Talk:Alfred Kinsey/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Current law and regulation on protection of human research subjects and on mandated reporting of abuse

I've added a sentence with references to the pedophilia paragraph in the article on current federal and Indiana law and regulation on the protection of vulnerable populations such as children in research, and on the mandated reporting of abuse of children, in order to put the Kinsey research practice on pedophiles in historic perspective.Ajschorschiii (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an unreasonable point, although to really contextualise it, it's probably worth pointing out that there was plenty of 'research' being conducted through into the 70s that does not meet current ethical or legal standards.--Limegreen (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor in January, 2010, added a request for an additional citation. I have added one, showing the applicable regulation for informed consent when children, always now federally classified as a vulnerable population, are subjects of research.Ajschorschiii (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Best selling scientific books of all time?

The article currently reads "His Kinsey Reports...are still the best selling scientific books of all time," and calls for citation needed. I would think this would be an easy fact to find a citation for, though I don't know where such figures can be found myself. I was always to understand that Carl Sagan's Cosmos is the best selling science book of all time. (Glancing at the back of a very old copy of that, the back cover proclaims "One of the best selling science books ever published in the English language.") I do not know if there is a defined difference between a science book and a scientific book, or what the differences in the sales figures for either book might be in English versus world wide. It seems like something which should be corrected if anyone with knowledge of a good book sales source would like to chime in and either verify or refute. Edit: I also see no reference to sales figures on the articles for the books themselves. Elijya (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage" in the Bias subchapter of the Controversy chapter

"They point to Kinsey's ... classification of couples who have lived together for at least a year as 'married'." If he did use the word "married", it might not have been a scientific classification, but that would not necessarily mean it was an arbitrary one. At the time, and as far as I know this is still the letter of the law today (these laws aren't, and weren't then, enforced, not so much for moral reasons, but because of right to privacy issues), a couple is living in sin if they engage in sexual relations and are not married. However, a couple can declare a common law marriage, in many of the United States. In my own state of Virginia, such marriages have no special requirements other than the consent of the two spouses. (In the Common Law Marriages article it includes Virginia in the list of states that don't have, and never had, them; but I don't think that's right since I took a course on marriage and divorce laws for paralegals, and we definitely were taught about them.) In other states, a time spent residing together is required (which would still be considered "living in sin", it's kind of like squatters rights, up to a certain date your trespassing, after that your fine). In Kinsey's state of Indiana two years are required for a common law marriage; but I wouldn't be surprised if it was one year at the time Kinsey made his studies.

Also it's possible, he wasn't thinking about legal issues at all. The word "monogamy" in social science, human or animal, does not require a wedding, or anything like that. It's just the practice of two humans, or animals, mating exclusively (just with each other). He may have used "married" as a layman's term, considering cohabitation and fidelity of one year to be a reasonable standard, for a behavioralist. He may have had the two words co-mingled in his own head. Or, as a compulsive rationalist, he may just not have had any patience for the concept of vows before a priest, or signatures on a marriage certificate, somehow defining a marriage as established. 68.49.138.170 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

`````

Unexplained Deletion of Pedophilia Section on 28 March 2010

I'm noting for the record that the following user made wholesale deletions to the article, removing the Pedophilia section completely without making a comment on the Discussion page:

15:21, 28 March 2010 Benjiboi (talk | contribs) (28,271 bytes) (rvt POV edits previously removed)

I also note that the Pedophilia section had numerous footnotes and sources, and cannot be classified solely as POV. This matter should properly be discussed.

The previous edition of the article prior to Benjiboi's edits can be--FelixCab (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) accessed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinseyoldid=347089233

Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably more to do with how the information was presented, as if he was in come way engaged with or condoned this. Both the section heading and at least one paragraph (about 2008 research practice) needs revising. Research into child sexuality and pedophiles - why are these placed together? Just because something has sources does not mean it is WP:NPOV, especially when arranged in a way that may be WP:SYNTH, misleading the reader that Kinsey was in some way involved in the practice. Mish (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I've revisited this, and the material was still there, only the section header was removed, and the item was absorbed into the previous section. I have made it more concise and accurately reflective of the sources. We have no need to know who the source was, as this is about Kinsey not him. Also, research practice and associated legislation 50 years later is not relevant to Kinsey, unless there is some suggestion that the change was part of his legacy. I do not see that argument being made, nor that the sources would support that. I have removed that paragraph. There is a limit to how much weight or attention needs to be focused on one-woman's crusade. Mish (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
MishMich, the fact that every citizen in Indiana is by law a mandated reporter of pedophilia, making Kinsey's research conduct concerning pedophilia illegal were it to be attempted today, is indeed part of Kinsey's legacy. It will take me a little while to come up with documentation for this point, but the documentation is available.
For the record, here's what MichMich deleted, which had resided on the Kinsey article since 2/8/2009, with an edit on 2/25/10--
"As of 2008 U.S. federal laws and regulation on the protection of human subjects requiring informed consent and treatment of children as a "vulnerable population,"[27] and current Indiana law requiring that all citizens serve as "mandated reporters" of suspected cases of child abuse[28] now prohibit research conduct similar to Kinsey's practice regarding pedophilia.[29]"
  1. ^ "US DHS Protection of Human Subjects". http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
  1. ^ "Indiana Code 31-33-5". http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar33/ch5.html#IC31-33-5-1. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
  2. ^ "US DHS Protection of Human Subjects, 46.408". http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.408. Retrieved 2010-02-25.""Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I note also for the record MishMich's comment about "one-woman's crusade." MishMich, please explain this comment, which seems to indicate a strong opinion on your part. Also, MishMich may want to go back and check the misspelling MishMich introduced into the article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, the criticism of Kinsey originated from one woman, who appears to have started a crusade against his work around 1981. For nearly 40 years before that, the issue had not been raised, it was not seen as problematic. If you read the sources, you will see this. That is why I called it the way I did - that is how the sources describe what happened. Mish (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The first point - what is the connection with Kinsey? It is WP:OR based on primary sources. Can you demonstrate what the connection with Kinsey's work of 65 years earlier is, using reliable sources that discuss this? Now people cannot conduct the sort of research Kinsey did, but what does that have to do with Kinsey? Mish (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ajschorschiii, it would behoove you to learn more about Wikipedia policy, particularly that on original research and verifiability. The information cannot be included unless it explicitly discusses Kinsey. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I am about to include some notes from the work of Theodore Dalrymple, a well-respected social commentator from the UK. He has something to say about Kinsey's contribution to changing sexual mores, worth being reflected in this piece on Wikipedia, I should think. His article is here: [1]. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The legislative history of the Indiana law making all Indiana citizens "mandated reporters" of child abuse contains references to Kinsey. Again, since I'm part-time at this, it will take a little bit of time to go back and find the references. I do note that, regarding the "one-woman crusade," there is no reference to the "one-woman" in the article other than the institutional response to one of her criticisms in a footnote--# ^ Kinsey Institute director denies allegations by Reisman. So the article now is one-sided, containing the response to criticism, but the not criticism itself. This one-sided pattern infests the article, especially regarding scientific criticism of Kinsey's work by leading statisticians and scientists whose work is not mentioned, such as W. Allen Wallis, a University of Chicago statistician and past president of the American Statistical Association, Albert Hobbs, of the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the earliest criticisms of "volunteer bias" in Kinsey's work, from the prominent humanistic psychologist Abraham H. Maslow: Maslow, A. H., and Sakoda, J. (1952). Volunteer error in the Kinsey study, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1952 Apr;47(2):259-62. The article in general contains responses to criticisms, but not the criticisms. In its present state, and until more of the substantial criticisms of Kinsey's work are included and referenced--and not just the responses to criticism-- the article appears to be a one-sided devotional document maintained and carefully tended by Kinsey's admirers. An entire referenced section on the scientific criticisms of Kinsey would give this article more credibility as a true encyclopedia article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ajschorschiii, if you can obtain the documents you refer to, consider making them available to the rest of us through something like rapidshare or whatever. That information is obviously relevant. But please be sure to read the policies I linked above. Your input will be on perpetually shaky ground if they don't accord with those (and other) content policies. But what you have said above is well and good. Please provide all references you can - they need to specifically refer to Kinsey - and we can discuss how they should best be paraphrased and included. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
