Talk:Judith Reisman/Archive 1

POV
This article presupposes that the work of Alfred Kinsey was "highly fraudulent," and as such is definitely not written from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.80.130 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More POV
I've deposited the above statement here because the citation in no way supports the claim. Please do not re-add this information without a valid source that supports it. Extreme claims require extreme sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote removed from lead
I removed the following quote from the lead as it is too sensational to use with out better context to explain its relevance and on this short article it appears to be a WP:COATRACK way to advocate a particular point of view. What this articles needs is the inclusion of indepth background information about her. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit removed:As an example of Reisman's public advocacy, she has said the "imposition of sexplicit and indeed deviant forms of sexual conduct on captive schoolchildren is institutional child sexual abuse."(ref name=ent)"Interview with Judith A. Reisman: Something Rotten in the State of Montana?", by Michael F. Shaughnessy, Education News Today, 12 July 2010, accessed 3 November 2010(/ref>)


 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;, you are absolutely correct. I added it not for WP:COATRACK but precisely because the article lacks much of any substance at all.  As you say, "What this articles needs is the inclusion of indepth background information about her."  I agree 100%.


 * Why not consider the addition and the ref to be the start of people working together to improve the page and leave it in? Perhaps it will spur others to add more.


 * Further, the statement does not necessary add one POV or another to the article. Yes, on one side, her point gets made, but, on the other side, it could show a real eyebrow-raising statement.  Then it's up to the reader to decide how to view it.  To me, that's the way to go to write an interesting and well-written encyclopedic article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)
 * No, "you" selecting one of the most sensational comments from the Q&A does present a problem because there is no context established and the quote is given undue weight without it being established as significant by reliable sources. Ideally, the quotes and ideas from the subject of an article will be analyzed by experts in academic journals, or by mainstream publications that give background information so the significance of having that specific quote from this specific person can be established. Otherwise, we are verging on doing original research if we pick which quotes to use. Using the most sensational quote without any additional analysis from academic experts about its meaning presents problems here since we have no idea from reading the article what this quote adds to the academic debate. It is not our place to do this so we need to find reliable sources that spell out why her ideas are of interest and why her specific words should be added. If she is a notable person in this topic area then there will be reliable sources discussing her ideas. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless this quote is independently notable, there's no reason to include it. She likely has a multitude of opinions on a multitude of topics. It is arbitrary (at beast) to highlight this one. Westbender (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys, I go along with that. I think we can all agree this article needs major work.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kinsey victim speaks out about her rape as a child
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: 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 Judith Reisman and also on Alfred Kinsey. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [ 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.

See also: --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Nothing on worldnet daily can be treated as reliable for wikipedia's purposes. The film review would seem unneccessary; surely her own published work and academic commentaries on her views (if any) will serve to summarize her criticism of Kinsey.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 20 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 article 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 both the Kinsay page and on the Judith Reisman page, given her work on Kinsey. Placing them on the Talk page is the appropriate thing to do.  I did not even spin them.  Someone even added a third link on the Kinsey page that I added here. Clearly there is community interest and clearly adding relevant links or potentially relevant links to Talk pages is acceptable.


 * Let me add my COI is about libraries, not Kinsey. JR said something about libraries, but I promote none of her work regarding Kinsey. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at [ 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. I know how we all feel about WND, but this particular article has interviewed a Kinsey victim and published her responses. So WND is not spinning anything. I say this can be used precisely because it is a transcript of a WND interview with the Kinsey victim. But, I am not at this moment taking the time to support this view with Wiki policy. I may if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Why is this important? Because the article makes no mention of this and actually leaves the opposite impression. We have to give the truth, whatever it may be, and if this interview with a Kinsey victim is a reliable source and satisfies other concerns, then we should use it to balance the Kinsey Institute's claim that Kinsey had no child victims, among other things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Over the years, the Kinsey Institute has consistently denied that Kinsey recruited pedophiles to conduct his research or knew about any ongoing abuse of children. Esther White has stepped forward to tell us that's not the way it was." And, my friends, that may be wikiworthy as currently the Wiki article says the same thing, which may be incorrect. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "We have to give the truth, whatever it may be"? No, we do not deal in truth, we follow what reliable sources provide. Also, the fact that it is an interview means that it is the view of one person, so even if we trusted WND (and we don't), it would still be a tough call. If it were a 60 minutes interview, say, with investigative reporting providing fact checks and background for context, that would be a different matter. As a simple interview it is just a claim made by someone out there. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'm aware of the truth issue,  That is why I also said, "if this interview with a Kinsey victim is a reliable source and satisfies other concerns".  Those other concerns, unnamed, need to be satisfied as well.


 * That said, I fail to see why the Kinsey child victim talking to 60 Minutes differs from her talking to WND. Would you please explain that?  Are you saying WND is not accurately transcribing her statements?  Are we not providing fact checks and background?  Are you saying WND did not perform fact checks and background?


