Talk:Jane Elliott

NPOV Dispute
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)

After giving this thought, I'm considering deleting all the parts that discuss her alleged mistreatment by her peers, neighbors and parents of the children. Are those really necessary to the article? Mick (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.    Bramble  claw  x   01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "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)

I take issue with the following quote in the article: Elliott says racism is not inherent, “You are not born a racist. You have to carefully be taught to be one.” When my class heard her speak at a conference recently, i'm almost positive that she said that if you're white, you're automatically a racist. Maybe the change was necessary for job security as the racial climate in the US has changed since the 1960s. Please check with her and edit her quote to more accurately reflect the truth of what she's said in the past, and what she now currently believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.197.45.52 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think those two assertions are mutually exclusive? She could be saying that all white people are taught to be racist. Mick (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)  She was not saying that white people were taught to be racist, she was saying that by virtue of the fact they were white, they were racist. She castigated those who were white and said they were not racist. She called them stupid and said that because they were white, they were racists. The way she seemed to present it was that white people were not necessarily taught to be racist, but are racist essentially because of their DNA. Especially when she made a sweeping statement by saying that ALL white people are racist because they are white. That is why i said i took issue with her statement, "You are not born a racist. You have to carefully be taught to be one." And why i said that one should check with her and edit the article to reflect the truth of what she really believes. It should be edited to show what she used to believe and what she believes now. Also one could attend one of her conferences and decide for oneself.

Rynosoft is correct: she stated on one discussion show that given the subliminal conditioning white people experience from birth, it would be a miracle if they were not racist. She applies that fact to herself as much as to any other white person, and it is not intended to be an "accusation" - simply an observation. White people (of which I'm one) need to recognise their own racism before they can hope to challenge it. Multiculturalist (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting her lecture to be more professional and intellectually informative. I expected her swearing to be just "schtick" and to end at some point to get to the point of her lecture: ie. latest research, follow up research results, etc. She never did. It seems that before she can conclusively state that ALL white people are racist, she should have some studies to back that up. Has she done ANY research on say, mixed relationships or children who are the product of a mixed relationship?? If a white person marries, and presumably loves, a person from a different racial heritage, how can that person be a racist?? How emotionally healthy are their children?? A child from such a relationship would presumable love his parents and not be racist. It seems that she has a perfect platform on which to get her phD in psycology on the subject after having already performed such a nationally recognized experiment. Such research would be interesting, even, or perhaps especially so, if it negated her original experiment. (Erinsmomtoo (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC))


 * 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)


 * I find no evidence of NPOV, so I've removed that template. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

Copyright
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)

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)

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)


 * No, he shouldn't do any of those things.
 * "What is the acceptable method to do this?"

There isn't one. Your opinions and beliefs are completely irrelevant. -- Jibal (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Birth?
When was she born?

My Oh My...
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)

No, in Indecently Exposed, Elliott was purposefully taking on the persona of an eye-colorist, dividing the participants by eye colour and brow-beating some of them, but she also interjected her interpretation of the exercise, brow-beating the whites indiscriminately (ironically...) for their attitude towards others. It is for this interpretation, not for her persona, that I say she was the most racist fuckwit in the room.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think that you could come up with a more appropriate term than "racist fuckwit" but will use the term here since you both agree on what it means. I think there should be more information concerning her earlier experiments with blue eyed and brown eyed school children (it was a two day exercise) than with her training of adults. Strange how kids acted differently and performed better academically on the day that they were "superior" - and this should be focused on more in the wikipedia entry than the later adult stuff.

I also think that one should settle this by going into her reasons for acting like a "racist fuckwit" (which was Jane Elliott's intention) and how successful she was in using this persona to get her point across and whether she was equally successful as a school teacher as she was later in her work with adults. Look at it this way, Stephen Colbert acts like a right wing "fuckwit" to show the stupidity of the right wing point of view - but no one considers those strange things he says his own views. The problem I see here is not so much Jane Elliott's intention but whether she was successful in distinguishing between the intentionally racist persona and her true views.

