Talk:Jane Elliott

message: Having experienced Jane Elliott and the exercise myself, I have followed her pretty closely. The biggest problem with the various documented accounts is that nobody questions the facts as reported by Elliott herself. Here are a few examples in the current article:
* Student academic performance increased markedly when the student was in the "superior" group (confirmation bias could play a role here)
* Elliott carried out the exercise with her students every year until 1984 (which is patently untrue)
* Elliott never involved the parents in the exercise (also untrue)
* Negative reaction to the first experiment happened in the teacher's lounge on the same day and she was shunned by other teachers
* Negative reactions from teachers, children and townspeople were the result of the exercise and the resulting publicity
* "How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children."
* Boycott of her father's store (although he did not own such a store)
I grant that many of these statements have associated references, but the references are all articles quoting Elliott. There is NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE for any of her claims and the article doesn't make clear that she is the source for all of these claims. I have added some qualifying language in the "Controversy surrounding the exercise" section, but one can only use the phrase "According to" so many times before it is ridiculous.
Mick (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. What you suggest looks ok to me, seeing as the sources aren't really all that reliable, but your proof against its reliability can be thought of as original research. So either do what you planned, or stick an  template on the article. It's up to you. If someone doesn't think what you've done is a good idea, they'll revert it, or ask you about it, and you can explain your rationale. As long as it's good faith.  Brambleclawx 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

text: "After giving this thought, I'm considering deleting ..." -- don't delete sourced facts added by other editors. "Are those really necessary to the article?" -- yes; it's a biography. -- Jibal (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm re-opening this topic in case you're following. The NPOV template is still displayed and it doesn't seem like this discussion resulted in any changes. Also not sure whether policies dictate in-line templates (which exist) in addition to the page-top one, or not. Please provide input. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find no evidence of NPOV, so I've removed that template. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Your expectations and desires are not relevant. This page is not a blog or a forum to share opinions about the subject or her work. -- Jibal (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: This is copied word for word from []. 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)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrote new content, removed copyrighted material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: This should be clarified.
Irrevenant 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exercise or experiment? 

message: their is no reason of being bitter after all that was just an experiment she did a wonderful job
... 
While I don't deny that whites are also on the recieving end of racism, I think the poster who saw Indecently Exposed didn't quite get the point.
Elliott was purposefully taking on the persona of a "racist fuckwit" as you chose to title it to highlight how certain behaviours from one person or group can bring out negative behaviours in another group, and reinforce false perceptions of laziness, stupidity, etc. (This is also done in the Ble Eye/Brown Eye experiment.) 220.244.212.62 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a blog. These comments do not belong here. -- Jibal (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Oh My... 

message: I didn't see any verification of the story that this experiment was tried on Oprah via the first page of Google results for "Oprah eye color". Does someone have a reference for this?
Here is a link from Oprah.com that discusses that particular episode in detail: http://www.oprah.com/tows/vintage/past/vintage_past_20010720_b.jhtml Duboisist (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oprah 

message: This section should be removed because it doesn't represent a controversy.  There is no evidence offered that the exercise in question violates the ethical standards of any recognized organization that does human research studies.
Moreover, this section seem to represent the opinion of just two people who no evidence has been offered that either have any particular expertise in the ethics of human research.
Furthermore this makes makes the entire article self-contradictory because the exact same thing can be said about the Stanford experiment mentioned below.--Duboisist (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved here from a comment in the article source. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: She said it! What a racist!
xxxxxxxxx
We need to define the term and let the readers decide whether it is racist or not.
Ok, if you want to make the point that not only white people are racist you can point to David Ahenakew's Wikipedia entry.  However, I think she was addressing Saskatchewan after the death of Neil Stonechild (who has his own inaccurate wikipedia entry - I'm white and figure that the cops were responsible for his death).  Neil Stonechild died because he was taken on a Starlight Tour - a common practice at the time.
On the other hand, Jane Elliott's statement of a "white attitudinal problem" is not limited to a belief that white people can be racist (we can to varying degrees), but, more importantly, it incorporates the tendency we have to underestimate the impact of how being a victim of multiple acts of racism influences a person's self esteem and behaviour over time - or even one's trust in government agencies.
Expecting a person not to be impacted by a lifetime of exposure to racism, is like expecting a child rape victim to "just get over it" - in both cases, one has to heal and learn to trust.  And we can all learn to be a bit more trust worthy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  racism is a "white attitudinal problem" 