 * Honestly, at some point the WP:CABALDEMONS (not you, Nuujinn) cannot protect this page forever. It would be better to work towards a Wikiworthy page than to protect one that may not be.


 * This lady is making a claim that she was a child victim of Kinsey, and, given her story, she would know. She should not be dismissed so easily like this: "As a simple interview it is just a claim made by someone out there."  She is not "someone out there."  She is, at least she claims she is, a Kinsey child victim.  That's a whole different ballgame.  That's not "someone out there".


 * Being dismissive will protect the page, but it may not be Wiki complaint. I wish those protecting this page would set aside the constant drumbeat of dismissiveness, I mean to the point of WP:LAMENESS.  Eventually, Wiki policy will guide the necessary positive changes to this page. Being a part of the solution instead of a dismisser of potential solutions will benefit everyone involved, especially Wikipedia's billions of readers on the Internet. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple interview is just the opinion of the person speaking. She can claim whatever she likes and absent fact checking by investigative reporters with a reputation for reliability, there's no assurance that the story she is telling is true. What she says has not been apparently not been verified by WND.
 * WND hasn't a reputation for reliability, so even if they claimed to have checked the assertions made by this person, we couldn't accept the interview as a reliable source. 60 minutes does interviews, but they are (in)famous for digging for facts to check what the people they interview on controversial topics, so if they had done the interview and an investigation, we might consider it a reliable source.
 * This is an article on Reisman--not about Kinsey, not about White. There's nothing in the interview that is about Reisman, other than a couple of quotes. Even if the interview were a reliable source (and it is clearly not), to use material from that in this article would be, in my opinion, a violation of our policy against original research.
 * In summary, my take is use of these WND articles is simply out of the question. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, but here's the rub. The subsection entitled, "Children in the Kinsey reports" says JR says he's a pedophile (to use a loose summarization) and the Kinsey people say he is not.  Further, it says JR's claim is "groundless".  Well, the victim's statement goes directly to that point.  Her claim is not groundless, if the victim's story is true. If the victim's claim is Wikiworthy, it should be included. Else, JR is left looking like an idiot, which is how she is currently portrayed.  The guy who wrote most of this used the term "nutjob".  So, this being JR's page, we must do the right thing, and that's not the WP:SOAPBOX thing.  Hence the victim's statements are relevant here.


 * As to whether the "use of these WND articles is simply out of the question", that evidences the willingness to set aside the express guidelines of WP:RS or the ignorance of them in the first place, the latter being innocent/understandable. RS requires that each reference be considered in context.  Blanket statements such as "use of these WND articles is simply out of the question" expressly violates RS. It also evidences the potential for WP:SOAPBOX/WP:POV. I know the RS rules are complicated, so it is easy to miss that point about considering each ref in context.  Please review RS and let us know if you continue to hold the view that the "use of these WND articles is simply out of the question".


 * The WP:OR issue is important too. But before we get there, we first have to establish that the WND ref is not automatically excluded simply because "use of these WND articles is simply out of the question". Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you need to closely read the relevant policies. Regarding the OR, you're arguing that we should include "White's" claim because it supports Reisman's claims--you say "Her claim is not groundless, if the victim's story is true" and that's original research. We can't do that, even if we could know that her story is true, and can't know that. WND is not a reliable source, so we can't use material from them, interview or not. And if we could say WND was a reliable source, I would argue that the only thing we could say about White is that she claims X, Y and Z, but nothing that White says is about Reisman, so we shouldn't use any of this material in this article anyhow.
 * I'll try to be more clear--we are not here to promote the truth, or prove things, or respect a point of view, but rather only to report as best we can what reliable sources say about a given subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding OR, I specifically said I would address that in the future. Please do not put words in my mouth or presume what I would say in the future.


 * Regarding RS, you maintain "WND is not a reliable source, so we can't use material from them, interview or not", so it is clear you have a WP:SOAPBOX and will not be guided by RS.


 * As to the truth, I already explained that Wiki policies trump that.


