Talk:Alfred Kinsey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Freud Vs. Kinsey

Why is Freud more famous than Kinsey? Freud didn't use scientific methods...

Probably because the degree to which one uses scientific methods is likely not strongly correlated with the fame of a person. It doesn't much matter why; it simply is the case. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Some dismiss Kinsey's work as mere "data collection". This overlooks the considerable originality that goes into any collecting endeavor. First and foremost, one has to decide which phenomenon are worth studying and which aren't. This extends not just to the general field of inquiry, but the specific metrics to collect, the populations to sample, etc. Especially in a virgin field, this can be a tremendously difficult task. Kinsey displayed a real brilliance for organization.

Scientific merits aside, the cultural impact of both men was tremendous. Freud shaped a generation of psychiatrists, even if many his findings were later discredited. And Kinsey contributed to launching the sexual revolution in the United States. Like comparing sports teams from different eras, debates about "who's bigger" are ultimately pointless.

Old Neutrality Dispute

I wonder if maybe the reason he has an article deserves more space than gossip about his sex life... Tuf-Kat

Most of the important facts are already in Kinsey Reports. Abraham seems to think that Kinsey's sex life is interesting, but I admit that after removing his POV slant, it reads out of place. --Eloquence 21:38 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite, but I don't have time to do it now. Perhaps later. Right now the article takes a strongly non-neutral position (for example, the position that group sex between consenting adults is wrong, while widespread, is not a neutral position). The "NPOV" edits that have been made have done nothing more than tone down some of the loaded language. The original text was very obviously carrying an agenda. The edits, however, left the agenda in place but legitimized it by improving the words. I'd rather the original loaded article stand. It would be useful to break the article up so that Kinsey's professional practices and his personal positions are discussed separately. His unconventional beliefs and the controversy around them are certainly worth discussing, but there is no need to use his eccentricity to demonize him or attempt to discredit his work.

Anybody I ask either considers him to be a great enlightening researcher or a despicable pedophile. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. This deserves a more balanced article than what it has now. Adding NPOV tag.--TexasDex 22:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not that i am any great expert, but this article seems to be more about people's reactions and opinions of his work that his work itself. I wanted to knoew the results of his research, the methods he used etc. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to separtate, but this comes across as gossip and rumour than cold objective fact.

sorry, i have now found the page i was looking for! Apologies.

While I agree that far more needs to be said about Kinsey's findings, nothing about the article, as it currently stands, suggests that the author is disingenuous or pushing an agenda. Many of Kinsey's critics have pointed to his unusual sexual practices to impugn the objectivity of his sexual research. The fact that those practices and the accompanying criticism is mentioned in the article therefore seems appropriate. (Sex educators might make reference to an "abstinence-only" organization's evangelical religious views in critiquing that organization's research.)

The problem with this article is not that it's "biased," but that it's too short. And I say this as someone who values Kinsey's contributions to the field of sexual research.

Does anyone know how Kinsey died?

• I looked it up and found Pneumonia as the cause of death. KingTT 07:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notice Removed

I seem to think most of the POV issues have been fairly well satisfied and have thus removed the notice since there has been no major activity regarding it in some time. If this is disagreed with please re-add the POV check template and poke my talk page. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Awful.

An article on the life of a scientist should explore his formation and his achievements instead of laying out prurient gossip about the man. This article has clearly become a forum for ad hominem attacks, and has caved in to people with a political agenda. As the German saying goes, When you are swimming against a river you are still swimming in the river. Haiduc 20:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gall Wasps

If Kinsey devoted a significant portion of his career to entomological studies, perhaps those studies should be at least mentioned? Mokele These studies were, in fact, important in quantitative biology. Steven Jay Gould gives them high praise in one of his essays. User: William Leslie Overal

A Disgrace

This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's just a smear-job. I didn't find much useful information here... maybe a tiny bit of relevant data about the man's life, but it seems obvious to me that this is a case of conservative forces slandering a man who tried to deal with a very important subject in a scientific way. It's shameful when this happens to scientists and atheists who question popular conceptions.

Radical Mallard Fri Feb 4 21:52:45 EST 2005

I agree with the above sentiments. Remove the putrid filth. This is the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I had held Wikipedia in high esteem, now I'm hesitant to recommend it to anyone.

Paulx82 12:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major updates

I have made major updates to this including all information on his early years, education and some bits on his work as an entomologist. I have not yet gotten to more and better information about the Kinsey reports, but I expect to do so in the near future. I am deeply concerned with the controversy section. If anything I think the list of alleged sex acts ought to be removed and replaced with a more general statement such as Author <Can't remember his name> has charged in his book "Alfred Kinsey a Public/Private Life" that Kinsey was involved in a number of deviant sexual acts. While a few of these have been confirmed some of them remain of dubious veracity. (Which is all objectively true). Perhaps we had ought to also include something about his development of the scale where homosexuality is a gradient and showing Kinsey more near the center rather than at either the exlusively homo/heterosexual extreme values. We do need to hae something about Christian groups who oppose him of which I know the most about the Family Research Council (FRC) which has a running attack on him at their website. Perhaps we ought to also post something about the Children of Table ## which is a book claiming he sexually abused children. Although it appears this is unlikely since the Kinsey institute points out that all information was taken from adults recalling their childhood sexual experience (and in one instance, one man telling a lot about his childhood). Obviously there are much needed additions such as Kinsey's important method of the interview as a method of collecting data (which I regard as possibly the most notible thing about the Kinsey reports from a scientific point of view). Also, more implications on the sexual revolution ought to be explored. Also, a final note, he did a lot of work at the the Indiana University in Bloomington and we need to have some comments about how he taught the marriage course there and how that was the gateway to his studies on human sexuality. In any case, please evaluate my work and make better what I've started. I really was pretty sad about the state of this article when I found it, but I think this is a good step toward making it better and hopefully through the process of having lots of editors we can make this article the type of article it ought to be encompassing the full impact of Kinsey's work and faithfully giving him a biography. For further comments directed to me please contact me on my talk page. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you all toward a better article. I'll be watching for your comments. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

So I updated the controversy section. Added some stuff on the Family Research Council and messed a bit with the wording. I removed some of the specific details on the masochism such as:

• The sticking a spoon down his urethra bit which is almost true. Gathorne-Hardy reports that it was a small straw inserted by a girl in the company of several other people, but it was done as a child (circa 13, if I remember right?) so I thought the act of a child was hardly relevant and it seemed to have no serious impact on Kinsey.
• Unanestetized circumcision. I have seen no evidence for this in my research, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen either (I'm not an omniscient Kinsey know-it-all). In any case, if someone could verify this through multiple sources it might be okay for inclusion. I think this is pretty well summarized in the bit about calling him a bisexual masochist. It seems overkill to me to say "He's a masochist. Therefore he liked being hurt." Please discuss if you disagree. I'm open to pursuasion on this topic.
• "Tied rope around his testicles and pulled". Same idea basically as unanestetized circumcision. I think this one is a lot more unverifiable too, but again, just because I don't have the info right in front of me doesn't mean it isn't true. Again, however, it seems superfulous to include that type of thing.

Thoughts please.

Oh, will someone also please look over my work on the FRC? I'll be up front and say that I disagree with their policies virtually all the time, but when I'm on wikipedia I really do try to uphold the standard of NPOV with zealousness. So, if you'd please look over the FRC thing and merciliously remove any POV still remaining in it (I think I did well, but you never know until someone with the opposite viewpoint looks it over and tells you), I would certainly appreciate it.

Anyway, happy editing. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'm having problems with many of the statements in the controversy section lacking npov, or at least lacking in citation. many seem to fall in the "everybody knows... " category of things which often are baseless opinions. for instance: "Kinsey's work, often associated with the sexual revolution", "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society", "Some have suggested...", "there are continuing claims that the Kinsey Reports contain statistical and methodological errors." can anyone verify this? it's cleaned up somewhat but still reads more like a slander than a good criticism. Slamorte 14:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving away from the controversy...

