- listed as testifying prior to hearing -- is in favor of the Obama administration's birth control rule, and few are women.
The article mentions that the committee had invited Barry Lynn, who they knew favors that rule and that the Democrats wanted Fluke to replace Lynn. I haven't seen anything about why Lynn didn't show up for the hearing.
So which is it?
- Republicans agreed to let one pro-Democratic witness testify, but he didn't show up
- Republicans refused to let anyone testify against their viewpoint
Instead of picking one viewpoint and calling it "the neutral POV", NPOV requires us to describe the conflict. It's a framing conflict. Not only do people disagree on what they want (he voted for Gore, she voted for Bush) - in a clearly stated way; but also people disagree on how to describe the issue.
We should avoid determining which side is right. Rather, describe the issue on two levels:
- Republicans want this, and Democrats want that
- Republicans see it as a Freedom of religion issue, while Democrats see it as a Women's health issue.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Framing an issue is an effective tactic in rhetoric, but we as Wikipedia contributors should be sensitive to NPOV issues. Rather than framing an issue a certain way ourselves, we should describe how others have framed it.
A recent example is the furor over contraceptive mandates in the US. Republicans framed the issue as one of religious freedom:
- No one should be made to pay for someone else's birth control pills, in effect financing an immoral decision to have sex without consequences
Democrats said that:
- Republicans had framed a women's health issue as a religious freedom issue
Should we call this:
- a hearing on religious freedom ("Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?")
- a hearing on contraception and religion
Which is neutral?
Another aspect in this example is framing the hearing as biased against one side:
- There are 10 witnesses testifying at Thursday's hearing. None of those individuals -- listed as testifying prior to hearing -- is in favor of the Obama administration's birth control rule, and few are women.
The article mentions that the committee had invited Barry Lynn, who they knew favors that rule and that the Democrats wanted Fluke to replace Lynn. I haven't seen anything about why Lynn didn't show up for the hearing.
So which is it?
- Republicans agreed to let one pro-Democratic witness testify, but he didn't show up
- Republicans refused to let anyone testify against their viewpoint
Instead of picking one viewpoint and calling it "the neutral POV", NPOV requires us to describe the conflict. It's a framing conflict. Not only do people disagree on what they want (he voted for Gore, she voted for Bush) - in a clearly stated way; but also people disagree on how to describe the issue.
We should avoid determining which side is right. Rather, describe the issue on two levels:
- Republicans want this, and Democrats want that
- Republicans see it as a Freedom of religion issue, while Democrats see it as a Women's health issue.