Talk:Alfred Kinsey/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Freud Vs. Kinsey 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old Neutrality Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notice Removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awful. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Disgrace 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major updates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving away from the controversy... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Would Like More Information in the Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need source for unlikely claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Methodology with Children 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abnormal Reporting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: "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  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)
thread_title:  Word Choice for "Pornographic" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Validity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No need to tread carefully with Reisman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  McCarthy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV and OR concerns 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huge gap in biography 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Need Summary of His Report's Findings 

message: Did no one notice this edit?!? Is anyone watching this article?? Kaldari 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Career section was deleted on September 1st 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atheist or agnostic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prok 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits by FelixCab 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reception of Sexual Behavior of the Human Male 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  FelixCab's clean-up 

message: 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. " This was removed. I do not understand why. Please advise. Magin846 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tried to add some info but got it removed 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Kinsey in the Media 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atheist or Agnostic?