...in terms of biographical information this article is sorely lacking. What did he die from? Did he marry? Children? We seem to lose the thread about who he is shortly after college and plunge into the sex study without ever picking up the thread again.--Deridolus 09:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I did a lot of research on Kinsey and hence I wrote the huge early life and education paragraphs as well as worked heavily on the controversy section because it was really badly in need of reworking. I haven't found time (=\), unfortunately, to work more heavily on the Kinsey reports section, but hope to in the near future. If you want to take a stab at it though, by all means, edit away! -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have, but I know nothing about him. If I find the time to do some reading on him (a dubious proposistion, indeed), I'll give it a shot, but I wouldn't bet anything on the possibility.--Deridolus 07:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Would Like More Information in the Article

Probably like many people, I looked at this article after seeing the film starring Liam Neeson. I was looking for further information about issues raised by the film, but came away with many unanswered questions.

I think it is questionable, in terms of biography, to lump together both books as "the Kinsey Reports" and to discuss them as though they were a single unit. If the film is to be believed, the "Male" book was far, far better received than the "Female" book. Kinsey developed major opposition and challenges to his funding after the publication of the "Female" book in 1953, whether due to the change in the political climate since the publication of the first book or due to the content of the second book, or a combination of both.

I would like to see more discussion of the people and institutions who were his enemies during his lifetime. What was the net effect of their opposition? Leaving this out and starting to talk about Judith Reisman's criticisms some thirty years after his death leaves a huge historical gap and many unanswered questions. Is the Kinsey story the story of a victory of academic freedom in the US? Or a story of its defeat? Or a little bit of both? Are these books still being cited so long after their publication due to their merit? Or is it more that what Kinsey experienced during his lifetime from his enemies so scared off other researchers and funders that Kinsey's work was the only tree left standing in the field?

I also noticed that the article categories include "Atheism," yet this aspect of his life is not discussed in the article. Is it really relevant to his work? If so, how?

I'd also like to see more concrete information about how his works influenced later scholars, therapists, social thinkers and other people involved in the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s. It seems that we are given the conclusion that his works were influential in bringing about the sexual revolution, but not given the supporting material to substantiate or illustrate this conclusion.

--BenAlias 23:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need source for unlikely claim

It is currently stated in the article that: "The Kinsey institute also maintains that Kinsey's information on child sexuality derives from the thousands of interviews conducted with adults through his work on the Kinsey Reports and denies having involved children."

In Sexual Behavior In The Human Male Kinsey discusses effective techniques for interviewing young children (pages 58-59). It seems unlikely that he would discuss interviewing children if he did not, in fact, interview children. I'm not suggesting that Judith Reisman's claims are valid, but perhaps the Kinsey institute has been misquoted in this instance. Can someone cite the actual quote from the Kinsey Institute? Kaldari 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found a more accurate account in the Kinsey Report article: "Bancroft reiterated the Kinsey Institute's claim that Kinsey never had any sexual interaction with children, nor did he employ others to do so, and that he interviewed children in the presence of their parents." I'll correct the article to reflect this. Kaldari 07:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Methodology with Children

Kinsey's reports contained information about the sexuality of young children, such as how long it takes children of different ages to reach orgasm, the number of successive orgasms, etc.. I don't understand the methodology used to obtain this information. Anyone know? --Cypherx 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of the information in Sexuality in the Human Male was obtained through interviews. There is an entire chapter in the book devoted to explaining his methodologies. He did interview children (in the presence of their parents), but of course not about orgasms. Most of that information was obtained from adults recounting their experiences as children, although he also used information volunteered by pedophiles (or so the story goes). That's were it gets controversial. Kinsey basically viewed data as data, and didn't descriminate against where the data came from. He did not, however, recruit pedophiles to molest children as some of his wackier critics would have you believe.Kaldari 21:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...well, here's the beginning of the oft-attacked table 34 (time to orgasm)

5 months of age, 3 orgasms, uknown time

11 months of age, 10 orgasms, 1 hour

11 months of age, 14 orgasms, 38 minutes

11 months of age, 7 orgasms, 9 minutes

2 years old, 11 orgasms, 65 minutes

2.5 years old, 4 orgasms, 2 minutes

... Is there any indication which data came from which source? Is this among the data he obtained from pedophiles? --Cypherx 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The story is that those tables of specific data came from one person in particular, a "Rex King" who worked for the US Forestry Service. I don't remember where I read that so don't quote me. If you watch the movie, there's a scene which is ostensibly about the Rex King interview. Kaldari 21:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From WorldNetDaily (probably not the most reputable source): "Reports of childhood sexual behavior were mostly from interviews of adults recalling their early experiences. Parents and teachers were also asked if they had noticed sexual reactions in their children, and some children were interviewed in the presence of a parent or teacher. Among more than 5,000 men interviewed for "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," there were 9 who reported having had sexual relations with children. One in particular, with an extensive sexual history, is the source of the childhood response tables in the Male book. Dr. Kinsey and his staff never conducted experiments with children." Kaldari 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abnormal Reporting

I removed this line

This reaction is thought by some to be extreme and unusual as Kinsey, among others, did not "invent" any so-called "abnormal" behaviours, he simply reported on them.

becase it seemed to be an editorial, POV opinion. If someone reputible has made this claim, I'd be happy to see it reenter the article but with "This reaction is thought by <<insert speaker's name here>> to be...." -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judith Reisman is a nut

After reading a few of Judith Reisman's articles, I have to say that she is a certifiable loon. Of course I'm not going to write that in the article, but it makes me wonder if her accusations are even credible enough to be worth mentioning in the article. Aside from her baseless claims of Kinsey's pedophilia, she also has some elaborate conspiracy theories about the media brainwashing children into becoming gay, and people's minds being poisioned by "erototoxins" from looking at pornography. She obviously has a personal agenda to promote. The question is, should Wikipedia be helping her to promote it? The neutral point of view policy says that opinions must at least be of a "significant minority" in order to justify being included in an article. Do a "significant minority" of people really believe that Kinsey was a child molester? Kaldari 03:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with Judith Reisman's assessment of Alfred Kinsey, I do believe her work as a direct opponent of Kinsey is substantial enough to merit inclusion. Wikipedia does not help her promote her position by saying "Reisman says ... <<blah blah blah>>". We would be in violation of the NPOV policy if we said "Reisman says ... <<blah blah blah>> and she is <<completely right /// completely wrong>>>", but that's not what we're doing. Nut or not, Reisman's work against Kinsey is notible and merits inclusion. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think a short sentence along the lines of, "Reisman's accuracy or qualifications are questioned by some due to..." would be out of place. We don't wish to be impartial, but that doesn't mean we can't also include facts that set peoples' statements and opinions in an objective context.

In some cases it isn't biased to say "this critic says this, but that is wrong because..." if the facts truly support it. There was some other certifiable loon who claimed that TMI released radioactive strontium that was getting into the milk used to make Hershey's Chocolate. No matter how loudly they claim it, it is nor and never will be true, and giving such statements any more credit than that is a disservice to Wikipedia. This may not apply to all of Reisman's claims, but I think at least some of them.--TexasDex 17:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

It is policy that when going from a category to an included article, it should be obvious why the article is in the category. It is therefore improper to categorize Kinsey as an atheist before adding discussion of his beliefs. This is especially true since the reader may well suspect that atheist is being used loosely, as often, for "agnostic", "freethinker", or "deist"; and Category:Atheists is expressly restricted to declared atheists who have defined their disbelief. I would not be surpirsed to find that Kinsey fitted this, but it must be shown. Feel free to put the cat back when the text justifies it. Septentrionalis 21:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Word Choice for "Pornographic"

"Some have suggested that the films Kinsey made are fundamentally pornographic in nature."

Pornographic literally means graphically depicting sex. Whether his films had scientific value may be debated, but if they visually depicted sex, they were pornographic, even if they were for scientific purposes. I think the line should be changed to something along the lines of "some question the scientific value of these films."