 * Given your SOAPBOX, I'll step out of this conversation for now until I see a willingness to respect RS. You can't "report as best we can what reliable sources say about a given subject" if you do not honor RS's guidance regarding context in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, rather than get mad, why not give an example here of how you'd like a mention in the article to be written? Honestly, a single sentence at the end of the "Children in the Kinsey reports" section specifically quoting Reisman from [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214757 ] and a mention of her from [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214753 ] would probably do. -- Limulus (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not mad. I simply choose not to engage with an editor who admits he will not respect RS.  We are talking about RSs, so I think my efforts will go nowhere with such a person. I have other things to do in such a case. If he realizes you may not categorically rule out any particular source, then I may get involved again. If I give the suggestion you recommend, his obvious response will be the WND is never to be used as a source.  So I'll just move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts: I have only been using WND articles by Reisman for quotes from her as they are on the fringe of journalism; their sensationalism and bias are fairly obvious (e.g. with regards to Darwin: [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40140 ]) Now, since Reisman is directly involved here [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214757 ] I think we could talk about Esther White (a pseudonym BTW; see [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=216737 ]) here if we are careful to avoid repeating things uncritically; remember that this story is basically still isolated to WND (Google News has a couple other pages that point back to WND or Reisman's site). Also, the story broke on WND on Oct. 17; I'm not finding new news items on WND after Oct. 20th though; that's curious to me. Also, there are some red flags in my head: in Part 1 where Kinsey allegedly paid the grandfather $6000 in 1943; according to [] that would be ~$75K today!  That's a LOT of money...  Was that to pay for abuse? or something else like land? (In researching Charles Darwin, one inevitably ends up reading about Elizabeth Hope who started making claims about Darwin decades after Darwin died; the consensus is that her story was not true, yet my impression was that she believed what she was saying.)  Another red flag in my head was about a class action lawsuit [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=215717 ] by what appears to be a religious-based group  In regards to Wikipedia, why is this not (or not also) being discussed on the Kinsey talk page?  Has the Kinsey Institute said anything about this yet? -- Limulus (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding, "I have only been using WND articles by Reisman for quotes from her as they are on the fringe of journalism; their sensationalism and bias are fairly obvious", it is clear you are either unaware of or are ignoring the WP:RS requirement that refs are to be considered in context. It's a tricky thing so I am certain you are just unaware of that.  The issue is not whether WND is "on the fringe of journalism; their sensationalism and bias are fairly obvious", rather, the issue is whether WND is a RS in the context for which it is or is intended to be used.  Please, go read WP:RS carefully.  After that we can then discuss the WND source to determine if it is reliable in the context we might use it.
 * "the issue is whether WND is a RS in the context for which it is or is intended to be used" Um, yes; I think what I was getting at before is that if we can say 'Reisman said such-and-such regarding Esther White' with a ref to WND, that would be ok. I will try my hand at just that in a minute and post it here. -- Limulus (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, I must say I enjoy editing with you, Limulus. At first there was great unpleasantness.  But, despite our differences, we have learned to work together and be civil about it.  Such editing is really appreciated.  Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I did a Google search on wnd.com and came across 8 content (vs. index type) pages with "Esther White"; here's what's usable under the criteria I previously mentioned ('Reisman said such-and-such regarding Esther White')


 * October 17, 2010 7:42 pm [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=213213 Stunner! Kinsey paid my father to rape me]

''Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, "but that was all over long ago." "This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality," she said. "He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor 'Esther' just stands there and says 'What about me, what about all the people this was done to?'"''

''Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California's pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey. "It's like quoting Mengele for medical expertise, and everybody just accepts it," Reisman said. "The Kinsey Institute just published a new study about children's orgasms, and everybody just accepts it. I feel like I'm in 'Alice in Wonderland.'"''


 * October 17, 2010 7:43 pm [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214105 Victim of notorious sex experiments speaks out]

No Reisman quotes. There is a LOT of speculation in the quotes of what White is saying. I would not feel comfortable using that as a reliable source.


 * October 18, 2010 11:21 pm [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=215717 Child-rape victim's story prompts probe for more]

No direct quotes, but this is very interesting:

''"Esther White" (a pseudonym), now in her 70s, is seeking a congressional investigation of Kinsey and his Institute. [...] Liberty Counsel is relying on the assistance of Judith Reisman Ph.D., longtime nemesis of the Kinsey Institute, to provide the names of individuals allegedly victimized by Kinsey's research. "We plan to meet personally with victims to pursue the investigation to reveal the fraud of Kinsey, with additional research Judith Reisman can provide,"''

In fact, "a congressional investigation of Kinsey" is EXACTLY what Reisman has been pushing for for years...


 * October 18, 2010 11:25 pm [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214753 How a Kinsey victim lives with molestation trauma]

No direct quotes, but she is mentioned; let me just highlight the groups involved here:

''I saw Judith Reisman on Focus on the Family pushing a video by Robert Knight called "The Children of Table 34." I had been silent until then, but when I saw the video with the stopwatch on the front, I ordered the video. It's all about "Where are the children of Table 34," and I realized, "My gosh, they're looking for me." Up until then I was a nobody, hiding all this stuff inside. It helped me heal. I introduced myself to Reisman at a Concerned Women for America national conference. She didn't know who I was, and she was very skeptical. She checked me out good, she wanted proof. I faxed her a copy of my grandfather's teaching certificate from IU, and she did a lot of research checking me out. Then we went to the Family Research Council and met with Bob Knight.''


 * October 19, 2010 1:00 am [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=216737 The monster known as Kinsey]

Commentary; Reisman not mentioned.


 * October 20, 2010 12:40 am [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=217565 'Pedophile ping-pong' permeates sex horror]

Reisman not mentioned.


 * October 20, 2010 12:54 am [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214757 Expert talks about the calamity of Kinsey]

Long Reisman interview; I need to sit down and extract quotes or add that as a ref for existing text. (done -- Limulus (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)) Some notes:  Basically her life story again. Odd, she gave a different title for her 1981 paper. D.C. interview was for CNN's Crossfire? Some conspiracy paranoia. Major rant against Kinsey, but I expected no less :) Little about Esther White other than "We know that there were others."