There is one point where she baits a person into saying something racist which sounds more like her putting words in the person's mouth than the person's true views (distorting another's view or potentially doing so is a point that can be made legitimately). It is both racist to see all members of the group the same and to deny a person their group identity in Jane Elliott's opinion. However, the person does get roped slightly unfairly into inferring the latter by trying not to infer the former. Jane Elliott made it sound as if the person had said that soccor players shouldn't wear hijabs, and RCMP officers should not wear braids or turbans - which one could question. I think when the person said that they were the same as us, the person didn't mean what she made it sound like he said. You can look up Baltej Singh Dhillon either on wikipedia or the cbc to get some background on the issue for the discussion.


 * This isn't a blog. These comments do not belong here. -- Jibal (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oprah
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)

A two-part screening of her exercise - as shown on the Oprah show - was broadcast here in the United Kingdom in 1992. Speaking as a British anti racist, I found Jane's logic - and the way she articulated her arguments - as being the most profound and compelling I have ever heard. A truly brave (though sadly very misunderstood) woman, but to get back to the point, yes her blue eyed/brown eye exercise certainly has been demonstrated on Oprah. Multiculturalist (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
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)
 * Moved here from a comment in the article source. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

racism is a "white attitudinal problem"
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)

Not only are the test rigged but also "their" believes that they are raceist, wether they are or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.196.158 (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it racist to say "racism is a white attitudinal problem"? We are all taught from an early age that black people have an "attitudinal problem". By turning the tables, and using the same rhetoric on white people, all Jane is attempting to do is to let you see what it feels like to be unfairly lebelled because of your appearance. Not very nice, is it? Unfortunately, you have proved her point, because you certainly do have an attitude problem. Multiculturalist (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Learn the diffrence between claiming someone believes in something and conferming that someone believes in something, just because you are a member of a collective, dosn't mean that you won't be aware that you might be sterotyped (Black or White/Male or Female). I have not proven your point, however you have, that she believes that only whites are racist and all whites are racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.67.153 (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

-- This is not a blog. None of these comments belong here. -- Jibal (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

this is not an experiment, she emphasizes
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)


 * My vote would be to change all cases of "experiment" to "exercise".Trilobitealive (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

rewrite
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)

obvious bias
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)
 * 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)

re-written history from her interview?
“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)
 * 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)

Wrong information
"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)


 * 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)

The problem with the Jane Elliott mythos
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)

Well they do not seem to be terribly pro-Elliott things anyway, so what's your point? Multiculturalist (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not facts, they are allegations that Elliott herself has made. All of the "substantiating" articles only quote her - nobody else has ever confirmed. Mick (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense
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)

Sadly, it's probably deliberate rather than an accidental typo. Some people don't like Jane Elliott because she is very effective at challenging their racism - and if a person can successfully challenge someone's racism then they have challenged their power. No one gives up power without a fight. Multiculturalist (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote to this vapid human being, since she's obviously never lived in an area that wasn't predominantly white, to inform her that whites can also experience daily racism. I wrote of my own experience in Miami, and how heavy the racism is towards non-latinos, including whites. Her response was that she forwarded my email to several newspapers in Miami, saying "perhaps you can find a few others who feel the same". I guess actual experience is meaningless to her. I don't see why this non-expert random grade-school 'teacher' is even worthy of having a wiki page in the first place.108.83.177.138 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)RL
 * 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)

Neutrality
This article needs to be rewritten to remove the horrible bias and needs to include more references.-- FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass-vandalism reversion
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)

Is user Blibripres actually Jane Elliott?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Horowitz/NLPC Special Report link
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)

The Horowitz/NLPC cache link is now dead so I'm removing it and replacing it with "citation needed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynosoft (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a better citation is needed. However, please "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." See WP:LINKROT. Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Challenge re her "inspiration"
"One scene she says that she remembers vividly is that of a (white) reporter, with the microphone pointed toward a local black leader asking “When our leader (John F. Kennedy) was killed several years ago, his widow held us together. Who's going to control your people?” "

As a journalist I want to see the attribution of this supposed incident. I want to know who said it, for what news program, aired where and on what day. And I want impartial ears to tell me whether or to what extent the reporter inflected his comments in the manner described. Has no one asked whether it is true? or accurate? I am surprised. That particular incident is the crux of the entire matter, according to Elliott, the incident that caused her to create and undertake the experiment, so its accuracy and authenticity should be beyond reproach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.32.129 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Given what I know about Jane, she likely changed the quote to be as objectionable as possible Mick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

If you find her memory of the event is not perfect, what does that say? As a journalist, are you concerned that a journalist then might have said such a thing? htom (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not an issue. That is what **she** remembered, and some discrepancies given the time that passed is not such and issue as to dig into TV archives for the footage. How often do people say similar things on documentaries and they aren't fact-checked? You'd only suggest it when there's some rooted problem in that person's credibility or when the quote is essential to that person's story (eg an alibi); both are not an issue here. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that this article relies heavenly on the soft-ball-article of Stephen Bloom on her. This is especially a problem since Bloom himself also has a problem with white Iowans (see his own WP-article). That isn't a solid basis for a neutral article. Is there any peer-reviewed article available on her experiments that might clarify things up?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually this is not the supposed-problem the OP claimed, this is a whole different one. Bloom's opinions, be they what they may - I'm not sure they're as relevant as you think, since the majority of his article does not deal with particularly-Iowan problems. The question then is of credibility "at large", which is a more complicated question which should take into consideration the fact that the article was was published on the Smithsonian Magazine, which has some credibility. I agree that for the sake of good style, as well as efficiency (fact-checking etc.), those references should be weighted-down. François Robere (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean, we should take her word as her word, instead of a fact and make that more clear in the text? I think that this is a good idea. I believe that the Bloom-article can be considered as credible concerning Ms. Elliot's POV of the events, and maybe some of the actual events. But it doensn't look as if it wanted to see behind Elliot's story. Anyway, I inserted one scientific article, and I hope I can find some others. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I mean exactly what I wrote. As for personal testimonies: It is customary to start with "according to..." unless it is already given. See for example the first pars. here and here which do the same. Obviously it is better to have secondary sources etc. but unless anyone is keen on fetching the relevant Riceville chronicles that'll have to do. Regarding "behind Elliot's story" I've commented above on April 25th.
 * I'd like to correct you on one essential thing: This is not an experiment in the scientific sense, and indeed as the article states Elliot herself refers to it as an "exercise". The way it unfolds, however, is consistent with what we know from various studies in social psychology and sociology. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Stanford experiment
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)

Puffery
I put up a puffery tag (seen here). Jane023 removed it, added some more puffery, and asked me to Talk about my feelings (also seen there).

Aside from what I said in the edit summary, I feel the tag was misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply Elliot is puffing the article, just that the article is puffed. Too much "popularity", "recognition", "controversy", "her website", that sort of thing.

I feel "and has consistently defended her views" is a non sequitor, unless that Jane's saying she's this Jane (or represents her) and she's looking to edit war. I may be misunderstanding myself.