I must disagree. Dictionary.com [1] gives the definition of pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal," and pornographic as "designed to arouse lust". That is, films which are not intended for the purposes of creating sexual arousal (such as a scientific film) are not "pornographic". -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Conservative?

Regarding this paragraph:

Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.

It seems that whoever wrote this was trying to imply, by pointing out that Kinsey was a Republican, that he was conserative. This is an anachronistic implication, most people who held what today would be considered liberal and progressive viewpoints were Republican because the Republican party back then were the most supportive of liberal and progressive causes(for example civil rights legeslation was almost always championed by Republicans and zealously resisted by Democrats.) The situation changed in the 70s when a idealogical reorientation took place across party lines, thats when the most conservative element of the then conservative Democratic party crossed to the Republicans--the reason why Republicans are the conservative party today. Republicans have always been fiscally conservative, but being a Republican was the only option back then for a liberal and progressive minded individual.

And because the Rockefeller foundation was founded by a moderately conservative family does not mean that people they funded were conservative. Point being Kinsey was most likely not a conservative and I am going to delete this misleading paragraph.

And perhaps more egregious part of the paragraph, the reports were not a manifesto. They may have played a part in the coming of the sexual revolution, but a manifesto implies that this was the purpose of the reports, which it was not. --Brentt 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(I disagree. Republicans *used* to be fiscally conservative.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.227.37 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 February 2006.

Interesting

How badly POV this article is! "Although the investigation into sexual behavior carried out by Kinsey resulted in an explosion of knowledge about topics previously considered taboo, there are continuing claims that the Kinsey Reports contain statistical and methodological errors." and exactly what errors might these be? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"A 1948 American Statistical Association report entitled Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male concluded ... Kinsey employed unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and pedophiles to obtain data about child sexual behavior. ... Kinsey's colleague Abraham Maslow also pointed out the bias inherent in people volunteering information."

In short, there are some valid concerns about the selection methodology used in the report. There were a disproportionately large number of inmates, for example. And of course any interview-based study inherits bias from those being interviewed and those doing the interviewing. This article has improved a lot from when I first added an NPOV tag. --TexasDex 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

False

Also regarding this paragraph:

Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.

From ALFRED KINSEY AND THE KINSEY REPORT: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS

By Bullough, Vern L.

"Kinsey had probably been doing at least some of the things that Rice mentioned because he had approached sex as a taxonomist--as one interested in classifying and describing--as a dispassionate scientist and not as a reformer or politician. In a sense, he was a political innocent. He believed that science could speak for itself, and he criticized his faculty colleagues who took any kind of political stand. He refused to join organizations that he felt had any kind of political agenda, including the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) in its early years."

Validity

I'm concerned with the sentence "Nonetheless, his data are still widely cited despite questions by some about their validity." There is no significant mention of debate concerning the validity (I take this to mean his research methodology and rigor of his work) of Kinsey's work at any point before this in the article. Is there even any serious debate over his work's validity? That is, by anyone without a political agenda, perhaps a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a recognized academic press. If there is no such work then this sentence ought to be deleted.

Yes, there's lots of debate about his work's validity--he used convenience samples (there's no debate that a lot of his subject were prisoners--they were), and he did face-to-face interviews with subjects, whereas today similar studies are done with much stricter confidentiality and guards against influencing the subject. Dybryd 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to tread carefully with Reisman

The article at the moment is awfully timid about rejecting Reisman's claims. Factually, many of her claims are not just inaccurate but luridly implausible--that Kinsey conducted Mengele-like experiments on groups of small children, then published the results in a bestselling book but escaped prosecution. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

While there are legit concerns about validity with Kinsey (see my note above) Reisman's horror stories are simply made up out whole cloth, and there's no need to worry about NPoV in rejecting them. In fact, it's non-NPoV to present them in a neutral light. Dybryd 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Judith A. Reisman

Is it Possable to get a refrance, saying that Dr. Judith A. Reisman said what he did about Kinsey.

McCarthy?

Gosh, ChazYork is right, why isn't there anything in the article about Kinsey and the McCarthy hearings? We really need a paragraph on that. DanB DanD 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Play/Musical Dr. Sex

The article describes this as a musical and goes on to say that it was broadcast on the 11th of August 06 - which is quite impressively up to date since the play was only broadcast a few hours ago. It was however, definitely a play, not a musical.

I combined the existing "Dr. Sex" info with the new BBC broadcast info from today. Is it possible that they are two different works with the same name?

DanB DanD 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Totally my fault! The musical is called "Dr. Sex" and is different from the radio play, which is called "Mr. Sex." I apologize for the confusion.

DanB DanD 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and OR concerns

The newly added section, Kinsey, Social_Science, and the Survival of our Species is an original critical essay, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV in a number of ways, and also doesn't provide any citations for the information in it that isn't original. Hopefully User:Quester67 will revise it himself after reviewing those two policies. Otherwise, it's going to have to go.

Meanwhile, the page in general is in dire need of citations.

DanB†DanD 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is clearly POV, Orig. Research so I've removed it per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, I was one of those that wrote a bunch of the data still in the article and one of my primary sources was Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy's Book Alfred C. Kinsey: Sex the Measure of All Things, if you'd like to help add citations for facts in there as well. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge gap in biography

Why does the biography more-or-less end in 1920? The only thing mentioned after that is his marriage and death 36 years later. --88.110.189.21 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Summary of His Report's Findings

Before the "Controversy" section there should be a competent summary of Kinsey's two reports on human sexuality.

I agree, this article doesn't mention much about his work with human sexuality. It concentrates mostly on him, but I do believe that his work, since it was such pioneering and important, should get a substantial amount of article space. Laytonsmith14 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

His work is still a problem requiring more elaboration. The personal biographical information is fairly comprehensive, but the controversy, led by a relative small amount of individuals and organizations, and generally not scientists on the main points, is longer than discussion of his work which was so influential in sexology and society (the latter discussed a little more, but often then as part of the controversy). In a nutshell, the information on his work still should be expanded. Evolauxia 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Entire Career section was deleted on September 1st

Did no one notice this edit?!? Is anyone watching this article?? Kaldari 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Are there objections to putting Kinsey in a wiki list of bisexuals?Andral 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

-- I think it's very important to include the findings of his experiments with children. I've read the "pedophiles" used "stopwatches" to record the children's orgasms.

This is a huge piece of his history which seems to have been overlooked.

Please include the data and elaborate on the controversy to explain a bit about his studies of children.

Atheist or agnostic?

Kinsey is listed at List of atheists as an atheist and the article places him in the Category:Agnostics. Within the article there is no reference to his belief in god. Alan Liefting 21:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Prok

Out of curiosity, why does prok go here? What is prok, I accidently typed pork wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prok" was Alfred Kinsey's nickname. It's short for Professor Kinsey. Mike1981 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

One sentence under the sex life section describes Kinsey as homosexual, yet another claims that he was bisexual. I would think that, given these two options, bisexuality would seem like the more believable one, seeing as he did have a wife. Still, this is something I'm unsure about and I was hoping that somebody could clear it up. Also, I checked the article's categories to see if anything there would clear this up for me, but none of the categories mention anything either way. After this is cleared up a bit, I think it might be beneficial to add him to some category related to either homosexuality or bisexuality, even if the category itself simply uses the all-encompassing LGBT. —Mears man (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1998 I produced and directed a doucmentary film ("Kinsey's Peadophiles" - Channel 4, UK) which investigated Kinsey's involvement with and use of "data" from paedophiles. The film was the first to identify Von Ballusek and Kinsey's American paedophile sources.

Whilst I recognise that Wikipedia does not recognise television documentaries as a primary source, the film is viewable on-line: might I suggest readers of this thread view it and make their own minds up ?

TIM TATE TimTate (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I understand that Wiki is the sandbox of the left and I never expect that to change. However, this entire article is filled with liberal POV, outright falsehoods and numerous statements lacking citations.