message: Yet it's repeatedly referred to as an experiment in this article.  Personally, I don't care either way.  Seems like she didn't intend it to be one, but many have observed the results as if it were (and I'd say there's plenty of value in doing so).
But this is an encyclopedia.  And it's either an experiment, or it's not.  Let's make a decision, and adjust the article accordingly, ok?  Whatcha think?  :-/  -- MyrddinEmrys (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote would be to change all cases of "experiment" to "exercise".Trilobitealive (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: this is not an experiment, she emphasizes

message: I rewrote the article, putting in a lot more detail.  Not sure if the quote I used could be cited better.  Only one of the sources I take quotes from has page numbers. What I have read about citations just asks that quotes have a citation immediately after.  But I kind of did it two ways... for one or two quotes I cite a source twice so that I could include the page number for the quote (instead of the more general citation I use for information)... in other places, I put the page number in the text... Which is  more appropriate? Thelmadatter (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite

message: I very rarely get involved with editing and discussion on Wikipedia, but I'm really taken aback by the bias against the subject of this article. It's one thing to present criticism of an issue, but this is complete (and intentional) overkill.  This article is supposed to be a biography. Instead, it is a propaganda piece that insists that acknowledging white privilege is somehow tantamount to racism against white people. Ironically, this claim demonstrates that racism against non-white people is alive and well today. There is an excessive number of quotations from openly biased sources (including a conservative think tank). Other quotes and facts are misleadingly presented out of context. Let's confine the ridiculous claims and smear campaigns to the articles on presidential candidates, ok? If Jane Elliott is truly racist against white people, then there must be better testimony out there than the sources currently cited in this article.
Bluemonkee (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go and get them. I wrote with the sources I was able to get at the time. Just because a criticism comes from a conservative think-tank (and I identified it as such) doesnt mean that it is invalid.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: obvious bias

message: “I treated them as we treat Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, women, people with disabilities, gays and lesbians.”
that seems to be a bit of a rewrite by herself in her interview - race was the issue she had started with and i would think disabilities/gays/lesbians are something that she tacked on later in her life. it is just a good hunch that her social progression hadn't progressed that far - if she was in an all-white christian school, that wouldn't fly. i know that bringing up gays and lesbians at a church in 2008 is quite often like setting the church on fire. that bit should talk about what she did at the time, not where she has gotten to now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.23.130 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is kind of nonsensical. Do you have anything other than a "good hunch" indicating that she wasn't thinking the way she expressly said she was thinking? Is it that far-fetched that she had, you know, a working idea of prejudice? I have a good hunch that she did. 69.122.244.46 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-written history from her interview? 

message: "The following Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the blue-eyed children superior."
This information is completely wrong, where did people get this from? Seems as though it has been completely pulled out of their necks.
Watch the documentary on it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/
You will see that on TUESDAY, the teacher proposed that BLUE EYED PEOPLE were superior, and on WEDNESDAY, she proposed that BROWN EYED PEOPLE were superior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.236.31 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This addressed the first year of the exercise, when the reverse did occur on a Monday.  That information is from the book A Class Divided by William Peters. Metsfreak2121 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: Having experienced Jane Elliott and the exercise myself, I have followed her pretty closely. The biggest problem with the various accounts is that nobody questions the facts as reported by Elliott herself. Here are a few examples in the current article:
* Student academic performance increased markedly when the student was in the "superior" group
* Elliott carried out the exercise with her students every year until 1984 (which is patently untrue)
* Elliott never involved the parents in the exercise (also untrue)
* Negative reaction to the first experiment happened in the teacher's lounge on the same day and she was shunned by other teachers
* Negative reactions from teachers, children and townspeople were the result of the exercise and the resulting publicity
* "How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children."
* Boycott of her father's store (although he did not own such a store)
I grant that many of these statements have associated references, but the references are all articles quoting Elliott. There is NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE for any of her claims and the article doesn't make clear that she is the source for all of these claims.
Mick (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with the Jane Elliott mythos 