"We must fight to retrieve our nation back, our pre-Kinsey sexual standards."

That sounds really familiar!


 * December 03, 2004 1:00 am [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=27850 A jaded look at John Leo's 'A Look at Kinsey']

Reisman column; briefly mentions Esther White while trashing Kinsey.

-- Limulus (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Esther White



 * "In October 2010, WorldNetDaily published a series of articles about a woman, under the pseudonym 'Esther White', who contacted Reisman claiming to have been one of the children whose data was collected for Kinsey. Reisman, who desires a congressional investigation of Kinsey, is hoping to find more such individuals and is working with Liberty Counsel, which is considering a class action lawsuit against the Kinsey Institute."


 * Thoughts? -- Limulus (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WAIT A SEC! I just did a generic Google search for "Esther White" and "Reisman" and found a review (just noticed that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling posted that link too -- Limulus (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)) of "Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles" which was released in 1998 which says:


 * "one subject, Esther White, enters the film, about two-thirds of the way in, facing the camera head-on from the dead-center of frame, in a grand, symmetrical shot that Stanley Kubrick might have admired. She is one of the victims of the sexual abuse that contributed to Kinsey's data, we are told, and we first encounter her in a wide shot on the campus of Indiana University, home of the Kinsey Institute. As White walks under a large, white archway, we see that her hair and suit are also white, strengthening her visual code as an innocent victim.  During subsequent interview footage, she is framed more-or-less symmetrically, centered, a sure voice of unslanted truth, the framing seems to imply. [...] the interview footage of Esther White, abuse victim, who breaks down and cries during one painful recollection. [...] Tate concludes his documentary by having White walk up the front steps of the building where the Kinsey Institute is housed.  'They used me, and they used those children,' her voiceover explains.  'And that's a terrible way to feel -- to feel that you've been used.  For a lie.'  In a crane shot that speaks volumes without any dialogue, Tate's camera pulls slowly back from White, out and up, farther and farther away, until Esther White is nothing more than a speck of white outside a very large, impenetrable building, forever shut out from the answers she seeks."


 * So what's going on here exactly if she's been known since 1998? WND totally implied that White was just identified (from the intro to Stunner: "A victim of sexologist Alfred Kinsey's "research" during the 1940s is coming forward with the stunning claim that her father was paid by Kinsey, universally regarded as the "father of the sexual revolution," to rape her and then report to him on the attacks.").  Grr... I feel like I almost got taken in there and did a bunch of work for nothing :/  And look at this from Reisman's site  which talks about White in 2006.  I think I see what's happening; again from Stunner: "Nearly 70 years after being molested repeatedly by her own father, "Esther White" (a pseudonym) is speaking out in hope of prompting Congress to investigate the controversial research."  This SO has the fingerprints of Reisman on it; sounds like this was (or is) part of a media push.  From the "calamity" article: "The most important thing is to educate both the law courts and the court of public opinion, that we've been conned, tricked and manipulated by a corrupt man, a corrupt institute, and a corrupt field of "sexology" with its offshoots – or we'll never survive. " [emphasis added]  ANGRY! >:c -- Limulus (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh look; the Kinsey Institute already discussed Esther White long ago: -- Limulus (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, WND is not a reliable source. And please keep in mind that most of this has nothing to do with Reisman. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, please be more careful about characterizing other editors and focus on content. WND has come up on RSN a number of times, one has to be _very_ careful using it. Read the articles carefully and you will note that the author avoids making any claims, draws no connections, and that there's no investigative work there. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not characterize you. I determined from our conversation that you ignore WP:RS vis-a-vis context.  You continue to hold to that position: "WND is not a reliable source".  I simply choose not to discuss RSs with someone who admits he will not adhere to WP:RS.  No matter what anyone could say, someone who believes a certain source can never be reliable will never be able to consider whether that reference is reliable in context, as required by RS.  I simply choose not to discuss RSs with such a person.  If you admit WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context and not just blanket excluded, then I'll partake in conversation on whether this specific WND ref is reliable as used in any proposed context. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Limulus, you raise interesting issues vis-a-vis Esther White, the timing of various reports, and the Kinsey Institute's response. Perhaps consideration should be given to something that notifies users of that. As the page exists now, it make JR look like a "nutjob" for saying Kinsey has child victims, but she appears to have a reasonable basis for saying so, and it is not right to leave the impression she is a nutjob. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Kinsey reports by themselves are sufficient for questions to be raised (I think I've mentioned that that's one of the things I'm inclined to be sympathetic towards her about), but White is supposedly one of those children, which is interesting on a whole new level. The twist is that we don't know to what extent White is telling the truth (and even if she isn't to what extent she actually believes it is the truth).  Of course Reisman wants her to be real, but that's not objective.  Kinsey Inst. says they can't match her story to what they have on file, but Reisman says they are a bunch of liars anyway.  Can warrant a brief mention in the article. -- Limulus (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the ref used to support JR's claim is JR's web site. It might be as simple as adding another ref to that that references the Ester White situation, perhaps even the Kinsey's page on it -- I have not yet looked at that page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Kinsey source is fine with me if you're okay with it, I hear that you haven't looked at it yet. It definitely seems appropriate to find some way to indicate that White was a basis for this if Reisman's claims if that's the case, that is a legitimate BLP issue. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To the extent that Reisman herself believes in White, I don't have a problem with mentioning her; we should include (at least these) four refs: WND ref where W says she contacted R, the review that talks about her in 98, Kinsey Inst. and the 2006 mention. Will attempt a summary in a bit. -- Limulus (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I just read it. Looks okay by me for the intended purpose here on the JR page.  If we were on the Kinsey page, I might use that and another ref or two to better delve into a related issue, but on the JR page, we are not delving into that other issue of whether Ester White is reliable or not. The point here is to help remove the "nutjob" POV.  The ref says "The 'Esther White' allegations: In a British documentary, from 1998, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires, and claimed he was paid by Kinsey for abusing his daughter."  Whether true or not, that would take away the nutjob POV that is present.