'Many found their religious and socially conservative views in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as morally corrupting. Even today, Kinsey's name can elicit partisan rancor'

First, where is the citation for this? There is none because it's completely POV and illogical POV at that. This statement is an obvious attempt to disparage critics of Kinsey by introducing "religious and socially conservative" as a stereotypical caricature. Kinsey's critics are varied and numerous. They include Doctors, professors, mathematicians, statatitians, psychologists and people from all walks of life. Notice how the statement claims Kinsey's name can elicit "partisan rancor" rather than legitimate criticism.--FelixCab (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What about removing the "conservative" part, and the "partisan" part? The description of the followers could use some work, however just about every critic believes that his work was morally corrupting. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

'Reisman alleges that Kinsey and his staff gathered Kinsey's data from pedophiles and sex offenders to produce some of the data in the Kinsey Reports.'

"Alleges"? Even the Kinsey Institute admits that much of Kinsey's information about children came form pedophiles and sex offenders. This is not disputed so why use the word "allege". Also, it is Doctor Reisman. Why does the article fail to mention that Judith Reisman is a Doctor?

Reisman has a doctorate in COMMUNICATIONS. She has no medical or scientific education. Referring to her as "Dr." could cause people to make the same errors in judgment they do when calling her BFF "Dr" Laura Schlessinger's radio program.

Why does the controversy section fail to discuss the following:

-Kinsey's conclusion that 10% of the population is homosexual was based on "data" he collected only from male convicts at prisons.--FelixCab (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

False. First of all Kinsey never said that "10% of the population is homosexual". Second of all, with prison inmates excluded, the percentage men who were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" came to 9.9% for white, college-educated males and 12.7% for those with less education. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kinsey definitely used his junk science to imply that about 10% of the population was homosexual. _{In 1948 and 1953, sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey published two volumes called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Among Kinsey’s many claims was this one: 13 percent of men and 7 percent of women in his study were more or less homosexual for “at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.” Kinsey said the figures represented measurements of “psychologic response” and/or “homosexual experience”- that is, homosexual fantasy and same-sex contact to orgasm. The claim received huge media exposure. Bruce Voeller, an associate professor at Rockefeller University and a non-practising homosexual added the 13 percent and the 7 percent together and concluded that “an average of 10% of the population could be designated as Gay ... As a scientist I could see how handy it was to use the 10% figure.” Voeller, thereafter, became openly gay and was a founder of the modern gay activist movement. He used the figure to drive the campaign for recognition and acceptance As I became a national Gay leader I insisted to other Gay leaders that we needed to bring the message(s) ... home to the media, to judges and legislators, to ministers and rabbis, to psychiatrists.... In a recent article, The New American reported: "Ever since the Alfred Kinsey study, homosexual activists have been insisting that they represent about ten percent of the the total population. This notion, based on faulty science, has been generally accepted as fact by the popular culture. Even Newsweek discovered this discrepancy in a recent issue, reporting that `ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In the nearly half century since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplicating his findings,' Patrick Rogers wrote in the February 15th issue. `Most recent studies place gays and lesbians at somewhere between 1 and 6 percent of the population.' The story also reported that some homosexual activists now admit that they exploited the inflated Kinsey figures for political reasons. `We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness,' says Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund [a sort of gay ACLU]'" ("The Homosexual Numbers," March 22, 1993, p. 37). An even more recent major national survey of male sexual behavior concluded that "Nearly one-fourth of American men under 40 have had 20 or more sexual partners during their lifetimes, and only 2 percent ever engaged in homosexual behavior..." A team of researchers from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle published a series of reports on their study in the March-April [1993] issue of Family Planning Perspectives, the magazine of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. "...Only 2.3 percent of the men reported any homosexual activity in the past 10 years, and just 1.1 percent said they had engaged in exclusively homosexual sex. That is far less than the 10 percent figure attributed to the landmark Kinsey report from 1948" ("Homosexual activity lower than believed, study shows," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 15, 1993, p. A-13, emphasis added). Time and Newsweek magazines, both in April 26, 1993 issues, reported on these sexual survey results released by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, scarcely a conservative bastion regarding sexual issues: "Of the [3,321 American] men surveyed, only 2.3 percent reported any homosexual contacts in the last 10 years, and only half of those -- or just over 1 percent of the total -- said they were exclusively gay in that period" (Newsweek, "Sex in the Snoring '90s," p. 55, emphasis added). Time calls "The study, one of the most thorough reports on male sexual behavior ever,"} --FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And your point is...? This article is about Kinsey, not homosexuality. Kinsey never said that 10% of the population was gay. And the data from prison inmates did not skew the data significantly as has been shown through statistical re-evaluation. What is your point here? Try to stay on the topic of Kinsey please. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that almost the entire world inferred from Kinsey's "research" a vastly higher rate of homosexuality than actually exists. If anyone believes that this widely held inference was the fault of the millions of readers instead of the intention of the authors, then they are living in a state of denial that can only be described as extreme.

That great, but it's original research. Do you have some information to add to the article about this or not? This isn't a discussion board, we need encyclopedic material. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you contending is "Original Research"? First you fault me for including the names of the publications that the quotes were in and now you allege "Original Research". You can't have it both ways. "This isn't a discussion board"????? That's exactly what this is. We are "discussing" the "Controversey" section of the article. That is why the tab is labeled "Discussion"!--FelixCab (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about regarding "including the names of the publications", but what exactly would you like to add to the article regarding this topic? Kaldari (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

-Kinsey's definition of marriage was any couple who lived together for at least a year. --FelixCab (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevent regardless of whether it is true or not. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because science is supposed to be true and accurate regardless if one reader with an agenda finds it not relevent. Kinsey wished to leave the impression that married couples were more sexually active than his research would have shown without falsely labeling certain unmarried couples as "married". --FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kinsey was a scientist biologist, not a sociologist. The amount of time that a species has been paired would be more scientifically objective that whether or not they were technically married. It would also make the data still relevant regardless of how society's marriage customs changed. I have actually read Sexual Behavior of the Human Male and I can assure you that Kinsey has no interest in sociology, only collecting objective data. In fact, he was completely obsessive about it (regardless of what he was studying). Your ideas about Kinsey seem to be quite skewed and not based on Kinsey's actual work. Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A sociologist is a scientist. They are not mutually exclusive. Kinsey was not researching "medical science" or "biology". He was studying the "sexual behavior"(a sociology subset) of humans. The remaining part of your post is so bizarre and illogical it does not deserve a reply. We are beginning to find your posts lacking in any supportive information or actual knowledge of the subject being discussed. Possibly you could take a few weeks to do some research to better familiarize yourself with the subject being discussed.--FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

-Kinsey had sex with almost every male staff member who worked for him.

-Kinsey warned a German man who frequently sent him "data" about the children he was molesting to "be careful" not to get caught. Later it was discovered the man was a Nazi prison guard who was convicted by a German court for multiple child rapes. The German judge in the case, when reading his decision from the bench, called Kinsey an accomplice to the crimes.

-Almost all of Kinsey's statistical methodology and conclusions have been widely criticized by experts today. --FelixCab (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Grossly inaccurate. In the field of sexology, Kinsey's statistical methodology and conclusions are both still widely accepted as valid. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This difference is a subjective viewpoint however you have not posted any evidence to support your subjective opinion while I have posted evidence to support mine. --FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have shown no evidence from the scientific community, much less from the field of sexology. You have merely quoted popular media. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, The Alan Guttmacher Institute,The Battelle Human Affairs Research Center and Psychologist Dr. Abraham Maslow would be surprised to discover that they were not part of "the scientifice community". I have quoted all of them. Shall I post what The American Board of Pediatrics has to say about Kinsey's research? Perhaps they are also not "from the scientific community"? I have not "quoted popular media". I have quoted respected scientists and included the name of the publication where the quote was found.--FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show us quotes from specific publications that back up your claim. When you use terms like "Almost all" and "widely criticized" the bar is set rather high for backing up your claims. If you are going to use such sweeping terms, you either need to have a large selection of secondary sources or a reputable tertiary source to back up your statement. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and WP:RS for more information. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

-Kinsey labeled the man, whom he received 95% of his "data" about child sexuality from, a “trained scientist.” He was not any type of scientist. He was prolific child molester who kept graphic records of his crimes and whom Kinsey chose not notify police about. --FelixCab 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Alleges" because he has neither been convicted for this, nor subject to a finding against him in a civil case (if you can find such information, please post it). You can't just go around and say someone did something bad, because then it's potentially libelous.