Most importantly, I don't really feel strongly about this. I came here via Random Article. Someone dedicated will tune me in an edit war, so I surrender. But with my last gasp, I'll say Blue eyes, brown eyes (or however it's punctuated) deserves an article with a Jane Elliott section. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at Jane023's user page, I feel it's reasonably safe to assume she's not this Jane. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's definitely me. I got interested in this page about a year ago. I totally agree that we need a "Blue eyes, brown eyes (or however it's punctuated)" article. She doesn't need hers merged though. Her notability is pretty well established, even if it's only for putting Riceville, Iowa on the tourism map. Jane (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of this article is already about the game, and the response it got. After splitting the articles and trimming the puff, the things the article notes she did should fit neatly into four or five paragraphs. Short bios certainly aren't rare on Wikipedia, but from an organizational view, it just makes sense for readers to find someone notable for one thing in the same place as the thing. Less clicking.
 * Just to be clear, "this Jane" meant Jane Elliott. I have no doubts that you are you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for believing I am me (I guess I read you wrong). I totally agree with your approach and it would probably do her (Elliott) good to see that the flack about the game gets separated from her story (because both are all jumbled up here). Jane (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement unclear and backed up only by an ideological organization
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."

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Information from sources need to be verified
Spent some time going through the sources and comparing to the article and there are things claimed in the article that aren't in the sources. Pulled in some Frontline URL's and sources and finally found where some of this seemingly misattributed information is coming from. Although, still, some of the statements in the article are not in that source and I put citation needed tag on one so far.

A great deal of the entire article is based on Lesson of a Lifetime By Stephen G. Bloom SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 2005 and it doesn't contain much of what is in the article. I found the full 29 page, unpublished article, by Stephen Bloom at Wordpress. Now, since it's unpublished on Wordpress, does it still meet the WP:BLP reliable source criteria?97.85.173.38 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. blogs are no valid source. It is not preferable that an article is relying on a single source. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why did you replace content that is not in the Smithsonian article? I did a word search and a visual search through the Smithsonian piece and nothing is mentioned about psychological damage or brainwashing.  Goodson and Sikes are only offering opinions as are the other people quoted.  97.85.173.38 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for requesting cites. This article has had an ongoing issue with statements that aren't well backed up. As for the Smithsonian article -- if it existed, it should be accepted as a source on good faith, whether one can find it easily on the web or not. Whether it backs up the content or not is a separate matter.  Note that if the blog replicates this Smithsonian article, then I think many editors here would be OK with that. There's really no such thing as "unpublished" -- pretty much all magazine articles can be located through a library or paid online source somewhere.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's 29 pages in the Wordpress PDF and 6 in the Smithsonian article. The 29 pages are NOT a reprint of the Smithsonian article. Smithsonian probably cut 23 pages for length alone, but some maybe cut for other reasons, including unverified information.    Selfpublished works are not acceptable for BLP as mentioned in WP:Selfpublish:

"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * So, according to that criterion, anything that is not in the 6 pages of the Smithsonian article and it being drawn from the self-published Wordpress PDF, and can not be found in another published source, has to be removed as it also violates WP:selfpub assertion against self published works that make claims about people other than the publishing author or actions the author didn't take part in:

"2) it does not involve claims about third parties;" "3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;"
 * We're being guided by WP:BLP and the rules are much more stringent than other articles. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, please pardon me for misunderstanding when you stated " I found the full 29 page, unpublished article, by Stephen Bloom at Wordpress". That seemed to state that the full version of the actual Smithsonian article was at a blog. If the blog version is indeed not the same as the original published one, that is something to consider.  But on the other hand, if it's the same author, and similar material, then it may carry some useful weight outside of WP:BLP considerations.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Still combing through the Smithsonian tags to verify information comes from the published source
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)

Reliable source for Elliott's birthdate
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)

More on Elliott's Birthdate
In poking around on the subject of Jane Elliott's birthdate, I have discovered some things.


 * 1) "May 27" was added on March 12, 2013 from apparent thin air, with no citation.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I know Jane personally and her bday is indeed 11/30/1933 LaShonda Corder (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to create new article for "Blue eyes brown eyes experiment"
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)

Origin of "White Fragility", supposedly coined by DeAngelo is probably inaccurate. Coined by Jane Elliot instead
"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)gizziiusa


 * It isn't. See my response at Talk:White_defensiveness. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry
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)