message: Jane Elliott (born 1933, Riceville, Iowa) is an American teacher and she is a racist
This is what pops up when you google Jane Elliot.Shouldn't it read anti-racist  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakmamba (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well 108.83.177.138, since she has been on Oprah and the Presidential Office, and got significant media coverage, I think she is notable enough. However, if you think you can improve the article, please feel free to do so. And maybbe you can get a user name. That will make discussions easier. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't make sense 

message: This article needs to be rewritten to remove the horrible bias and needs to include more references.--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I had to hand-revert mass-vandalism on the article, but Wikipedia's spam filter croaked on the examiner.com link, so I had to remove it.  Arekku (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass-vandalism reversion 

message: The contributions of this user on 25 January 2011 look very much like what Elliott herself might write. If I am incorrect in this conclusion, I apologize in advance.
If so, please read Wikipedia's editing policy, specifically the policy regarding autobiography. The policy does not explicitly forbid people from editing articles about themselves but it is an obvious conflict of interest. If there are additions and/or changes to the article that you feel must be made, please suggest them on this talk page. Mick (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the user who asked this question actually Bill O'Reilly? It sounds like something O'Reilly himself would ask. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: François, thanks for the mature response. But seriously: this editor was a nice example of an WP:SPA who deleted sourced material, and replaced it by some texts containing very vague wordings.That’s enough to let some alarm bells go off.  I’ll try to find some time to see if these edits are still a problem, and then see  if I can do something about it. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is user Blibripres actually Jane Elliott? 

message: Is it valid to use a Google cache link as a source? The article itself also cites Bloom for many, if not all, of it's "facts" about Elliott and the exercise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynosoft (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-inserted the Horowitz-link at the external-links-section. I'll wait for a moth or so, and when the links in the article aren't restored by then, I'll delete the poorly-sourced claims in this biography of a living person. Also, I deleted the youtube-link for being  a possible copyright violation, and therefore we should not linked to it (see WP:YOUTUBE). Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horowitz/NLPC Special Report link 

message: Maybe this can be useful if we want to discuss similar experiments?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Experiment 

message: Elliot's findings are born out in the Stanford Experiment. Whether it's Blue eyed/Brown eyed or Prisoner/Guard, the same situation of power over others was set up in both cases, and both had similar outcomes. I don't see a problem with what she did and what they did at Stanford. We need to know this about ourselves esp. here in the U.S. where we MUST live up to the credo, "All Men Are Created Equal".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanford experiment 

message: The statement in question in the "Origin of workplace diversity training" section:
On the negative side, it was claimed that not doing such diversity training could make these same companies open to bad publicity, boycotts, and lawsuits.NLPC Special Report The Authoritarian Roots of Corporate Diversity Training by the National Legal and Policy Center by Dr. Carl F. Horowitz
First of all, who is claiming this?  And who beyond the right-wing NPLC is claiming it or backing up the statement?  Where are any additional reliable sources for this?  This statement isn't encyclopedic as long as it remains so weaselly and POV. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. However, the multitude of the article is based on a very uncritical article by Stephen Bloom, which takes Elliott's point of view on what happened for facts. I would think this NPLC-report would bring some balance. Moreover, since when is "right-wing" identical to "not reliable"? Jeff5102 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't about the article as a whole. If anyone wants to address your first point, a separate discussion can be created for that.  The problems in this sentence are as I state them. As for what wing the opinion site is, that's barely relevant.  The gist is that it's an opinion organization, not a journalistic news site. If this reference is there among other more solidly reliable references, that might be fair, but it's not strong enough to carry the day on such a broad and arguably speculative statement. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an opinion organisation making bold claims about organisations, calling them hate groups. These claims are inserted in Wikipedia. I do not mind, since it is mentioned as the SPLC-opinion. We could do the same for the NLPC-ideas. Any objections?Jeff5102 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement unclear and backed up only by an ideological organization 