 * It is great to see us discussing and resolving this stuff. I really thank you both so much as on some other pages I edit, ad hominem argument trumps substantive argument.  Some guy even created a new user name that mimics mine then devotes his edits to reversing mine or denigrating me.  So thanks again, I really appreciate working cooperative with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that about your other pages; that must be beyond frustrating. -- Limulus (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my summary attempt based on those 4 refs:

--- After Reisman began publicizing her allegations of child abuse in the Kinsey reports, she was contacted by a woman who goes by the pseudonym Esther White and claims to have been a child whose data was given to Kinsey as a result of molestation. White would later appear in the 1998 British Film "Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles." While Reisman holds her story as proof that Kinsey was intimately involved in child abuse, the Kinsey Institute has flatly denied some of the more scandalous claims:  "People may have used Kinsey's name to justify any sorts of behavior, but that is beyond the control of the researchers. It is possible that this woman's father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people did, but he never encouraged any such behavior. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey's correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires or forms. There was no experimentation, and no one was 'recruited' to 'participate,' and certainly not to molest anyone. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims. The research consisted of interviewing people about their sexual lives and relationships." ---

Comments? -- Limulus (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll merge this into the main text and if anyone has issues with it, please modify it there. -- Limulus (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

December Edits
Hey LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I see that you're editing the article right now, so I'll let you do that without causing annoying edit conflicts, (it seems that you stopped editing for the night right before I posted this; I'm going to work on the article a bit then based on what I posted below -- Limulus (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) but I have some concerns about some of the edits you're making -- Limulus (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding 'the boy', you noted "the cited ref says he said it, not that he allegedly said it" which is true, but the ref is Reisman saying that. That would be a primary source then, ne?  So based on my understanding of WP:PRIMARY it really should indicate that it is Reisman telling us this.
 * tweaked the language to make that more clear. -- Limulus (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Max Blumenthal, on his article it makes perfect sense to say that in the intro because that's what his politics are. But what does using the term "liberal" in the context of this article do to improve it?  The way the sentence now reads (that he "has tracked how this incident set Reisman on the path of researching Kinsey's activities"), it doesn't say that he is asserting personal opinions, so what do his personal politics matter?  Replacing "liberal writer" with "investigative journalist" (that term is also specifically used in his article) sounds much more WP:NPOV to me.
 * I've gone ahead and made that change -- Limulus (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * RE the change to the mention about naturism, where does the Craft ref mention Reisman at all? Why did you pick that as a ref?
 * I had a little longer to review that ref: and while it deals with basically the same topic (naturism and child abuse), it has nothing to do with Reisman as far as I can tell. If you want to use it for the Nikki Craft article, that would be appropriate, but I can't see how it's justified here so I'm going to simply revert that edit.  The NNDB ref does not mention "reported research" BTW but rather quotes her making assertions; not the same.  -- Limulus (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In this edit you removed the fragment "she warned that homosexuals were positioning themselves as youth leaders to seduce and recruit children." because "remove material about her beliefs in the 1970's that the ref simply do not support" but I think part of the problem in that section is that things are getting lumped together in a non-chronological way as the "Rape of a sacred trust" ref specifically mentions: "Without question, claims Reisman, such programs serve as a catalyst for the seduction and homosexual recruitment of young people." This should be readded, albeit with better editing to indicate that the common link is subject, not time.  Also, why did you do this edit? since it specifically mentioned "later" (the subject was Playboy).
 * I'm creating a " specific various concerns" (-- Limulus (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) subsection and dumping all this in there to get detangled. -- Limulus (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * bullet-points might not be the most elegant format, but it is detangled. -- Limulus (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * POV (or at least that's how it comes across as written) edit here saying that "Over the following years her research confirmed her view of Kinsey's frauds and crimes" No it didn't! She has only managed to convince herself of that (e.g. NO biographer claims that Kinsey himself raped children, but she makes that claim). You say "You wouldn't say over the years Einstein's view of relativity hardened." but in regards to say Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle if Einstein had over the years gotten more vehement in his opposition then it would indeed be fair to say that his views on Uncertainty had hardened.  Consider the change in the accusations from 1981 to now.  Listen to the Schlafly interview where she now claims that something like 3000 children were molested for the Kinsey reports.  I consider that a "hardening" of her view against him, esp. in the (basically total) absence of corroboration by Kinsey biographers.
 * Of note, there's a section on this talk page "POV" that specifically mentions "This article presupposes that the work of Alfred Kinsey was "highly fraudulent," and as such is definitely not written from a neutral point of view." We can say that Reisman claims such, but we must remember that it is definitely NOT a mainstream view.  I have altered the line to read "Over the following years her accusations became increasingly serious" -- Limulus (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about the removal of the two refs in this edit which AnomieBOT automatically added back here. Please be careful not to leave the article in a broken state (e.g. the article currently does not have a ref on the Blumenthal mention!(I fixed this Blumenthal issue-- Limulus (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC))).


