Talk:Jane Elliott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Copyright
This is copied word for word from [[1]]. Its the first site on Google, after searching for 'Jane Elliot.' Unless the materials not copywrited, it should be rewritten. Kaiser matias 00:07 4 March 2005 (UTC)
I think it is. Says so at the bottom: 'The Enterprise Foundation © Copyright 2000. All Rights reserved.' Which fool copypasted a copyrighted article and submitted it to Wikipedia? --195.92.67.75 00:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It IS copypasted from that website, but with this bit of blatant opinion added in: "Elliott blames her ostracism on the alleged racists of Riceville but fails to acknowledge the role her own personality played. She is well-known to be highly opinionated on most controversial subjects, a trait that didn't endear her to the conservative population of Riceville. Many students also claim that Elliott was guilty of favoritism with certain students."
What kind of job is this? I think this is below the standards of Wikipedia.
CGally81 01:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blatant opinion
I am the one who inserted the "blatant opinion" paragraph. My intention is to provide a counter for the pro-Elliott aspect of the article. What is the acceptable method to do this?
---
The way to do it is to express it as an opinion belonging to someone else, rather than an outright fact.
For example, instead of saying "What Jane fails to realize is that her own personality played a role in....", you should say something like "Jane's personality however, may have played a role (or "is believed to have played a role") in...." or even "Some believe that Jane's personality also played a role in...."
Attributing that belief to a group of people may help as well. If a particular group of people stated that they felt Jane's personality resulted in her persecution, then you can credit that group with saying so.
Understand what I mean?
Wikipedia is about expressing facts (if proven) as facts, opinion as opinion, and things believed to be facts by some but not others, as just that - i.e. state that some believe this, some believe that, etc.
CGally81 02:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wrote new content, removed copyrighted material
I actually know a bit about the subject, so I did the work and wrote the beginnings of a real article. Also removed copyrighted material, of course....it's not supposed to be here.
I didn't see the terribly opinionated paragraph mentioned above, but now the article doesn't even go into the community reaction, so there's nothing for the opinionated paragraph to butt heads with, so to speak. Removed, if it was in there (but I think it had already been nixed.)
(We would need to have some more solid sources for this than just the Brigitta Kral piece, in order to prevent just such back-and-forth controversy: the piece omits half the experimental method, which makes it seem like it's only casually researched.) Alan Canon 03:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New section
I see that someone added a new paragraph about the negative reaction of the town. The "facts" in this paragraph are only claims by Elliott herself. What is an acceptable way to counter-balance this paragraph?
- I think you handled it very appropriately. --CGally81 02:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dead links
The link for the attributed quoted text is now dead. Should the quote be removed? Also, the Smithsonian link goes to their front page. Mick 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exercise or experiment?
This should be clarified. Irrevenant 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Birth?
When was she born?