Fixed the Dr. Judith Reisman, her appropriate full name should include her title. (If her article could indicate her educational history, that'd be even better.)

As for regarding "married couples" as anyone who has been together for at least a year, it's mostly likely a form of Common-law marriage that he was attributing to them. After one year of sexual interaction and living together, their sexual habits are likely to be fairly settled.

I need more references in order to comment about anything else that you have written. Especially if the Judge declared Kinsey as an acomplis, because that would be on a public record somewhere. The original would be best. (I speak German.) --Puellanivis (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing accusing a living person of a crime with "saying something bad" about someone. There is no Wiki rule such as you state.--FelixCab (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a proposed rewrite of the "Controversey" section:

For over 40 years Kinsey's research went unchallenged and was the foundation for future studies such as The Hite Report and works by Masters and Johnson. However, in 1990 the book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People by Dr. Judith Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, J. Gordon Muir and J. H. Court helped launch a series of investigations and new critical research of Kinsey's work. Reisman's book was followed by, Alfred C Kinsey: A Public/Private Life by James H. Jones in 1997 and the British documentary Kinsey 's Paedophiles in 1998. All of these works, as well as others, contend that Kinsey's research was unscientific, biased and flawed in it's methodology and are highly critical of Kinsey's ethical decisions in accepting information from child molesters and failing to notify authorities of their identities and crimes. Kinsey's supporters tend to focus on a narrower group of critics who contend that Kinsey's highly flawed work has been instrumental in destroying traditional sexual morals in modern society. Kinsey's personal life was been drawn into the controversy when it was discovered he had sexual relations with almost all of the research assistants he supervised for his work and included those activities in his "scientific data". Kinsey even went so far as to hire a photographer to film and photograph the researchers engaging in sex with each other.

Kinsey's most prominent current critic is Dr. Judith A. Reisman. Reisman points out that Kinsey and his staff gathered information from pedophiles and sex offenders to produce some of the data in the Kinsey Reports. She draws attention to the fact that Tables 30-34 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male report observations of orgasms in more than three-hundred children between the ages of five months and fourteen years. Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft claims that the subject of child/adult sexual interaction was deliberately chosen by Kinsey's opponents to discredit him: "In recent years, when there has been anxiety bordering on hysteria about child sexual abuse, often resulting in circumstances where the accused is regarded as guilty until proved innocent. What better way to discredit someone?" The Kinsey Institute maintains that Kinsey never had any sexual interaction with children, nor did he employ others to do so, and that he always interviewed children in the presence of their parents. However, critics point out that Kinsey has never been accused of molesting children by Dr. Reisman or anyone else of note and that Bancroft's denial is an attempt to divert attention away from the actual accusations that can not be denied.

Other criticisms contend:

-Kinsey, driven by a need to rebel against his strict upbringing, combined with his closeted homosexuality and masochism (starting as a teenager Kinsey would obtain sexual gratification by inserting objects in his penis while masturbating. Much later in life, Kinsey climbed into a bath tub in a moment of dispair and self circumcised himself.), intentionally set out to mislead the public by presenting certain sexual behaviour as widespread and normal.

-Kinsey accepted information from active pedophiles such as Rex King and Fritz von Balluseck but failed to note this in his publications. Kinsey’s failure to notify authorities was seen by many as enabling these pedophiles continuing rapes of children. In one letter from Kinsey he warns von Balluseck to “watch out” so as not to be caught. Kinsey labeled these individuals, and other pedophiles, as “trained scientific observers”.

-Von Balluseck was convicted in the 1950's in Germany of over 200 rapes of children and the murder of a 10 year old girl. German newspapers covered his trial and detailed his relationship with Kinsey on the front pages of all of the major German newspapers. The American main stream media never mentioned Von Balluseck's trial and his connection to Kinsey.

-Kinsey's research included the "sex histories" of about 18,000 persons. The information from the "sex histories" was not only manipulated, but most of his interviewees were not representative of society, because they were deliberately chosen (others volunteered) for their sexual deviancy. Though Kinsey wanted to document and expose what society was doing sexually, he only concentrated on one section of society -the deviant. A great number of the 5,300 male interviewees were sex offenders, pedophiles and exhibitionists, while about 25 percent of them were prison inmates. Many of those who volunteered were also biased in favor of the "sexually unconventional."

-Kinsey’s team coerced subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man "married," reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as "Susie Homemaker."

-Kinsey not only sexually harassed his male students, had sex with all of his male assistants, but also produced pornography in his home. Kinsey's sex films included his own wife Clara with male staff members and he pressured the employees to include their own wives as well.

Wow! Somebody's gonna need to give some SERIOUS references for these charges to be substantiated! Sounds like partisan rhetoric to me! Reisman and Schlessinger have really been doing their work!

-Kinsey’s research errors were compounded by the “volunteer bias,” first brought to Kinsey’s attention by noted psychologist Abraham Maslow. Dr. Maslow had discovered that human sexuality studies tended to attract exhibitionists and practitioners of unconventional sex. This increased the reporting of illicit behaviors such as promiscuity and homosexuality. Before the publication of his reports, Kinsey had arranged for Dr. Maslow to test his volunteers for bias. After evaluating students from Indiana University, Maslow concluded that Kinsey’s sample was unrepresentative of the general population. Kinsey dismissed Maslow’s findings and terminated his relationship with him. No mention of this study ever appeared in the Kinsey reports.

-In 1997, in his book Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, biographer James H. Jones revealed Kinsey’s prodigious appetite for sadistic varieties of homosexual sex, voyeurism and other perversions, and how they inspired his social agenda: "The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey. Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor. Kinsey loathed Victorian morality. … He was determined to use science to strip human sexuality of its guilt and repression. He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint. …Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual morals and sex offender laws of the United States." (p. xii)

-Based on his own imagination, Kinsey created his famous 7-point Kinsey scale of sexuality, with heterosexuality at 0 and homosexuality at 6 (bisexuality being a "balanced" score at 3.5). He drew a line from 0 upward and rightward to make a perfect diagonal, as if human sexuality could be precisely and geometrically charted. This entirely fabricated "scientific" scale has been used in sex education books, court cases and legislative hearings to contend that homosexuality and bisexuality are normative. Kinsey concocted the scale even before he had done any substantial interviewing of data subjects, according to his co-author, Wardell Pomeroy. --FelixCab (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, although the current section is arguably in need of improvement, your rewrite contains far too many factual errors to be used. If you would like to propose specific changes, I'm sure they can be discussed on a one-by-one basis. Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please list any "factual errors" that you believe are listed in the rewrite. --FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose as long as you state that this is what "critics contend", the section would not be factually inaccurate. I am worried about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues, however, as we would only be presenting information from Kinsey's detractors (and a lot of it). Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe there may be a few actual errors:

1. "For over 40 years Kinsey's research went unchallenged...". Kinsey research was challenged immediately after its publication.
2. "Kinsey even went so far as to hire a photographer to film and photograph the researchers engaging in sex with each other." Please provide a source and explain how this is related to criticism of Kinsey.

Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you contend that just about nobody has any problems with Kinsey's research now you say Kinsey's research was challenged immediately. Which is it?

