| ▲ | advisedwang 4 hours ago | |
Take the example of circumcision. You could probably write a mere definition of circumcision neutrally, sure. But do you include cultural practices of circumcision? Do you include criticism? If so, how many column inches do you dedicate to either? Which comes first? That surely is going to determine whether the article appears to support or oppose, which is basically the issue in the comment above. But beyond that, do you group female circumcision in the same article as male circumcision? If not, you are tacitly approving of male circumcision by separating it from disapproved of practice. If so, surely you need to explain the difference in social and legal acceptability. If you do that without noting controversy, then you are implying the social acceptance of male circumcision is universal. If you note controversy, then you are necessarily elevating that to noteworthyness. There's no way out of it. | ||
| ▲ | 12ian34 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
well said, reminds me of the Kuleshov Effect[0] | ||