And my feeling is that remarks about the article being "maintained and carefully tended by Kinsey's admirers" should be made quite carefully. Those sentiments won't help to build consensus or form a constructive working environment. Let's limit our discussion to how the reliable sources should best be used to construct this article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
TheSoundandTheFury, thank you for your advice. I have read the Wiki guidelines many times over the years, and have been careful to follow them, but when an article seems to have a systemic weakness and appears to have a one-sided editing history, I formally make note of the fact for the record. I've already submitted the Maslow reference above. I suggest that it go in the article. I prefer to share my suggestions not to any individual--which places an editor potentially in the role of a censor out of the public eye--but in the open on the discussion page. Speaking of the discussion page, I'm a bit confused that there appear to be no discussion archives prior to 2008. If these discussion archives prior to 2008 exist, they should be visibly linked to the discussion page. Clicking on the Archive link on the discussion page presently only leads to the Archive guidelines.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Dalrymple comment (I am not aware of him being as you suggest - I know of two Dalrymples, one a psychiatrist, one a surgeon, both specialising in gender reassignment - and while he seems to know what he is talking about, I'd have expected to have heard of him or the journal before) if it is WP:RS. However, while his analysis is about his contribution to the field, the text is about his personal life, so should feature in a section about that. It does seem the article lacks information on that topic. I have no brief for the man, other than his being an important person in the field of sexology. I prefer Havelock Ellis and Hirschfeld. I do find it hard to judge things that happened by todays standards - I am sure there are things I did 30 years ago that would be unacceptable today (smoking in restaurants, drinking alcohol and driving, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, etc.). Finally, if he pierced his genitals, it doesn't affect my views on his work. Mish (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ajs, I didn't mean to posit myself as some kind of gatekeeper, but I wasn't sure if you knew the rules about what content is appropriate and what isn't. You included original research, so I wasn't sure. Why don't you just go ahead and paraphrase and summarise the relevant material? It certainly belongs in the article. When the article as a whole more properly reflects what has been written about this individual, the lead can be updated to make that clear.

This will mean that casual readers get a rough idea without having to read the whole thing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd affirm that, it is less traumatic working on the text first, and if necessary changing the lead to reflect any changes once they have been established, than it is to try and change the lead first, then change the article to follow the tone of lead. Mish (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
TheSoundAndTheFury, MishMich, thanks for your comments. I'll put some language together as time allows on the scientific criticisms from Maslow, Margaret Mead, and others I've mentioned above, and put it here in the Discussion page first, as I usually do. I do note something for the record that I've noticed happening on other Wiki pages. A user, in this case Benjiboi, makes wholesale changes without going to the Discussion page at all. That user's changes aren't reverted. When I note such an incident in the Discussion page, I'm reminded about Wiki process, but the changes made by the "non-discussant" basically stand. Having noted that, I'll now draft a summary of the scientific criticisms.Ajschorschiii (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages dynamism and change, in my experience. If you have the energy and eagerness to go and make changes, then you should. If they're bad someone will raise it as a problem. There's no absolute requirement to discuss everything, but when there's disagreement discussion is surely necessary. And one cannot be reverted simply because they did not discuss. But if the changes were bad (I didn't look at them), and the individual refuses to discuss, then trouble will arise. Just my understanding of the general dynamic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree, sometimes it is sufficient just to be WP:BOLD and make the change, and if it is not challenged, this is usually read as confirming the judgement. However, if a text is adjusted this way, and there is a challenge, such as in the form of a revert, it is best to discuss this on the talk page. There is no excuse for not explaining the logic behind a change, and if there is a genuine reason for making it, it should really be accommodated. Inserting things that are off-topic, or a synthesis, or original research, or unverifiable and without sources, are all pretty unproblematic - in fact we have a responsibility to address these. It is easy to overlook them, especially if they coincide with our own understanding. We are all only human. Things never improve through edit wars, and the most difficult scenario is when somebody insists on forcing their changes on an article and yet also continues to discuss this on the talk page. Mish (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"the most difficult scenario is when somebody insists on forcing their changes on an article and yet also continues to discuss this on the talk page"; absolutely so. Very well put. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As one of the original contributors to this article, who has only now revisted the article after a year's absence, I wish I could say I was surprised by the recent leftist revisions - but we all know Wiki is the sandbox of the leftists. All of this nonsense was hashed out over a two year period and the Kinsey apologists and truth deniers were collectively defeated by facts and citations. Now, in one sweeping Soviet style revision, the Hollywood version of Kinsey is substituted. Here again is a shining example of why Wiki is no longer taken seriously by any honest and serious thinking individuals. --Ballog (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly a WP:NPOV or WP:CIVIL comment.Mish (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The diff is here: [[2]], and very little of the material you refer to was removed; the heading was, and some POV insertions, and the rest was incorporated into the main section, which was about his work on human sexuality. Kinsey looked at child sexuality in the context of human sexuality, and used the reports of pedophiles - he was not specifically concerned with pedophilia, so my own feeling is that the call to remove the sub-section title was right. However, it was subsequently reorganised into new subsections, and this was titled to reflect the content of that research, children's sexuality (I don't believe that Kinsey was looking at pedophile sexuality?). As I recall one or two of the references were odd, using something from 1998 to source reaction to something in 1948, and a law passed in 2008 to make a point about research carried out 60 years earlier. Without some kind of synthesis, it seemed hard to see how these applied to his work in 1948. I guess they could be included in some other section, such as later commentators on his work, reappraisal of his work fifty years on, or something. I know people's views change in time, but you cannot really use some criticism of him 50 years later as if it was a criticism of him at the time.Mish (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The major amputation peformed on the article was done by "Benjiboy" on Jan. 30, 2010 when, without discussion or any premptive notice, he completely removed the long standing and widely accepted "Controversey" section and replaced it with what amounted to a run-on editiorial in defense of Kinsey. The article has been restored.--FelixCab (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because you deleted the sections on Kinsey's work, and replaced this with criticisms of his work. This turned the page into WP:ATTACK, and violated WP:NPOV by turning WP:SOAP-boxing certain minority views by a few individuals who may not be particularly notable outside a narrow circle.Mish (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have again restored the article to it's long standing and widely accepted format before the destruction of Jan. 30th by "Benjiboy". A description of a "controversey" is niether a "Point of View" nor a "SOAP" nor an "Attack". Again, this was all hashed and rehashed for two years before one individual (Benjiboy) made a major revision with his POV and SOAP. MishMich seems to do agree with Benjiboy's "POV" and "SOAP" so he therefore did not object to the major undiscussed and unannounced revision of Jan. 30th. If MishMish would like to ADD more info about the Kinsey Reports he should contribute in a positive manner instead of trying to start an edit war. It is always easy to "delete" but it takes work to "add". --FelixCab (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"MishMich", I just now noticed the following comment you made on March 29th: "There is a limit to how much weight or attention needs to be focused on one-woman's crusade." What is this all about? --FelixCab (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The details were mainly based on a single person's critique of one aspect Kinsey's research (children's sexuality) 50 years after he published. Ditto for reference the change in law 60 years later. Hard to see the relevance to contemporary criticisms. I have been all through this before - won't repeat myself again. By all means deal with criticism (which was included in the details about the media) - but in order to do so, there has to be some discussion about what was being criticised. Relying heavily on one or two relatively obscure commentators over fifty years later seems undue. Mish (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted and well-sourced material about his work, and rearranged the sections so that details about 'controversy' that arose a generation after he published and died appear after the section about his death, and moved a paragraph about more recent media treatment from the media section down to the end of the text part (after controversey). I moved the information about his sex life to the section that deals with his personal life. Mish (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The article now contains two sections that deal with his work on children and reliance on the evidence of pedophiles - first under the Kinsey Reports, and second under controversy. This is because, as I have already explained, the section on pedophiles was merged and expanded within the section on the Kinsey reports which was recently deleted. My own view is that it sits better in context - but if you feel strongly it should feature within later controversies, I'm happy to remove the bit of text in the earlier section that was taken from this section (bit not the text that explains in more detail the nature or that research). Mish (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


First, The Kinsey Report section should have been restored as it was mistakenly removed.

The sub section "Sex Life" should be returned under the "Controversy" section. Kinsey's sex life was controversial because he ingratiated his own, his wife's and his colleague's sexual activities into his supposedly unbiased "scientific" research. Honest and reputable scientists do not take part in their own experiments.

The entire last two paragraphs of "The Kinsey Reports" section belong in the "Controversy" section. The second of these paragraphs is laced with Point of View. There has never been any breakdown of how "much information came from adults' childhood memories, some was from parent or teacher observation". The reference from the Kinsey Institute has forever been laughable. The Institute refutes allegations that were never made by anyone, in order to deflect from the real criticisms. No one ever accused Kinsey or his co works of sexually abusing children. Yet The Kinsey Institute spends much of their time denying this non-accusation. Kinsey was criticized for using data from what he must have believed were active child molesters/rapists and never reporting them to authorities. (Can you imagine a social scientist working with a man who was going out at night on the streets, raping adult women and then giving his rape joural reports to the scientist?) Aside from not reporting the men to the authorities, the practice of using any data that was the result of this type of criminal activity is highly controversial. No one ever accused Kinsey of "having something to do with the Nazi torture of children", but the Kinsey Institute pretends the accusation exists - and then refutes it. Kinsey was criticized for corresponding with a child molester/rapist from Germany, never notifying the German authorities and warning the man "to be careful not to get caught". It was later discovered that the man had been a Nazi war criminal. The words "This became controversial after 1981, mainly because….." is insincere at best. It became controversial because someone discovered how Kinsey came upon his "data". Stating that Rex King's journal started in 1917 is an obvious attempt to mislead. Yes it started in 1917 but that's not the point. Rex King was alive and still abusing children when he became involved with Kinsey. Most readers would take from the current article that Rex King was long dead and gone and somehow Kinsey got hold of this ancient journal and simply used that "data" of someone, whom Kinsey misleading described as a "scientist, trained in the skills of observation". King, in fact, worked all of his life for the US Forestry Service and never had any scientific training. Almost this entire section is referenced to the Web Site denial posted years ago from the highly partisan and legally liable - Kinsey Institute. The Web Site statement includes no name of authorship. This entire section should be reworked to remove the obvious POV and poor referencing.

Oh by the way, Kinsey did not die of pneumonia. But that another mountain to conquer.--FelixCab (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Honest and reputable scientists do not take part in their own experiments Do you have a source that indicates that sexologists cannot participate as research subjects in their own research? Social scientists often participate in their own research - autoethnography, for example.
If you have problems with reliable and notable sources, take it to WP:RS/N. Sure, it is controversial today, but not then. Then, people did research by hanging around public toilets, today they don't, because today that would be controversial. It only became controversial afterwards. You cannot discount a reliable source because it conflicts with your POV, in favour of a lesser source that promotes a different POV. I have no objection to dealing with the different views in a balanced way. If you don't like that, take it to WP:AN/I, and we can get the article protected from further edits until this political historical revisionism is sorted out. Mish (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

section break

I have tried to re-work the text, but I think the problem you have overlooked is that this material was not removed, it was edited in a way that it was integrated into his work, as later criticisms. The problem is that by deleting the text about his work, and inserting the criticisms separately, you unbalanced the text. However, by then restoring the text about his work that you had deleted, this also restored the criticisms again, with the result that these criticisms then featured twice, once in the text alongside sources who countered those criticisms, and again in a the section with only criticism. That makes it quite difficult to re-edit in a way that doesn't feature these criticisms twice. I ahve tried, but TBH I think this worked better situated in the text about his work. The issue of his private sex life and his filming colleagues is a bit problematic - because there is nothing to suggest that this has been a public controversy. By placing it in the section on controversy makes it WP:OR, but clearly it doesn't really fit in with his personal sex life. I don't really understand why his personal morality has any bearing on his work. If he had been a priest I could understand, but he wasn't. This is why I am concerned about including details of his sex life in the details of controversy surrounding his work. I also take the comment about the inclusion of the details about King as bad faith, and therefore uncivil. That is what the sources say, and they say nothing about his being alive or dead - I have no idea when he died, and am not sure it is that relevant. The text is clear, for whatever reason, Kinsey did not consider him a risk at the time he interviewed him. Mish (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Reisman does not appear to be a notable or reliable source, being mostly self-published - why should a responsible encyclopedia include a politically motivated holocaust revisionist as a source in this article? Mish (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the handling of the stuff about Kinsey's private life rather disturbing. The Reisman work is called "Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World." The words "sleazy" and "tabloid" spring to mind. Sometimes a figure's private life is of importance, as illustrative of the mores of some culture or historical period or as demonstrating the underlying hypocrisy of their position (the conservative televangelist having gay sex with his drug pusher). But this material on Kinsey is nothing but smear and should all go. The article should cover criticism of Kinsey as it is found in academic sources. Not merely the facts reported but the weight given to different views of Kinsey should reflect academic sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I also restored the text from the Dalrymple source I removed back in March, which says similar to Jones, so we could have all the allegations up-front. Do neither of these have any place under 'personal life' or criticism? Reisman appears to be coming from some pro-Christian agenda which seeks to discredit certain things, like that queers were gassed in theb holocaust and the usual homosexual agenda/recruitment stuff. It is interesting that the stuff she said about Kinsey would have been met with a libel suit in his own lifetime - and yet she sued the Kinsey Institute for defamation, but had to drop the suit on the advice of her attourney. While Reisman seems to promote herself as a notable academic, searching on Scholar does not actually turn up anything substantial beyond work she has self-published and self-promoted. If Jones & Dalrymple allegations about what they think Kinsey was like, and Reisman, that doesn't leave enough to justify a 'controversy' section - and I think that is what was left ended up being absorbed elsewhere in the text. I know that with a BLP most of this stuff would have to go, and while this is not a BLP, the same policies still apply, but without the sense of urgency. I'll wait a while to see if there is any other response, and then revert it back to before the initial revision was made yesterday - although I am happy for you to do the necessary edit(s) if you wish. I guess my position is that if there are people who are going to keep trying to push this stuff through the article, it is better to have it somewhere and deal with it in as neutral a way as possible, and people can see it for what it is - it makes life easier 'accommodating' this stuff in some way that allows for inclusion of commentary that refutes it, than having to keep an eye on things so that every time somebody sticks the stuff in again, having to go through all this garbage again. Mish (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Of Reisman, All Experts [3] says this:

  • Judith A. Reisman is the president of Restoring Social Virtue & Purity to America (RSVPAmerica) that distributes material that criticises modern sexual viewpoints and sex education based on Alfred Kinsey's work. She also lobbies against pornography, and alleges that there is a large-scale effort by "establishment media" to "recruit" children into homosexuality. Since the late 1980s, she has extensively criticized Kinsey and the Kinsey Reports. Her publications have been frequently distributed and funded by conservative organizations, and used as arguments to reduce funding for sexology, which, Reisman claims, is not really a science but a cover for pro-homosexual/pedophile campaigners to obtain funding.
  • Dr. Reisman's work has been criticised by a number of different organisations, and in the past her actions have proven to be controversial. Reisman was in the early 1980's given a grant for $734,371 by the US Department of Justice to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream pornography..." The work which Reisman produced was later denied for publishment by the American University, where the study was based. The appointee who commissioned the study later said of it:
  • "It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'. (Carol, 1994, p.116)"
  • Dr. Reisman then caused further controversy by going as far to imply that the reason her work was not published was in fact due to the Kinsey Institute
  • Dr. Reisman also had further conflict with the Kinsey Institute when she filed lawsuit against the Institution for "defamation of character" and "slander", which supposedly occurred in a statement given by the Institution in response to Reisman's assertion in "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud" that Kinsey's research involved illegal experimentation on several hundred children. Reisman's attorney withdrew from the case, and the case was eventually "dismissed with prejudice" from the court. Reisman was barred from re - filing.
  • Dr. Reisman's contribution to science, and scientific credentials have also been brought into question. Reisman holds a Ph.D. in Communications, and some have claimed that Reisman is not qualified in her field, and thus cannot support her claims to being a scientist.
  • A number of professionals in the scientific community have also criticised Reisman, Dr. Loretta Haroian, the cochair of the plenary session of Child and Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of Sexology, an expert on childhood sexuality, commented on Reisman's work:
  • "This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't help children at all. ... [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children." (Carol, 1994, p.116).

This would suggest that we definitely should not be treating Reisman as a WP:RS, as she presents herself as an academic, yet appears to have little (if any) standing within the academic community. Mish (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Of Jones' book, reviews are not that impressive, and one expert in the field, Verne Bullough says that while his work is comprehensive, it misses the taxonomic nature of Kinsey's work, and "Its weakness lies in Jones's lack of real understanding of human sexuality: In the case of Kinsey, he either sensationalizes it or misses the mark. In Jones's mind, Kinsey was a repressed homosexual with sadomasochistic tendencies. His argument for this is based on guess work or, in the case of Kinsey's later years, on anonymous sources. I also believe that Jones, in the course of writing the biography, came to dislike his subject and the dislike shows throughout the book." [4] I met Bullough before he died, about seven years ago, and came away less impressed than before I met him, but would consider him a much more reliable person on this issue than Jones. From what Bullough says, there is little to suggest that we should take this aspect of Jones' research seriously. Bullough dismisses much of his analysis as opinionated, suggesting that it is the data contained in the book that will be of most interest to scholars. Mish (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That kind of leaves Dalrymple, which again is an opinion piece, and he is not that widely known in the UK, where he writes, outside conservative circles. Is his being of the opinion that Kinsey was sexually odd of any significance to his biography? It occupies the status of speculation, and speculation doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedic biography. Looking through his writing about Kinsey, he often talks about this, and has a clear dislike for Kinsey - yet nowehere can I find anything more than what appears to be his assertion, only presented as a fact by him. I wouldn't dismiss him as a WP:RS, as he is a psychiatrist who has published and writtenn for newspapers - but I would be concerned by inserting what appears to be speculation on his part as if it were fact. Mish (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Reisman is clearly not a reliable source. But it goes beyond that. Everybody has a private life and sexual interests of one sort or another. The circumstances when these become of genuine public concern vary, but I don't see that somebody simply being a sex researcher justifies the reporting of rumors and beliefs, no matter how entertaining these are or how well they fit into some gay-conspiracy theory (whatever happened to the commies? ;-) ). It seems you do have some personal subject knowledge here, but I'd be happier if the relevance or otherwise of the private life and the weight given to critics was justified on the basis of some authoritative tertiary source (e.g. a biography in another encyclopedia). --Simon Speed (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find anything like this in another encyclopedia. What would be useful would be to look at this paper by Verne Bullough: 'The Kinsey biographies', Sexuality & Culture, Springer New York' Volume 10, Number 1 / March, 2006 [5], but I don't. Mish (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullough gives a more balanced appraisal of this here:[6]:
  • Kinsey threw himself into sex, not only in sex theory but in observing sexual activities and even participating in them, especially homosexual ones, justifying it as necessary in order to ingratiate himself with his subjects. This becomes a controversial part of Jones' biography, but less so in Gathorne-Hardy's book. He also insisted that his staff view and participate in as wide a variety of sexual activities as they felt comfortable with: Gebhard, for example, refused to participate in any same-sex activity. Kinsey held that only by such activities could his interviewers be alert to every nuance of their subject's response, and if they could do this without actual participation then it was okay with him. Jones implies that Kinsey distorted his studies by including interviews from a disproportionate number of gay men. As Gebhard later demonstrated in a rerun of the Kinsey data, excluding prisoners and any data which seemed to be derived from a totally gay sample, this was not the case. Certainly, he did interview a disproportionate number of gays, but it might well have been an attempt by Kinsey to understand homosexuality since he felt it was so stigmatized by society.
I have found some extracts from Bullough's review of biographies:
  • “It is true that Kinsey himself experimented with sex and, among other things, engaged in considerable homosexual activity not only with his assistants, but with others.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies”, p.19)
  • “Both Jones and Gathorne-Hardy agree his sample was distorted with Indiana furnishing the greatest number of subjects, but he also had a disproportionate number of homosexuals.” (Bullough, The Kinsey Biographies,”p.20-21)
  • “Both Jones and Garthorne-Hardy believe that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies,” p.21)
  • “Both Jones and Garthorne-Hardy point out the data was mostly dependent upon the notes taken by a pedophile although Kinsey tried to cover this up by attributing it to varying sources.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies.” p.22)
It strikes me that using Bullough's comments on the issues raised here, we can say something which does address various problems about notability, reliability, biography, etc. Mish (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am summarising these as follows:

  • Kinsey's sex research went beyond theory and interview to include observation of and participation in sexual activity, including homosexual activity, with co-workers and others. He justified this as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects; Jones and Dalrymple, amongst others, have speculated that he was driven by his own sexual needs, and what those needs might have been. He encouraged his staff to do likewise, and engage in a wide range of sexual activity, to the extent they felt comfortable; he argued that this would help his interviewers understand the participant responses.
  • Jones suggests that the disproportionate number of homosexual men, particularly from Indiana, in his sample, may have distorted his studies; the data was later re-processed, excluding prisoners and data derived from an exclusively gay sample, and it does not appear to have skewed the data. Kinsey had over-represented people who were homosexual, but Bullough considers this may have been because it was stigmatized and needed to be understood.
  • Kinsey used data from a single paedophile and presented it as being from various sources, Bullough suggests, in order to avoid revealing it was from a single source.

I will append/replace the existing controversial material, with relevant sources cited, and as this seems to all be better relocated from personal life & controversy into the main text about his work, as a single subsection, about controversies after his death.Mish (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have merged all this in with the various bits, pulling it back into a single section that features within his work - setting the context of sexual activity clearly as part of his work rather than his personal life - removed the speculative material and material that is non-reliable. It is still considerably unbalanced, given there is so little about his work in comparison. However, there is a whole section on the Kinsey reports, and I think much of this would be better there than here.Mish (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kinsey was an accomplished researcher but this hatchet job seems like a smear by the religious right-wing to paint him as enabling pedophilia and endorse sexual promiscuity. He simply was doing some of the very first research on wide scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not right wing. Secondly, I have gone to some trouble to eliminate non-WP:RS, and shift this to sources relying on a completely neutral and reliable source - Vern Bullough is one of the most notable academics wriring on sexology in the past 40 years, past president of Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, and editor of the the Journal of Sex Research, published over 50 books in the subject, and of his death, Eli Coleman said "We have lost the most important historian of our field". You will find no better source than Bullough in this area, TBH.
However, in part I do agree with you, because there is so little about his work here, it seems WP:UNDUE to have the section about later controversies here; it could quite legitimately be moved to the article about the Kinsey reports, as much of this relates to that. I think I'd keep the first paragraph of the three here, as that gives an interesting insight into the man and his approach to his research, and move paragraphs 2 & 3 out of that section. However, I am unwilling to do so if it results in yet another edit-war on the part of those who may be editing from an ideological perspective - basically because I do not have the time or energy for that.
I don't personally see what the problem is with this stuff - he was sex researcher, and part of his work involved rolling his sleeves up and getting his hands dirty. That seems to say something quite positive about him (I'd like to think most astronomers have at least tried looking through a telescope); I guess it has to do with seeing some forms of sex as a problem (immoral, sikness, etc.), and seeing sex as sex. He interviewed a pedophile to find out about children's sexual responses, and today that would be a problem; but in 1948 I'm not sure how else would he find out this information, or find out about pedophilia? One law-enforcement agency has stated that his work allowed them to build the first profile of pedophilic sex offendors; so again, it depends on how you look at things. He understood that homosexuality was stigmatised, and he sought to enhance our understanding of all forms of sex; many people (even heterosexuals) knew something about heterosexual sex - but being taboo, homosexual sex was pretty unknown. This interest has been challenged as introducing bias, it appears that this is unfounded. My own reading is that the basis of these criticisms has more to say about the repressive sexuality of the critics than what they are critiquing. Lots of people have had sex with co-workers and subordinates, as consenting adults, although in more recent years this has become seen as problematic (because along with the sexual liberation came an awareness of the dynamics of power relations can introduce coercion and compromise consent); I'm not sure why this would be more controversial when the research involves sex, I'd have thought it would be less so, TBH, as that is what people are engaged in studying. It's only controversial if you think that research should be carried out in a way that one is ignorant experientially (astronomers should not look through telescopes, or - heaven forbid - become astronauts), and that sex is restricted to a lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. It isn't: people are free to have sex with whoever they choose, in whatever way they wish, regardless of gender, provided the choice is reciprocated and consensual. Kinsey appears to have proven that through his own experiments, so this is not unimportant. I find it astounding that nearly seventy years later there are people who still find it hard to accept this. But I guess there are people who still don't accept Darwin's ideas (although nobody is now saying that the sun goes around the earth) - people who will always put the irrational before the rational, appealing to some invisible supernatural entity (not sure where he might be, given how astronomers have failed to locate any sky-god) to justify the rationality of the irrational.Mish (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is much better. I'm glad the strident and poorly sourced criticism has gone: I compared the article to the one on Freud, a much more controversial individual in the history of science who is treated much more reasonably. I think criticisms about the handling of child abuse have their place though: society and its institutions have turned a blind eye for too long and "it was different back then" isn't an argument that's accepted now; but I wasn't impressed when I checked out Reisman and found her connected to Catholic Church anti-Kinsey campaigns!! I do think including so much of an obituary (they are always uncritical, even of highly controversial people) goes a bit too far towards making the article a hagiography and also we try to avoid quoting large blocks of copyrighted text. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it could be reduced, or a better-sourced and more concise obituary from the time used. Don't get me started on coke-head Freud - Karl Popper summed his nonsense. There's a guy who really did try to cover up pedophilia in Viennese society - and called the result 'female hysteria'. Maybe I'll pop in there and have a look...Mish (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"The War on Intimacy"

I've reverted edits based on the above named site. The book it "quotes" is published by the Center for Relationship Intelligence [7]. Google the author, Richard A. Panzer, and the only thing apart from Facebook you'll find is that he founded that organization. Effectively it's self published. The piece I removed should give a reasonable idea of what we're dealing with. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

According to The War on Intimacy, Kinsey planned to "use science" to subvert efforts of reformers to alleviate "problems like prostitution and the kidnapping and transporting of young women as sexual slaves".

The "self-published" book refers to a mainstream biography of Kinsey. Suppose I quote from that instead? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's more than "self published", it's actually self published. Do a little Google research: the organization that did the publishing is this guy. Sourcing any fact from a reliable source is a good idea. A claim that Kinsey planned to promote kidnapping and slavery needs to be well sourced. Just that somebody says it means nothing and has no place in an encyclopedia. I get chain emails repeating all sorts of myths and urban legends, clearly somebody is saying these things. I'm sure you could find quotes from Joseph Goebbels claiming evil things about many people: somebody said these things. Look at Marie Stopes' article: there is some nasty stuff about her. I believe it makes the article unbalanced, but it is all properly sourced and that is a minimum requirement for such nastiness. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
All right, already. I'm beginning to feel like the reclusive writer's neighbor in "As Good As It Gets", when he was told, "Don't knock on my door." ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do try to improve the Wikipedia, but also remember that controversial material is controversial, so you may well get disagreed with! The way we cope with controversy is to reference reliable sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and you'd think after 8 years here I'd be at least dimly aware of this concept. (See: User:Ed Poor/POV pushing ;-)

Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement

I am writing this to address whether the following paragraph or something substantially similar should be added to the end of the controversy subsection, or elsewhere. It has been removed again and again as WP:UNDUE or as from a humorous source. It was originally added by another editor and I added the ref that came from past revisions of this page. Here's the quote:

Kinsey and his work have also been the subject of criticism by writer and researcher Judith Reisman. (ref name=nyrk) (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/041206ta_talk_radosh?041206ta_talk_radosh The Culture Wars. Who Know?) The New Yorker, 29 November 2004, Daniel Radosh. Accessed 21 October 2010(/ref)

The article states, without humor, "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" and goes into much more detail on the subject of JR being AK's biggest critic. It is appropriate for the above non-POV sentence to be included here and reliably sourced to the New Yorker. It is perfectly placed at the end of the controversy section. Under the circumstances of the contents of the WP:RS, it would pure WP:POV or WP:SOAPBOX not to include the above sentence or something substantially similar.

That's my opinion. What's yours? And let's stick to the issues and Wiki policies including WP:AGF without ad hominem argument or false claims of pro or anti Kinsey agendas. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a paragraph. However from an outside perspective Reisman does seem to be relevant to Kinsey, if only for the fact her career revolves around his work. So, definitely qualifies as a "See Also" link. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!)

18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I had been asked that on my talk page also. If there is consensus for an unadorned "see also", that could be fair. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I would accept a See Also. However, that would exclude the New Yorker ref. Further, that single sentence is about as NPOV as you could get and was well written by its initial author. Okay, so don't put it in a separate paragraph, but it is totally harmless and actually provides useful information to someone researching Kinsey, and that's the purpose of Wikipedia.
It has not escaped my attention that numerous people are using extreme and unWiki friendly efforts to keep JR off the AK page. It almost seems like a crusade. Reasoned efforts at proper debate were lacking. Collapse templates, AN/I, 3RR threats when none existed, misquoted statements, made up statements, all things I faced simply to get to the point where a See Also link is finally being begrudgingly allowed. I find that all to be disturbing. I find it to be indicative of an effort to treat the page as one's own instead of as Wikipedia intended. I am just being honest.
The treatment I got here on Wikipedia on various pages just for posting a few links and just for adding a ref to an excellent statement added by someone else has been truly shocking. Not surprising, but shocking. So I am not terribly impressed that one of the people who joined in on the LAEC pile up is the one proposing a See Also link as something that "could be fair". He claimed, for example, that I wrote the JR sentence in the first place. Not true. Be he will accept a See Also as "fair" when he was not.
For the reasons stated above, I really think its worth a sentence and a ref, not just a See Also link. I really think this is Wikipedia, not Bullyopedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Add my name to the already established consensus which says leave it out. See also is plenty.
A more important point is that nobody is bullying you, rather you don't have consensus for your addition of the material that supports your agenda. That's one of our fundamental principals here. We all live and die by it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no agenda. Someone else added a sentence and I just added a reference that was in a past version of the article, doing precisely what a Wikipedian is supposed to do. You have constantly and consistently made false claims about me. I demand you either show evidence of an "agenda" or that you stop harassing me.
And I see no "already established consensus" here either. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever added the "see also" link. (I was the user who asked Baseball Bugs on his talk page for (at least) a "see also.") I take no position in the above discussion other than to say thanks for putting the link there. I originally attempted to start a new paragraph under "Controversy" to get her crosslinked into this article, in at least one mention. The mention was what was important to me, not the location... However, I was rebuffed. I see she now has a "see also" link, which I strongly endorse. Whatever your thoughts above about the mertis of "see also" linking or mention in text, at least now she is in the article, as she should be. Saebvn (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To anyone interested, I've just completed a three-day overhaul of the Judith Reisman article. Please stop by and have a look! -- Limulus (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking now; thank you. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Judith Reisman article is pretty much done, but there's one section that is tagged with WP:OR: Judith_Reisman#Sources_of_child_sexual_abuse. If you have a few moments, would you mind taking a look and commenting on the talk page in the appropriate section? Talk:Judith_Reisman#Original_research Thanks! -- Limulus (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edward Laumann Sociologist

Earlier this week I updated the controversy section, including a note about how Edward Lauman's work obtained significantly differing results to Kinseys, and I referenced my source as this webpage: http://www.slate.com/id/2174454/ However my brief comment has been completely removed. I suggest that Lauman's findings are highly relevant as they provide insight into the quality of Kinsey's findings. Including reference to Lauman or any other researchers whose work contradicts Kinsey's, also challenges the stated inference that Paul Gebhard, in the 1970s, basically validated certain findings by Kinsey. By noting Gebhard's work, the reader is led toward perceiving that the relevant findings of Kinsey are and remain confirmed and unchallenged. If it's not appropriate to mention Lauman's findings, then perhaps it's not appropriate to mention Gebhard's either? Im not experienced with editing Wikipedia, so could someone who is experienced please comment as to whether it was appropriate that reference to Lauman's findings was removed, and whether it's appropriate that Gebhard's findings remain. Thanks-58.173.1.236 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) aussiewithcamera

There's been a lot of controversy and some edit warring on the article. I and others have been concerned that it stays balanced, taking the overall position of the scientific community. Unfortunately, there has also been work by supporters of the likes of Judith Reisman to promote them as the anti-Kinsey "experts". I suspect your material just got lost in the crossfire. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well Im not a scientist, but as I outline above, it seems to me that in your effort to remove the views of Reisman etc, the result is a very Kinsey-affirming article, which I suspect is ultimately not balanced. It's many years since Kinsey's work and although the article should note that he was a leader at the time, if other scientific studies have since contradicted or brought his conclusions into question, a balanced article of the current length would now recognise that fact. One must ask whether such Wikipedia articles are about science or hero-worship. 58.173.1.236 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)aussiewithcamera
I don't think the article should be (or is) hero worship. I think it should reflect a scientific consensus. The religious right's views on science (from Galileo to creationism) are notable in themselves but not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly why Judith Reisman has her own article, ne? :) -- Limulus (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
With specific regards to these edits: [8] I don't think it was fair to call that "Kinsey bashing" [9] (please WP:AGF) Reisman does say that (Kinsey bashing is what Reisman does ;) and Kinsey biographers say that her claims are not supported by the available evidence. I am going to slightly expand the See also link to her page to give some indication of why it's there. -- Limulus (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Reisman specifically, she really needs to be taken with a grain (read: ton) of salt. She has a clear agenda and appears to fit facts to her theory rather than the other way around. Also, while she is outspoken, what has she actually done that should be in this article that, say, Kinsey's biographers can't supply? -- Limulus (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 58.173.1.236 BTW for the [10] ref; I am going to use it in the Reisman article. -- Limulus (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just skimming the article again, I can think of some guidelines for inclusion of criticism of Kinsey:

  • If it was contemporary to his publications (even if it was religious in nature; e.g. based on a Google search it looks like Billy Graham denounced the Kinsey reports at the time [[11]]), it should be mentioned here and/or in the Kinsey Reports article depending on who/what exactly was being criticised. Probably not for anything too much past his death in 1956 (so say ~1960 as a cut off?).
  • If it has to do with a legitimate academic update to the field that enhanced/contradicted something in the Kinsey Reports it should go in that article, or be linked from that article in the See also or external links sections.
  • If any of (but not limited to just) the following terms: "Judith Reisman," "Esther White," "Erototoxin," "American Family Association," "NARTH," "Liberty University," "Liberty Counsel," or "WorldNetDaily" appear as part of the criticsm, it almost certainly belongs in a different article (e.g. Reisman's ;)

-- Limulus (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "If it's not appropriate to mention Lauman's findings, then perhaps it's not appropriate to mention Gebhard's either?" I think we can safely say that Paul Gebhard, who "co-authored the second of the two Kinsey Reports" as per his article, was a contemporary of Kinsey and the mention of him in this article isn't about new interviews, but rather just a re-examination of existing data... BTW, I note that Lauman is specifically mentioned in the Kinsey Reports article using that same ref. -- Limulus (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Time-1953-08-24.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Time-1953-08-24.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul Gebhard Does Not Exactly Match Wikipedia's Third Party Policy

As Kinsey's close colleague and successor, he is an unreliable resource and including him as a verifiable resource by not mentioning his ties to the sex researcher is in violation of the third party policy. In order to keep him as a source, it needs to be known how close he was to Kinsey.184.97.133.68 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And you added that here; per WP:Said, I'm not sure that the word alleged should be used. If there is sufficient doubt among WP:Reliable sources, then alleged can be fine, however. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:Alleged is a more specific guideline for the "alleged" matter than WP:Said is. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed after "data . . . well regarded" statement

I placed a "citation needed" tag after the statement -- "The data published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) remains well-regarded in the scientific and psychiatric communities."

Given the 1954 American Statistical Association report--William Gemmell Cochran, W. O. Jenkins, Frederick Mosteller, and John Wilder Tukey. 1954. Statistical problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. American Statistical Association, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee for Research in Problems of Sex – Psychology--the Wiki article on Kinsey does not have enough direct references to counter the 1954 statement of these leading statisticians--"Critics are justified in their objections that many of the most interesting and provocative statements in the [Kinsey 1948] book are not based on the data presented therein, and it is not made clear to the reader on what evidence the statements are based. Further, the conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by KPM [Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin] in much too bold and confident a manner. Taken cumulatively, these objections amount to saying that much of the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing."Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Falling below the level of good scientific writing is something of an understatement. The controversy section refers to various studies and reports, which show what can only be called unscientific methods, or even outright misrepresentations by Kinsey. Should we not conclude with a summary of what this implies? Surely the Kinsey report must be considered suspect if not outright bogus. I cannot think of any direct comparison, at present, except for the rather different writings of David Irving. His works have been completely discredited, yet his professional failings were minor compared with Kinsey's.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Royalcourtier, specifically what do you propose be added? Whatever it is should be WP:Reliably sourced. As for the Kinsey Reports, Kinsey's work certainly has support as far as female sexuality goes, which is also noted in the The Kinsey Reports section of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusations By Anti-Kinsey Fanatic Judith Reisman

I have not yet read these articles. Based on the titles, it appears a Kinsey victim is speaking out. If so, I'll bet it corroborates at least some of the information on this Wiki or that should be on this Wiki. Here are the articles for everyone's consideration: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=214105 Victim of Notorious Sex Experiments Speaks Out; 'Esther White' Interview Exposes 'Evil' Scientific Research: Part 1], by Brian Fitzpatrick, WorldNetDaily, 17 October 2010. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213213 Stunner! Kinsey Paid My Father to Rape Me; Subject of 1940s 'Research' Goes Public with Horrific Details of Abuse by Dad], by Brian Fitzpatrick, WorldNetDaily, 17 October 2010. Interesting, no? Forgive me, but I do not have the time at the moment to integrate these into the Wiki, if and where appropriate. But the articles are directly relevant so I am placing them here on Alfred Kinsey and also on Judith Reisman. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What a reliable source, WorldNetDaily, the people behind the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The source is the victim; WND did not make this up. Let me venture a guess and say you read neither source all the way through and just chose to attack the messenger to distract from the message. I admitted I did not read either source, but I did not make any conclusory statements either. I appreciate your having done that, however, so edits bearing the Simon Speed tag may be easily identified as biased. Anyone else wish to attack WND and completely overlook the issues raised? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I came here intrigued by the report from the traditionally deranged WorldNetDaily. It looks as if the Esther White claim isn't so exclusive as WND would like you to believe. A documentary from the far more reliable BBC Channel 4 explored White's claims, as discussed here. So her account seems worth considering. http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/filmreview.php?issue=3&id=74 69.181.199.238 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, 69.181.199.238. Here's a better cite to it: Film Reviews; Kinsey; Dir: Bill Condon, USA/Germany, 2004; Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles; Dir. Tim Tate, UK, 1998, by Jonathan A. Cullum, 3 Scope, undated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the place to wage a campaign either pro-kinsey or anti-kinsey. It seems folks like Judith Reisman aka Judithreisman (talk · contribs) are intent on promoting their agendas on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh, you're kidding, right? World Nut Daily? This is a joke, I'm sure. Did someone move April Fool's Day to a different part of the year without telling me? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As to WND, I might agree. I am suggesting that people interested in this Wiki page may find content in the WND articles that could be used for the Wiki page. For example, Media Matters for America references are often biased and violative of numerous Wiki policies. However, the content they contain may help people find actual reliable sources that may improve a Wiki page. The same goes here. The WND articles are about a Kinsey victim's public statements, and such statements may be relevant on the Kinsey page. Placing them on the Talk page is the appropriate thing to do. I did not even spin them. Someone even added a third link. Clearly there is community interest and clearly adding relevant links or potentially relevant links to Talk pages is acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI to anyone reading this section, a mention about Esther White was added to the Judith Reisman article in a NPOV way that includes a quote from the Kinsey Institute. -- Limulus (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
People should at least read this article about Judith Reisman & "WorldNetDaily" to clarify all of this: ConWebWatch: (March/29/2011) How Biased Must A WorldNetDaily Reporter Be?: "Fitzpatrick also uncritically promoted the agenda of anti-Kinsey fanatic Judith Reisman with a series of articles purporting to examine "alleged crimes committed by sex-research pioneer Alfred Kinsey and his Kinsey Institute" in conjunction with latest, WND-published anti-Kinsey screed. But Fitzpatrick made no apparent effort to contact the Kinsey Institute for a response -- a failure of basic journalism. An Oct. 17 article toured a claim by a woman who said Kinsey paid her father "to rape her and then report to him on the attacks." But the story lacks evidence to support it, and reporter Brian Fitzpatrick made no effort to contact the Kinsey Institute for a response. In one interview transcript, the woman, using the pseudonym "Esther White," makes the allegation based on childhood memories. The woman's statements are littered with qualifiers (emphasis added): "I think that's when they made the deal to use the information they got before for Kinsey's second book, the one about women." ---- "I think the Kinsey people at IU talked my grandfather into getting involved." ---- "He realized he had been duped by Kinsey, I think." ---- "They had to do the charting first, then they got paid for it. The check was probably $6,000." There's no mention by Fitzpatrick of any evidence that would substantiate the woman's claims; he's merely taking the woman at her word. (Nevertheless, WND editor Joseph Farah chimed in to portray the woman's unsubstantiated claims as "fully documented" -- even though not a shred of documentation was presented by WND.) Fitzpatrick's lack of curiosity went further: At no point in any of the several articles he wrote in his series of attacks did he even bother to contact the Kinsey Institute for a response. Instead, he repeats previous claims by the institute that Kinsey "did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children." Fitzpatrick did, however, find time to contact numerous Kinsey critics to further the anti-Kinsey attacks. Reisman has largely been discredited due to her own hateful obsession with Kinsey being put before sound research, but Fitzpatrick didn't report that either. Fitzpatrick added a further level of dishonesty by portraying the "Esther White" story as something new; in fact, Reisman wrote in her 2003 book "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences" that she interviewed White in 1997, and that she had told her story in a British documentary, "Kinsey's Paedophiles," which Fitzpatrick identified as airing in 1998." --Radical Mallard (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Misleading statement.