I certainly never said such a thing. Regardless, John Tukey criticized Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, if you want an example. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From: PBS.org "American Experience - Kinsey". _{By 1948, no longer satisfied with merely collecting other people's histories, Kinsey started encouraging his research staff to experiment sexually with each other. A series of liaisons followed among Kinsey, his staff, their wives, and invited guests. In 1949, he hired William Dellenback to film and photograph these people engaged in masturbation or intercourse. He collected a library of diverse items of erotica from around the world. He imported what he could not find at home, eventually attracting the attention of the U.S. Customs Service and sparking a lawsuit that remained unsettled when he died in 1956, leaving a legacy of controversy and an undeniable impact on American society.}--FelixCab (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's half the battle. Now just show how this fact was used to criticize Kinsey, and you are ready to add it to the section. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time that you have implied that in order for something to be included in the "Controversey" section of this article it must "criticize" Kinsey. Who made that rule? You seem to want to "discuss" (but not call it "discussion") the controversey section of this article with the attitude that there is no controversey. In order for there to be a "Controversey" section, the "controversey" needs to be outlined and described. It is not for either of us to take sides in the controversey. The goal is to describe the controversey. If you wish to take a side in the controversey, I suggest you write an editorial or start a web site and defend your opinion to your hearts content. This is not the place for that! Please keep your comments to what you believe the controversey is and do that by proposing actual suggestings for the article and provide supportive citations.--FelixCab (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that I think there is no controversy about Kinsey or that I wish to take sides. I'm just trying to making sure that whatever is added to the article is in line with Wikipedia policies, and I sincerely believe that your proposed rewrite is far too venomous to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and it also lacks reliable sources for some controversial claims (which by the nature of the section is going to be nearly every sentence). Let's try to stay on task here for once. We are discussing Kinsey's encouraging of staff to experiment sexually. I could see some readers thinking "hmmm, maybe that's normal for sexual research". I think we need to explicitly state that this was considered unorthodoxed and controversial, not just describe the events. It would be even better if we could cite a source stating as much. Does that PBS source state anything about the public reaction to these practices, or the fact that they were kept secret or criticized or anything like that? The current section on Kinsey's sexual life at least explains that these were considered "unusual sexual practices" and that it would have "caused a scandal had the public become aware of them". (Although I wouldn't characterize the current controversy section as up to Wikipedia standards by any means.) I will go ahead and add the source your found to the article. Kaldari (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari actually after all this backing and forthing it is hard to tell whether you are taking sides or encouraging your friend to develop their editorial skills. Either way it isn't yet achieving anything for adding material to the article. Just to stop all the wheel spinning I took a look to see if I could help and used what I could.

FelixCab if you want to add anything more please give a reference for it.Yeenar (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph you added about statistical criticism of Sexual Behavior of the Human Male is too specific for an article about Kinsey. That should be moved to the article about the Kinsey Reports. It would be sufficient to say that his research was criticized for methodological problems here and link to the Kinsey Reports article for more info. Kaldari (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I paired down the paragraph to be more generalized and added a mention of Tukey's paper. The specific statistical criticisms are covered in detail on the Kinsey Reports article, so I don't think we need to fully duplicate that here. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your version barely scratches the surface of the contoversey. I have been pressed for time recently but I will incorporate the needed changes eventually. I do not include citations in "discussion/talk", only the actual article. I also noticed that someone removed "Dr" from Judith Reisman--FelixCab (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Professional titles are not allowed on Wikipedia, including "Dr.". Also, please keep in mind that this article is about Kinsey, not the Kinsey Reports. There is a separate article about the Kinsey Reports if you want to include detailed examination of controversy related to the reports. This article needs to be primarily focused on Kinsey himself. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Overlap of articles is acceptable and unavoidable. The "Controvesy" section of this article deals with Kinsey, which includes his work.--FelixCab (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari great job of tidying up. Your concern about sadomasochism as a perversion being a POV and your replacement with unconventional sex surprised me. However I checked and you were correct. It was removed from the DSM in 1994 unless it causes "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Even necrophilia apparently has to last for 6 months before someone is considered crazy. Just goes to show what a fluid and surprising area psychiatry is and how tough it is to achieve a classification of sexual pervert these days. Keep up the good work.Yeenar (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by FelixCab

Following FelixCab's edits to the article, we had nearly 1,100 words specifically about the controversy surrounding the use of pedophile data in the Kinsey Reports. This is twice as much text as we have for all of the rest of Kinsey's career combined (521 words). Per WP:UNDUE, this is not acceptable: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it was much to lengthy. It was amazing how quickly you were able to read and digest such a lengthy edit and make a reasoned decision. I will endevor to shorten.--FelixCab (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "Concerned Women for America" citation because they're obviously not a partisan (or reliable) source for this article. While Reisman is known for criticizing Kinsey's work, I don't think it needs this much weight in this article since it's primarily Kinsey's biography.-Wafulz (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "they're obviously not a partisan (or reliable) source" means? Also, the source was not "Concerned Women for America" it was "The Herald Times". In this particular type of citation, you reference the site but the source remains the newspaper. The removed section will be returned. Finally, please stop the obvious dodge. This "Controversey" concerns Kinsey's possible ethical mistakes in working with pedophiles. The critism of working with pedophiles does not therefore question the quality or results of The Kinsey Reports. There are critisisms about the quality the Reports themselves but they are not related to the use of pedophiles.--FelixCab (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure that the Kinsey Reports section even belongs in this article. If anything, we should move criticism of the Kinsey Reports to the appropriate article and then write up an "impact" section so we can have stuff about his reports "legitimizing" sexual activities balanced with organizations who are against homosexuality/extramarital sex/etc.-Wafulz (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to portray the "controversey" as merely those who are "against homosexuality etc." That is a tiny aspect of a wide range of critisisms ranging from statistical issues, ethical issues and issues of bias. If you think part of the controversey is not being covered then feel free to add it (with references) but do not attempt to remove parts that are important and referenced.--FelixCab (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's usually a bad idea to create a "controversy" section when "impact" provides a more balanced presentation. Most of the controversy he generated is deals with and is redundant with the section in Kinsey Reports, which has more complete (and more relevant) information.-Wafulz (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be effort by some to draw us over to the "Kinsey Reports" article. If one reads the discussion section of that article it actually contains statements such as "The Kinsey Institute denies …., so therefore that ends the discussion." You know, sort of like "I never had sexual relations with that woman." We all know that if there is a denial by some person or some organization then that certainly ends any controversy. The discussion is also littered with such statements as; "Anyway, I'm not so interested in Kinsey's character as I am in his research methods: does his research tell us anything about American sexual practices?". "Most of the dung-flinging against Kinsey comes from one person, Judith Reisman, who also believes that there's a huge homosexual conspiracy to turn children gay" and the topper of them all, "Even if he did every horrible act he's charged with that still doesn’t do a thing to make his research invalid. After all even Josef Mengele's work, though highly unethical, could contain useful research". I don't think many reasoned people wish to work with such people.--FelixCab (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Kinsey Report denies allegations that something happened, and compelling evidence cannot be produced otherwise, then the allegations cannot be considered true.-Wafulz (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kinsey Institute did not deny that Kinsey worked with pedophiles, Past Director (and Kinsey researcher) Paul Gebhard and current Director John Bancroft both confirmed it. They did deny that