message: Anything with current source [4] - Bloom, Stephen G (September 2005). "Lesson of a Lifetime" . Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2010-07-18.
needs to be verified.  I hit the first 5 links last night. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Still combing through the Smithsonian tags to verify information comes from the published source 

message: I've been hunting around for a reliable source for Elliott's birthdate, and all I can find is one for the year, 1933.  For now, since the May 27, 1933 is longstanding, I won't remove it.  But if anyone can find a reliable source for it, that would be much appreciated. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source for Elliott's birthdate 

message: In poking around on the subject of Jane Elliott's birthdate, I have discovered some things.
# "May 27" was added on March 12, 2013 from apparent thin air, with no citation.
# Reliable sources on this are scarce, and the current one being used might be the "best", but it's also from 2014 and could have used the Wikipedia as their source.
# There's a soft genealogical source that shows "Mabel 'Jane' Jennison" being born on November 30, 1933.  I know this is our Jane Elliott because she indeed was married to Darald in 1955 per the Smithsonian citation and Darald's obituary.
So, since she has a verified account on Facebook, I sent her a message asking her to help confirm either that "November 30, 1933" is her birthdate or that the current birthdate "May 27, 1933" is incorrect... whichever she is more comfortable doing.  Ordinarily, a biographical subject can be relied on to tell us their own birthdate.  If she confirms the latter, we should change the birthdate back to 1933. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I already found a source from 1996 that said May 27, and made a reference to it. I believe it can stay that way per WP:VERIFY. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry.  I was mistaken in #2.  I thought I saw 2014 somewhere, but inside the book it says 1996.  At any rate, I do think it is still worth exploring.  If Elliott herself on her verified page says it's different, we will have to change it.  The RS as it is, is a loner. It would be useful to at least have additional sources, if possible, for this, especially as the genealogical source contradicts it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see. The fact that someone with a similar IP-adress wrote on WP that Elliott had died raised my suspicion that the "granddaughter" was a sick prankster too. Anyway, good luck! THen I'll return to the religious life in 18th-century England. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Elliott's Birthdate 

message: Substantial text in this article is dedicated to the main visible work from the subject. Namely the "blue eyes brown eyes experiment". That content is scattered throughout the article. I propose a new article for the experiment with substantial portion of this article relocated there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpa2a (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to create new article for "Blue eyes brown eyes experiment" 

message: "White Fragility" was supposedly coined by her in the early 2010s. However, I have found evidence in an article written in the September 2005 Smithsonian article about the Riceville, Iowa 3rd grade experiment by renowned teacher Jane Elliot that proves otherwise. And I quote, pp. 86, 4th paragraph "Elliot replied "Why are we so worried about the fragile egos of white children who experience a couple of hours of made up racism one day when blacks experience real racism every day of their lives?""  Gizziiusa (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't. See my response at Talk:White_defensiveness#Origin_of_"White_Fragility",_supposedly_coined_by_DiAngelo_is_probably_inaccurate. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "White Fragility", supposedly coined by DeAngelo is probably inaccurate.  Coined by Jane Elliot instead 

message: Her parents are listed on FindAGrave.com. You can follow her family line back, her direct ancestor Robert Jennison came from England in the 17th century. She is an Anglo of New England stock, not an "Irish American." JustAChurchMouse (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry