Talk:Judith A. Reisman

message: Slanderous accusations are made about Kinsey that are completely unanswered here, which is completely unacceptable.
Reisman states that Kinsey said all of us were bisexual. He certainly did not. The Kinsey scale noted that a full 10 percent of the population was fully heterosexual. That's just one thing that I didn't even need to look up. This really needs to be cleaned up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Is the Opposing Point of View

message: I don't know why this article is even included, given the scant information provided.  Have her followers and adherents simply deleted everything negative?  If so, that could explain why so little is left.  The real story of Reisman is that she began her professional career working for Playboy magazine (I see no mention of that anywhere), and later began making a fool of herself before Congressional sub-committees while trying to ban pornography.  She later claimed to have been told by a Deepthroat-like informant that she should check into Kinsey's work; she refuses to divulge the informant's name, causing many to be suspicious of the story.  She has NO medical training, yet seems to consider herself a scientist worthy of pontificating on such things as "eroto-toxins" (substances which don't even exist).  Again, no mention of any of this in the article.  What are you people afraid of?  That we'll see through her facade?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathetic Article

message: The section labelled "Pro-Reisman spin" was copyvio from  and has been removed.  The article is now stylistically coherent.  Since the user who marked this article "cleanup" did not leave an explanation, I assume the poor formatting and disjoint perspectives were responsible for the cleanup tag.  I have thus removed "cleanup".
The remaining material was marked as "anti-Reisman spin", but seems comparatively NPOV from a casual reading.  Feel free to edit for POV. -- Creidieki 17:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighting, layout of pro- and anti-spin sections

message: I'm concerned that the Acvitivism against Pornography section is a copyvio.  They syntax was broken (check the page history immeditially before my revision on the date of this message) and although I can not directly google-match unique text strings, I'm still concerned.  I will leave it for now, because I have no evidence it's copyvio, but could someone please check me on it?  Thanks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio on Activism against Pornography? 

message: From the Humanities reference desk, apparently Dr. Reisman has an issue with the article as written; I vaguely know this person's work, but thought I'd link this over here so editors with experience and knowledge can have a heads-up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Desk comment 

message: I have attempted the erototoxin article merge, I believe that it conforms to the neutral POV policy, welcome to any changes. AJMW | Talk
Not really NPOV, she is a Ph.D. in Communications and here making statements based on nueropsychological 'findings'. She is certainly not trained to argue in this field. 76.88.44.194 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Erototoxin merge

message: Due to the controversial nature of the article, I'd strongly suggest that inline citations be used here, so that fact-checking can be easily performed. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The content of this article is being criticised by its subject and is reported at 
*
Lumos3 12:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article is worth reading, if only beacause Abbott quotes Reisman as saying that "glucose" is an "erototoxin".  Newsflash, Dr. Reisman: no glucose, no brain.  To paraphrase the Simpsons, "Homer no function well glucose without."  How did this C with a doctorate in Communications (i.e. Public Relations and Media) become an expert on brain chemistry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question. Since we bring up the topic, don't some universities revoke the sheepskins of people who perpetrate embarassing frauds like this? Sweetfreek (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed a good question. How does someone who studied the biology of insects, become an expert on human sexuality. --41.19.220.57 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, you're right: before Kinsey there was no way to get a diploma in empirically studying human sexuality. That's the whole point: he gave start to sexology as an academic field. Similarly, there was a time when there was no such thing as an IT degree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There were indeed urology and ob-gyn, but MDs were rife with prejudice against masturbation and homosexuality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of this article by Judith A. Reisman  

message: I have not yet reviewed in full the complaints about this article, but nonetheless saw enough to be convinced that at a minimum, a radical stub-and-rewrite exercise is in order.  Before editing this article, please review WP:BLP and check yourself very very carefully for bias.  Be extremely cautious about sourcing, and make sure that you do not read more into the sources than are actually there.  If you have been involved in a dispute about this article in the past, it could be better for you to avoid direct editing and merely participate for a bit in a discussion here on the talk page.
--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical stubbing 

message: Which is why I have taken the liberty of removing the following sentence:
"Reisman has yet to satisfactorily explain how degrees in Communications qualify her to debunk any scientist's work."
There are no quotation marks in the article itself, so it is perfectly safe to assume that this is not a part of a quotation (this particular sentence would have been irrelevant anyway); rather, it is the personal opinion of whoever wrote that part.
Why "opinion"?
Because it clearly implies a personal value judgment: 
a) the sentence itself has no special intrinsic informative value, especially not in the present wording. In other words, it's unnecessary for the purpose of delivering unbiased information about the subject discussed.
b) Rhetoric turns of speech, subjective connotations ("has yet to satisfactorily explain", not to mention irony) and slang words like "debunk" do not belong in an objective report, and are not usually used - unless, experience shows, the writer wants to discredit whoever or whatever s/he is writing about. Discrediting is not considered an acceptable practice in encyclopaedic articles.
***  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.54.226 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value judgments (as "veiled" as they may want to be) do not belong in an encyclopaedic article 

message: Dr. Reisman's editing of the review was, shall we say, creative?
A lot more than the lyrics of Cole Porter will need rewriting unless serious charges against the late Alfred C. Kinsey and three of his colleagues are rebutted. The Kinsey reports (one in 1949 on males and the companion four years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier m life, was more varied and more frequent, and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at that time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr Porter again, "Anything goes". In Kinsey Sex and Fraud Dr Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports.' At the one-third mark the book switches target to the "liberal" codes of sexual morality and sex education that have been built, it is alleged, on the Kinsey findings. The important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children. Any questionnaire survey in a normally private area is subject to bias from differences in those who respond and those who refuse, and there is no ready means of checking the information. The book goes beyond that, however, for Kinsey et al questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behaviour. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from paedophiles--or or so it must be hoped. Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. It is a pity that his attackers, with their confusing editorship/authorship, did not lay down their pens with those questions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lancet Review 

message: I cannot figure out if/how this should be included in the article but I found something substantially similar to what Reisman is saying:
Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children, by Victor B. Cline, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Salt Lake City, Utah:
:"The first change that happened was an addiction-effect. The porn-consumers got hooked. Once involved in pornographic materials, they kept coming back for more and still more. The material seemed to provide a very powerful sexual stimulant or aphrodisiac effect, followed by sexual release, most often through masturbation. The pornography provided very exciting and powerful imagery which they frequently recalled to mind and elaborated on in their fantasies.
:"Once addicted, they could not throw off their dependence on the material by themselves, despite many negative consequences such as divorce, loss of family, and problems with the law (such as sexual assault, harassment or abuse of fellow employees)."
That, and other things, sure sounds a lot like what Judith Reisman is saying.
I am adding this here because I sense the suggestion that JAR is alone in her views on this issue, for example the inclusion of the "denialism" category.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think a promotional piece originally put out by Morality in Media is worth a fraction of a second's consideration. It certainly does not qualify as a reliable source and thus is not eligible for inclusion as a reference here. Further, pointing out that other like-minded crackpots have views similar to Reisman's is a matter outside the scope of this article. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch.  Well, that's why it's in the talk section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to Reisman 

message: I think in the quest to balance what could have been seen as an anti-Reismann article, this article has been edited too far in the other direction. There is now no indication that there is any disagreement in the psychological or sexological community toward Reismann's views on Kinsey, homosexuality, "erototoxins", etc. In fact, generally speaking, her views are considered quite fringe. Criticisms of her work and views, presented in a balanced way without undue weight, need to be included for this article to comply with WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV again

message: Alright, I understand the issues with one of the sources I used for my last edit, but the reversion seemed a bit heavy handed. The deleted material included criticisms by Dr. Loretta Haroian (of the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Dept. of Child & Adolescent Sexuality) and Dr. Robert Figlio (of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Studies in Criminology & Criminal Law) as quoted in the book "Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship*." Both quotes were cited as such.
The first, from Figlio, referred to her study of Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse:
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'.
It seems reasonable to include criticisms of the validity of her work- that is, whether the research measured what she claimed it did- in an article which includes information on said work.
The second, from Haroian, also criticizes Reisman's research:
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
Haroian notes several issues, including the validity issue. Again, it seems reasonable to include this criticism in the article.
Finally, her statement that the Kinsey Institute threatened AU if they published her works comes from her own words, and is also available on her website:
The commercial sex industry now joined forces with the Kinsey Institute and academic sexology to prevent any light from being shed on their world. In time I would obtain copies of secret letters and packages, clandestinely sent worldwide by the Kinsey Institute and pornographers, to discredit my investigation into Kinsey and that of children appearing in their magazines. The Kinsey Institute had secretly threatened American University with a lawsuit if I was allowed to carry out my study. Therefore, concealing why they were being such obstructionists, the University demanded that I study nothing relating to Kinsey. Of course, this was a complete violation of academic freedom as well as the public's right to know, indeed what the taxpayer was paying to know. All along, the Kinsey Institute maintained a constant, stealth effort, largely censoring me and my findings from the print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such.
* Full cite: Carol, Avedon 1994, Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship, New Clarion Press, Gloucester.
Dysperdis (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems perfectly ok to me. We should definitely have at least some of this in the article. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure it follows Wiki policy.  Adhere to WP:BLP and WP:RS, for example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I included those two quotes from Haroian and Figlio, as well as noting that she claimed that the Kinsey Institute threatened AU, with a link to the section of her website where she made the claim. If anyone notices a policy issue within the changes, please let me know what so I can learn from my mistakes. Dysperdis (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms from experts 

message: The "criticisms" section is the largest section.  This page is veering away from Wikipedia policy.  Clean up the section or, better, incorporate the encyclopedic portions of it into the article, or I'll do it myself. Be mindful of WP:BLP while you are at it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is the largest and needs work 

message: The name of the article is Judith Reisman, so shouldn't this talk page go to Talk:Judith Reisman?  Star767 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another talk page at [[Talk:Judith Reisman]]