that any Kinsey staff member molested children. A denial that was not needed since that allehation was never made.--FelixCab (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that Concerned Women for America is not a reliable source in this instance. They clearly have a religious agenda and thus should be treated as a "questionable source". Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, we would need to provide the primary source for the quote in this case rather than a secondary source (especially since that source is questionable). The original Herald Tribune article can be accessed here, although unfortunately it requires a subscription so I cannot personally verify the quote. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Herald Times as a second and direct source for the second Paul Gebhard quote. I have also added a sub title "Collaboration With Pedophiles" so that it is clear what this particular part of the "Controversey" section deals with. It does not deal with allegations that Kinsey and his staff molested children. This will prevent trolls and edit war instigators from attempting to divert from the actual issue.--FelixCab (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially suspicious of interviews labeled "Question, answer, THE TRUTH."-Wafulz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz- You can not select which references you like and which you don't. You wrote early that you didn't accept source because "it wasn't partisan". You are coming close to exhibiting the behaivor of a troll who is only interested in an edit war. If you do not wish to contribute to this article (which you have yet to do)then leave it to others--FelixCab (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I said earlier it wasn't partisan or reliable. My comment about regarding it with suspicion is in line with that.-Wafulz (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I bought access to the Herald-Times article to confirm the citation. As I suspected, Gebhard's statement was mis-characterized by the Concerned Women for America article. They quoted the sentence completely out of context. His quote was not in the context of explaining the "importance of pedophiles" to their research, rather it was a sentence in the middle of his explanation about why the researchers chose not to report the pedophiles they interviewed to the authorities. I added Gebhard's full quote to the citation. I have also removed all of the unnecessary salacious material that was copied verbatim from Reisman's website. It is sufficient for us to explain the facts generally. We do not need to seek to provoke an emotional response as Reisman does. Please see the WP:NPOV policy for more guidance on this. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaleri - How the quote was used in this article is the issue, not how it is used on another web site. The quote was used in this article to confirm that Kinsey used data from known pedophiles and did not report the pedophiles to the police. Again, you confuse the fact that your POV does not agree with Reisman. That is not the point in writing this section. The goal is to describe the "controversey", not to take sides. You have yet to challenge anything in the article that shows Kinsey in a positive light. If you see quotes from such sources as "Humanist Magazine" or "The Kinsey Institute", you accept them blindly and immediately, whether they are referenced or not because they support your POV. The way to balance an artice that you think is slanted to a certain POV is to add information (referenced) that will help balance it. Simply removing information is not constructive or intellectually honest. Lastly, you say Gebhard's quote was "mis-characterized" (even though there was no characterization of it in this article) and then you remove the quote and replace it with your own POV "characterization". Don't you think it is best to leave the quote in the article and let the readers make up their own minds as to how to "characterize" it? We do not need Kaderi to explain the quote to us.--FelixCab (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Describing the controversy does not mean parroting the wording and characterization of Kinsey's detractors and presenting it as our own. If you want to say that "Reisman said blah..." or the "Concerned Women for America said blah..." that's fine. We are not however, a soapbox for Kinsey's critics. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The section read, "Gebhard said" and "John Bancroft said". I think it is much better to quote the actual people involved in the controversey.--FelixCab (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The verbiage in the Controversy section (551 words) is grossly and wildly excessive compared to the rest of the article (2988 words). A summary section should have no more than a few sentences that fairly summarizes the article it's pointing to, in this case, the Kinsey Reports. This is not about Kinsey, it's about the reports. This is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. For example, the summary section on the sexuality of James I of England has about 180 words as compared to an article size of about 4780 words. The manufactured controversy about allegedly using prisoners and pedophiles as sources are WP:FRINGE as attempts to smear Kinsey's work by people like Judith Reisman, and deserve extremely limited coverage here in keeping with their lack of importance and acceptance generally, also per WP:UNDUE. — Becksguy (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversey" section is not a "Summary" section. Someone may have moved it, but it is not a "Summary" section. Your use of the word "manufactured" certainly shows your POV but we are not taking sides in the controversey, just describing it. There is nothing "alleged" about Kinsey's use of prisoners or pedeophiles. It has been confirmed by numerous sources including The Kinsey Institute and researchers who took pert in the research. This is article is about Kinsey. It is not specifically about The Kinsey Reports.--FelixCab (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the section down a bit more by axing the 2nd paragraph. The second paragraph was completely redundant with information already discussed in the first paragraph, except that it explained that most of the information came from 1 person (which isn't really that relevant to the controversy). Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph is even more important than the first because: 1. It adds a second confirmation of the use of pedophiles and 2. It comes from the current Director of The Kinsey Institute who is often mistakenly cited a denying that Kinsey used data from pedophiles. It is obvious it needs to be returned and it shall be.--FelixCab (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to state that in the paragraph then, otherwise it seems irrelevent. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the current Director of The Kinsey Institute confirms a part of the controversey - seems irrelevent?? There is just about nothing else that could be more relevent. However, if you think the importance needs to be explained, feel free to do so.--76.19.52.182 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy section is most certainly a summary section, per WP:SUMMARY. It clearly refers to the Kinsey Reports at the top of the section, just like any other summary section, and as such the section should only be a small percentage of the total article, at most a few sentences. My "POV" is finding an appropriate balance between this section and the rest of the article, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. I don't claim (and I don't think anyone else does either) that all mention of the controversy be eliminated (as that would indeed be POV), but rather kept in proportion to the rest of the article, Kinsey's life and work, and generally reliably sourced acceptance, as required by WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. As it is, it is highly inappropriate and also POV in terms of relative size. A general reader would think that this controversy is the most important issue in his life, based on relative size, when it's just a minuscule issue with what was a sea change in sexual research and reporting that, in part, helped start the sexual revolution of the 1960s and had a phenomenal impact on our culture. Yes, I agree (as we all should per core values of WP) that we are only describing the controversy in the article, not taking part in it, but we should be describing it in appropriate proportion to all the rest. This section should be just a small summary of the controversy that clearly belongs in the Kinsey Report article, not here. I might also point out that three or four editors essentially agree with this argument, so there is no consensus that the the current version of the section belongs in the article. — Becksguy (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, the "Controversey" section of this aticle is not the "Summary" section. It never was nor is it now. Simply because an editor, other than I, inserted a link to "The Kinsey Reports" does not make it a "Summary" section by any definition. This is simply a "weasal" argument to create a diversion. Second, this article is about Alfred Kinsey. Similar to an article about Richard Nixon that includes a lengthy section about Watergate, even though there is a separate article exclusively about Watergate, this article may have appropriate overlap with the article about "The Kinsey Reports". Numerous other articles can be given as examples. Again, this is an obvious "weasal" argument. If anything, this section needs to be increased to include the other controversial issues about Kinsey such as his scientific methodology. Finally, it has occured to me that the two paragraphs involving Kinsey using data from pedophiles include the quotes of only two people. Both of these people (and their quotes) defend Kinsey. There are no quotes from any Kinsey critics, including Judith Reisman. And some editors actually describe this as POV against Kinsey? Wow!--FelixCab (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey's article should focus on his biography and work. While his work did generate controversy, the controversy's impact was not as significant as the impact of his research. Nixon's Watergate section (while too long in my opinion) is lengthy because it overshadowed his career and quickly entered the public lexicon (see any scandal named whatever-gate).

"Focus on his biography"?? This is a "biographic" article. The Nixon example is just one of hundreds that can offered. McCarthy and The Red Scare. Reagan and Iran Contra.--FelixCab (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes themselves (or their sources) aren't necessarily neutral. Presentation , placement, and relevance matter, and over quoting can lead to quote mining, which damages the article.-Wafulz (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to "moving the goal post". Once one of your objections is overcome you change or move on to another. Is there some particular reason you do not want it known that Kinsey and his researchers used pedophiles and chose not to report them to authorities?--FelixCab (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that your edits just have that many faults? You tend to use charged words ("admitted" versus "said"), use inappropriate sources (CWA), and throw in paragraph-long quotes rather than summarizing them. If at any point I have removed mention of Kinsey using data from pedophiles, then I'm sorry, but I don't believe I've removed mention anywhere.-Wafulz (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You also tend to change words ("defended" and "explained" vs "said") and label web sites (CWA) as "sources" when no one else has, admit that you want "partisan" sources and when summarizing quotes fail mention important aspects of the quotes (Gebard said they knew the pedophiles would continue their crimes but they chose not to report them to authorities).--FelixCab (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change those- they were already written that way. You referenced CWA, making it a source, and I don't know why you're saying I want partisan sources when I explicitly said partisan sources should be avoided. The last part I was at fault, but I didn't do that intentionally. Anyway, it's all moot now.-Wafulz (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point but: "I've removed the "Concerned Women for America" citation because they're obviously not a partisan (or reliable) source for this article. While Reisman is known for criticizing Kinsey's work, I don't think it needs this much weight in this article since it's primarily Kinsey's biography.-Wafulz (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)- Just so you can see I wasn't seeing things.--FelixCab (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception of Sexual Behavior of the Human Male

Feel free to add any of this to the article. These excerpts are verbatim. Please do not post unless you quote and cite, or paraphrase.