"Kinsey's father imposed strict rules on the household, including mandating Sunday as a day of prayer and little else." Okay, I'm not defending Kinsey nor his father, but this sentence makes it sound like "mandating Sunday as a day of prayer and little else" was some kooky idea that the "strict" father made up, but keeping the Sabbath holy is one of the biblical Ten Commandments that is obeyed by all devoutly religious Jews and Christians. It seems like the author of the sentence has never heard of the Ten Commandments. Personally, I suspect that Kinsey was a little "off", and agree that his father's personality quirks probably did contribute to that, but the sentence I quoted jumps off the page as being uninformed and juvenile. I suggest fixing it, but have no suggestions about how to do that, just pointing it out.77Mike77 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The description seems unsourced, but it also seems fair. According to the Christenson biography, the family had to walk to thrice-on-Sunday services, even if they rode with the minister (conveyance unspecified, but it seemed unlikely to be an automobile). Milk deliveries were forbidden (I didn't know they were ever common on Sundays) and an errant relative was put out of the house for playing selections from Italian opera on the piano on Sunday. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alfred Kinsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alfred Kinsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Habits

What does the section of Alfred_Kinsey#Personal_habits has to do with the article? other than a possible anecdote for a gossip magazine doesn't seem like the kind of information for an enclyclopedia and doesn't it violates the policy on "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? and yes, that policy applies to recently death people too, Wikipedia can still be legally liable from Kinsey's family if they want to. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There could be less detail on just how Kinsey abused himself and more on how it's relevant, but there has been plenty of recent coverage of Kinsey's more unusual sexual habits, which appear to be well documented and germane to discussing a man whose study established that people in general tend to be more varied in their sexuality than previously thought. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
But still is breaking the policies about biographies of contemporary people as Kinsey still has living family. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about breaking any policies. Can you point out exactly what is being broken? WP:BLP applies to the living or recently deceased, which is not the case here, and that policy doesn't forbid information that is well sourced, even though it might be unsavory to some. I don't think the tone of the paragraph in question is particularly sensationalistic, but it doesn't need to have as much detail about his habits, or necessarily be in a separate section. Do you want to suggest some rewording? Dhtwiki (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes I quoted the policy in my first intervention, but here is again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment (from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) and yes Kinsey is recently deceased from a historical perspective, even his works are not in public domain yet the Kinsey Institute and his family are still his trustees. Now I personally will suggest the elimination in full, but in order to reach a friendly consensus I will agree to a better/more discret wording and not be a separate section. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess I didn't realize you had quote the BLP policy in the beginning. No need for me to have linked to it again. I differ with you on what it means to be recently deceased. In any case, I suggest the following change: That the "Personal habits" subsection be removed (as well as the "Marriage and family" subsection heading, which would be unnecessary) and replaced with the following wording after "Kinsey was bisexual"—"and as a young man, would punish himself for having homoerotic feelings", which is cribbed almost word for word from the summary language in the offending section. I would add the three references after "throughout his adult life", assuming they are reliable and relevant. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably "recently deceased" is kind of subjective but as the policies do not specify a quantity of years it will be for a while. For the rest, I agree, I think is a much better wording. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho and Dhtwiki, I don't see why this needed to be removed. There is no WP:BLP violation, or any other policy or guideline violation, by keeping the material. That stated, I'm not interested in debating this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and note that since Kinsey was a sex researcher, his own personal views or issues regarding sexuality are relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any academic justification that says that the private behavior of an investigator even in their adolescence is relevant for their profesional work? because I never read such thing in any scientific research manual. On the other hand if you want to dispute the previous consensus then I guess we'll have to go to other instances and take the issue to the biographies noticeboard and/or request a mediation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Dereck Camacho, if Alfred Kinsey's personal views or issues regarding sexuality, such as circumcising himself, are not relevant, then why do reliable sources cover the matter? And, yes, that includes some academic sources, such as this "Asperger Syndrome: A Gift Or a Curse?" source, from Nova Publishers, page 221. This is not simple gossip. It ties into his work from a psychological viewpoint, which is why he has commented on it and why academic authors have commented on it. I'm not stating that we should have kept all of the material or the subsections. After all, per MOS:Paragraphs, I'm usually against subheadings for a little bit of material. But I am stating that Kinsey's self-harm issues are noted and/or analyzed in a number of biographical entries on him. It's not trivial information in the least. As for consensus, I only see two editors above who have discussed the matter. I don't see any true WP:Consensus on the removal of that information. But, like I stated, I am not focused on this issue at this point in time. I'm sure I'll revisit it at a later date; maybe sooner if someone re-adds some of the removed material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
On side note: There is no proof that Kinsey had Asperger syndrome. I'm not agreeing with everything that source states; only showing that this part of Kinsey's life is noted/analyzed, as other sources in the Alfred Kinsey article show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I get your point better. I think that the problem is that the original wording was on one hand to tabloid-ish looking, sort of speak, and maybe get into too much detail on the practices, should be remembered that Wikipedia doesn't have to encompass all information from a person. But I would agree that more information about the issue can be there, just maybe not to such a graphic extreme nor such a sensationalist writing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for Dhtwiki but on my behalf, feel free to make some adding. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
What it came down to for me, in the end, was that there was too much detail on self-punishment, without saying much about how that self-punishment related to anything, for the amount of text dedicated to his personal life. Note that I kept all the references, which I assume present the story in the detail that was found too much for here. I think my contributions above show that I was not too concerned about its being sensationalistic (as it struck me more like part of a psychiatric case history than something you'd read in the National Enquirer). In any case, if there are now any objections, let's have proposals for new wording presented here, rather than carte blanche given to change the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Kinsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Kinsey/Archive_2&oldid=1094688710"