• "Kinsey's notable collection and validation of facts upon the sexual mode in homind are important enough and dependable enough to stand upon their own record." (Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, Review author[s]: M. B. The American Journal of Psychology; vol 61, No. 2 p.303)
• "When Kinsey and his co-workers published their findings about "The Sexual Behavior of the Human Male" in 1948, its reception was far from cordial. A member of the United States House of Representatives suggested that it be banned from the mails. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had given financial support to the Kinsey study, was questioned about this by the House Ways and Means Committee. The law-makers wondered whether a tax-free foundation had the right to support this type of research." (Studies in Human Sexual Behavior: The American Scene, Review author[s]: A. Gus Woltman The Journal of Sex Research © 1971, vol.7 no. 3 p. 250)
• "In the United States, at the conclusion of World War II, the only center for sex research was Kinsey's Institute at the University of Indiana. Miraculously, it survived the assaults of the academic establishment on its 1948 "Sexual Behavior of the Human Male" and the consequent cancellation of research funds at the time, notably by the Rockefeller Foundation."(The Development of Sexology as a Discipline, by John Money; The Journal of Sex Research © 1976 vol. 12 no. 2 p. 84)
• "Kinsey's work is important in a number of ways but particularly because it legitimated the sex survey in American academia. Although data collection for the first sex survey started in 1892, it was never published. Between 1892 and 1938, when Kinsey started data collection, fewer than 24 surveys appeared. After Kinsey's books appeared, sex surveys began to appear with regularity, and over 750 have been published since Kinsey's day...Although Kinsey's methodology received early lebration of licentiousness." (Originally printed in: Wickware, Francis Sill. "Report on the Kinsey Report" LIFE 25 (August 2, 1948) p 86-90)
  • "There should be a law against doing research dealing exclusively with sex."(originally printed in American Social Hygiene Association Conference, "Kinsey Report Criticized from Religious and Moral Point of View" New York Times, April 1, 1948 50:1.)
  • "Sociologists, on the whole, have reacted favorably, though many have pointed out weaknesses in the report."
  • "Most psychologists reacted unfavorably to Kinsey's treatment of psychiatrists and of psychoanalytic theory"
  • "Lawyers seem to have adopted the Kinsey figures as "standard ammunition" in cases involving sex behavior."
  • "Educators in general seemed to feel that the Kinsey Report indicated the need for increased and intensified sex education."
  • The reactions of ministers and religious groups were widely varied. Catholics generally condemned the report. The National Council of Catholic Women branded it as "an insult to the American People" and "a disservice to the nation which can only lead to immorality...Protestant and Jewish groups generally accepted the Report, though some pointed out some of its weaknesses." All printed in: Published Reactions to the Kinsey Report, by Erdman Palmore Social Forces © 1952 vo. 31, no. 2, p. 165-172)

(I would recommend reading this entire article --Moni3 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

This is only a small sampling of what is available about Kinsey's impact. --Moni3 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One more:

"For although homosexuality was only one of the six basic forms of sex examined (the others were nocturnal emissions, masturbation, heterosexual petting, heterosexual intercourse, and sex with animals), and although it represented only a fraction of the research effort, nothing disturbed critics more or brought them to such a fever pitch of hate and rage than did the findings on homosexual behavior. A.H. Hobbs, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, issues a typical denunciation: "There must be something wrong with Kinsey's statistics, which (coupled with) the prestige of the Rockefeller Foundation, give unwarranted weight to implications that homosexuality is normal, and that premarital relations might be a good thing" (Jones, 1997 p. 734). Others insisted that homosexuality just can't be that prevalent - and, anyway, by talking about it you encourage it. The president of Princeton University, Dr. Harold Dodds, actually likened the report to "toilet-wall inscriptions" (Pomeroy, 1972, p. 287)." (Bullough, Vern, ed. Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context; Harrington Park Press, 2002, p. 21) --Moni3 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reisman's doctorate

How is the fact that "Reisman holds a doctorate in Communications from Case Western Reserve University" relevant to this article? If people are interested in her academic credentials, they are welcome to read her article. I think Reisman's history of activism on sex-related issues would be much more relevant than her doctorate in communications. We don't need to prop up Kinsey's detractors by listing their academic creditials, especially when those credentials are not even related to Kinsey's field. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing her credentials may actually help the reader place less weight on her questioning of Kinsey's ethics, not more. But in the end, let's allow the reader to have the facts and make their own judgements. If you would like to add more information about Reisman, then add it. Referenced of course.--FelixCab (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to adding facts that are relevant to the controversy. How is this fact relevant? Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It simply helps identify the person. More information is always better than less information.--76.19.52.182 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. The credentials sentence is either unrelated, or is there to bolster the reader's opinion of Reisman.-Wafulz (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks by accusing a fellow editor of saying something is "not true". You may not agree with someone but please do not resort to such remarks.--FelixCab (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're really stretching the definition of "personal attack" there.-Wafulz (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FelixCab's clean-up

Wow, nice job summarizing the controversy section. It is now concise, on-topic, sourced, and neutral. In other words, completely in line with Wikipedia policies and good encyclopedic writing. I have removed the POV warning accordingly. Sorry if I judged you too harshly. You would be amazed how many hit and run editors we have to deal with on this article. In retrospect, perhaps I should have given you more benefit of the doubt. Thanks for being willing to compromise and learn about wikipedia policies. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was a surprising change of heart. Time to move onto more productive venues.-Wafulz (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is sufficiently neutral or concise. The bias subsection has no citations. And I don't agree that the POV tag should be removed yet. However, it is much better than before. — Becksguy (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think a better solution would be to incorporate the controversy section into the rest of the article. Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure and WP:CRITICISM, separating out this content is generally a disfavored approach. In this case, it should be easy to fix: move the "unusual sex" stuff to the marriage and family section, and move the "pedophiles" and "bias" stuff to the section on his work. Fireplace (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, Fireplace, and I completely agree with the WP guidelines for restructuring that you pointed to. Although, if someone doesn't come up with citations for the bias subsection, it should disappear, since as of now, it's completely unreferenced and makes serious claims. — Becksguy (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As time allowed, the needed citations were added. The controversy section should obviously stay as a separate section. It would also be helpful if certain editors would actually contribute to the article as well as contribute to the discussion.--FelixCab (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy - The entire Intro and first 5 papragraphs lack any citations. The first citation is at the end of the 6th paragraph. I am curious as to why the lack of citations in those areas do not seem to concern you.--FelixCab (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried to add some info but got it removed

I tried to add the following information: "Stephen Jay Gould points out that Kinsey did indeed want to include data about African Americans and tried to obtain it. However, Kinsey felt that the amount of data he had was not enough to draw any conclusions abut African Americans and so did not. [2]" This was removed. I do not understand why. Please advise. Magin846 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Margin846- That is simply the opinion of a highly partisan person, Stephen Jay Gould and appears to have been added in attempted "point-counterpoint" type of presentation, which is not encylopedic style. An encyclopedic article does not attempt to offer a platform to every minority opinion. Too many times on Wiki people wish to edit articles with "on the one hand some people say ... but on the other hand". That is not the goal.--FelixCab (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey in the Media

"declared a pair of enthusiasts...forgetting that Columbus did not know where he was when he got there.... " This comentary on the Times Article needs to be cleaned up.--Jeff (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheist or Agnostic?

Which is it? The article maintains that Kinsey rejected his parents beliefs and became an atheist, but the category says "American agnostics". Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any citation for either, (although circumstancial evidence is abound) and want it to be consistent if possible. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)