 * I agree. I was going to fix it.  That bot was pretty quick and beat me to it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Various concerns
(little sigh) LegitimateAndEvenCompelling edit on 21:37, 18 December 2010 completely deleting the "Various concerns" subsection as "It is largely based on primary sources and appears to be WP:OR or WP:SOAPBOX. We need WP:RS for this." Some points... First, her sources in that section:


 * her autobiography (primary)
 * a book (secondary)
 * an article by her (primary)
 * an article in which she is mentioned (secondary)
 * NNDB quoting her (for this section, primary)
 * an interview with her (primary)

The fact that a third of the sources are secondary (and I don't see how the book one is NOT a reliable source) implies that you should have worked to fix the concerns you had with the section rather than just delete it. Feel free to hunt down secondary sources (that would be awesome!) but I have had difficulty with that. As far as RS goes, I don't think anyone is going to claim that she didn't say what's she's specifically being quoted as saying (e.g. while WND or her autobiography might not be reliable/unbiased in terms of reporting on events, if she was the one posting there, I don't see how that isn't an accurate copy of what she said), so really it's more a question of if the primary sources are being used for WP:SOAPBOX (which you have previously accused me of), but if you search for "Judith Reisman" and look for when she talks about "child sexual abuse" (note that the larger section was "Advocating for children") this is a fair recounting of the things she's said/opinions she's held. Personally I find that it fleshes out the article by presenting her less as an 'anti-Kinsey crusader' than as someone who wants to prevent 'child sexual abuse' in general. So, now what to do about this section? I think it should be put back in. If you feel that it is too prominent then we can move it down; I'm going to re-add it at the end of the section rather than the beginning. -- Limulus (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Limulus, you have done wonders on this page. Really, no joke.  In this case, however, I believe you to be mistaken, not only in the substantive text, but in your procedural response to restore your additions after a legitimate revert instead of first discussing it here.  Before we discuss this substantively, may I respectfully ask you to consider WP:BRD and remove the material from the article, particularly since you admit the heavy presence of primary sourcing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A few things. First, I am rather taken aback that you would complain that I did not discuss the rv here first, when (1) you deleted that entire subsection without mentioning it here at all, (2a) I did leave a fairly detailed rationale (above) as to why I was putting the info back in and (2b) the "December Edits" section (immediately above) of this talk page partially talks about this material when you made some changes and I tried to make the flow better.  The issue here is not of primary sourcing; if it was, almost the whole article would need to be removed/rewritten because of how much it sources from Reisman's online autobiography.  The actual issue is the usage of those sources.  Your deletion claimed "WP:OR or WP:SOAPBOX"  I am saying that those mentions are the result of simple searching through what she has written and represent a good cross-section of her fears about what is out there waiting to prey on children.  Also, they have been in the article in one form or another for almost a month now  (and your last set of edits (Dec 11-12) was to alter, not delete them) so I don't understand what has suddenly changed to make them unacceptable. -- Limulus (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am saying that those mentions are the result of simple searching through what she has written and represent a good cross-section of her fears about what is out there waiting to prey on children." That is essentially the definition of WP:OR.  Please, remove the OR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "That is essentially the definition of WP:OR." No, no it's not. Quoting from WP:OR:
 * "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources."
 * The relevant part is "analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources". The position being advanced by that subsection, as I tried to even more explicitly spell out in the sentence I added when I moved it down is that "Reisman has voiced concerns about sexual abuse of children arising from various sources" Let's go through them one by one:


 * "a growing and proselytizing 'international academic pedophile movement'"
 * ref continues "which was on record as wanting access to children for sex." Position is clearly advanced by the source, unless you are going to argue that pedophilia is not "sexual abuse of children"
 * "Playboy magazine, which she claimed was promoting child sexual abuse through carefully planned cartoons"
 * It is spelled out right there, thus advanced by the source.
 * A further mention about Playboy, directly marketing to tweens as pornography "consumers and future performers."
 * Read the full text of the ref; she says things like "Bringing the tween boys and girls into the print pornography format of course leads millions straight to Playboy's "soft" Internet pornography and from there to their hard-core, incest and similar vile addictions." Position is clearly advanced by the source, unless you are going to argue that incest is not "sexual abuse of children"
 * homosexuals, who have positioned themselves as youth leaders to seduce and recruit children
 * read the ref which says "Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about young boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the streets for young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an attempt to have sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned researcher and author." who is then identified as Reisman BTW. Position is clearly advanced by the source.
 * naturism, as a front for child pornography and pedophilia
 * from ref: ""This [Mazo beach] is an attempt, of course, to establish legally a place in the United States a beachhead for child sexual abuse. They [naturists at Mazo] are establishing a beachhead for obtaining children for sexual purposes." Position is clearly advanced by the source
 * sex education which includes "sexplicit" and "deviant" human sexual practices, as "institutional child sexual abuse."
 * It is spelled out right there, thus advanced by the source.


 * So in this collection, 0/6 "advance a position not advanced by the sources" which is to say that it is NOT WP:OR. -- Limulus (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I would like to take this to the appropriate noticeboard or take other appropriate action. If you wish, you can do so first so you can have your say first.  Remember, we are working together on this, and politely.  There's no need to shout.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I should be insulted or extremely insulted. -- Limulus (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither. Be happy we can work through differences amicably. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you consider an "appropriate noticeboard"? What sort of "other appropriate action" are you alluding to?  Why can't you reply with your arguments HERE?  Why did you focus on the completely tangential issue of capitalization of the word "not" rather than the actual issue represented by the large amount of text that I typed in to defend myself against accusations of WP:OR? (the page for which specifically says "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." which I did!)  I find the excessive justifications I need to make here on the talk page to avoid deletion of my work to be an incredible drain on my time and morale. -- Limulus (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be drained. Your work will ease your need, if any, to respond in the future.  By other action, I was thinking if there was a tag I could put on the article that might be appropriate.  Things like that.  Totally within the realm of acceptable means for dispute resolution.  I saw all that work you wrote but it does not satisfy my OR concerns.  I really think you are missing the gist of OR.  You are digging into JR's statements and making conclusions thereon that are simply not supported by reliable sources.  That's my understanding of OR.  You didn't read anywhere what you are reporting, you are simply synthesizing this stuff in your own mind and suddenly it's broadcast to the wold as if it were the truth.  I am having difficulty convincing you of that so I will seek some means to attract the right people to help you in that regard.  I'm not saying you are bad.  Quite the contrary you have done an excellent job here.  It's just on this point I believe you to be wrong.  I could be wrong, you know.  So keep your chin up and we'll walk through some kind of dispute resolution together, with our cooperation and dignity intact. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Synthesis or Template:Original research/Template:Section_OR are probably what you want for this section... -- Limulus (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look.  I appreciate it. It'll take me a while, though. In the meantime, please continue improving the article, if you wish. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

COI Editing
It should be noted that has a serious COI and obvious POV on this article having served as a publishing platform for at least one article by Reisman on his/her website here. Note that this is not WP:OUTING because the editor has a link to his/her website on his/her user page. Please evaluate all edits to this article by this editor in this context. Toddst1 (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My COI is announced on my User page and it pertains to libraries, not Reisman or her work regarding Kinsey. I have not even read her work regarding Kinsey, nor will I.  I have not read any of her work beyond the little that relates to libraries.  As my comments here have nothing to do with libraries, there is no COI.  The JR article I link is one on libraries.  I link no JR articles on Kinsey.


 * Just FYI, regarding your Talk Page COI notice: "I declare that I may have a COI with the American Library Association, with which I used to be a member" I noticed that Reisman doesn't like the ALA: [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=93528 ] -- Limulus (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, I am editing as POV-free and as Wiki-community-friendly as possible such as by adding links to the Talk page but not changing the main page on that topic. Instead I am letting the community digest the links.  I am not cutting off anyone, as Toddst1 did by removing the links.  Toddst1 filed an AN/I against my having added links, and it is apparent that has gotten no traction.  Further, in the AN/I, Toddst1 substantially misquoted me to twist what I said to make his point. So, having failed in his AN/I effort to stop my editing, he is here now making further false claims, this time about my supposed COI.  It is sad he does not just edit without bringing various procedural actions to try to stop me apparently for his own WP:SOAPBOX reasons I may never fathom.


 * Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I have no COI in this matter, and the source saying I do has misled others about me already. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Article Overhaul
I'm done! 3 days; 7,452 bytes -> 1,290 bytes -> 14,373 bytes. Let's now address any remaining concerns anyone here has and then get the BIAS tag out. -- Limulus (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to strike through the text if it has been incorporated into the article or if I'm not going to incorporate it such that this will become a TO-DO list -- Limulus (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd toss the multiple threads in here; as of right now there are only two main points that I think should still go into the article: her 1981 ethics paper and her late daughter. -- Limulus (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented out material
There is little point in keeping a large portion of the article commented out rather than simply cutting it and pasting it here (see below) for review. Also based on what I have read so far, IMHO, this woman is a nutjob :) I think that becomes obvious the more you read about her though ;) Also, the blaming of all of society's ills on Kinsey (see New Yorker article) reminds me of how other conservatives (e.g. see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) blame Darwin for everything (including Hitler) -- Limulus (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, content should not be kept commented out in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that was weird too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The content seems to have been hidden earlier this year after a complaint from someone claiming to be the subject I am not sure about the WP:OTRS follow up. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Work
Under the name Judith Bat-Ada, Reisman contributed an interview to the 1980 feminist anti-pornography anthology Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography. Reisman asserted that Playboy magazine, through carefully planned cartoons, was creating child sexual abuse.

In the early 1980s, Reisman, then serving as Full Research Professor at American University, was given a grant by the US Department of Justice to study images in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines. Avedon Carol commented: "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.'"

Reisman later stated that the study was not published due to threats leveled against AU by the Kinsey Institute.

Similarly, Reisman's research has been criticised by Dr. Loretta Haroian, formerly of the ''Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Département of Child and Adolescent Sexuality.

In Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences Resiman writes, "Kinsey's 'research' alleged that 10% of American males were homosexual, that all of us were bisexual, that children were sexual from birth and could engage in sexual activity with adults without harm...

Reisman also asserts that Kinsey sexually abused children, although no biographer of Kinsey has found evidence for the claim. Kinsey biographer James H. Jones writes that unless new evidence to the contrary becomes available, Reisman's claims that Kinsey may have witnessed or personally participated in child molestation under the guise of scientific research must be considered groundless. The Kinsey Institute has stated in response to Resiman that "Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form."

Reisman writes that there are chemicals in the brain, which she has dubbed "erototoxins," that are produced by watching pornography and that have toxic influences on the brain. Reisman lists these erototoxins as testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, glucose, dopamine, serotonin, and phenylethylamine.

Selected publications

 * Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler, US Dep. Justice Grant No. 84-JN-AX-K007 (1986, 1989, 1990)
 * Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Judith Reisman et al., Lafayette LA: Huntington House (1990) ISBN 091031120X ISBN 978-0910311205
 * "Soft Porn" Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family, Lafayette LA: Huntington House (1991) ISBN 0910311927 ISBN 978-0910311922
 * Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme, The Institute for Media Education, Crestwood, KY, 2nd Ed. (1998, 2000, 2009) ISBN 0966662415 ISBN 978-0966662412
 * Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World, Cumberland House Publishing (2006) ISBN 1581824602 ISBN 978-1581824605
 * The Kinsey Syndrome, Starring Joseph M. Schimmel, Clark Aliano, Judith A. Reisman, et al., DVD (2009)
 * Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America (2010) ISBN 1935071858 ISBN 978-1935071853

Why these specific ones? (there was a note that this is not an exhaustive list, but it seems a bit too similar to to be just a coincidence) -- Limulus (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok, I usually remove anything that hasn't got or I can't find a 1SBN number for, and as long as the list is more or less a few of her major works and it should be ok. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly should be some discussion of the content of these; e.g. the first was an issue at the time due to the large amount of money involved in the grant. I did a brief search in the Google News archives and there are entries about it.  Also, the rest seem more notable for the salaciousness of their titles than anything else; has she ever made any contributions to actual understanding of Kinsey vs. simply being the conservative denouncer of him?  Do we have any reactions to these pubs? (esp. other than the Kinsey Inst.?)  I am concerned that simply listing these titles is basically an ad for her publications and would be akin to having the David Icke article without the critical "Reception" section... --Limulus (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Twice you have removed them, Limulus. I simply do not know why.  You cut out so much the article is now a stub.  I see you may be making an effort to start the article from scratch, possibly a good idea, but those publications are going to be in the final version anyway.  Why not add them now? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I just explained that? Her titles are inflammatory and right now there is no context other than 'she wrote them'.  Please see the David Icke article for the kind of idea of what I would like to achieve.  I added the stub tag, because yes, I did pull out a lot... but this article needs to be redone with proper refs right from the start.  Also there was a basic factual issue in the version I started slicing up ("Reisman is a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention."  This is very misleading as it implies that she worked at the DOJ; as per her autobiography: "I was invited by the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to return to America from Israel. I was appointed as a Full Research Professor at American University as the principal investigator of an $800,000 grant").  Also, before I started editing there were literally no other sources except for her autobiography... that's way too lopsided!  We might not even need a separate publications section by the time we're done if the pubs can be directly incorporated into the text... -- Limulus (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Her titles are inflammatory." I think that's prima facie evidence of WP:POV or WP:SOAPBOX.  That said, I'm willing to sit back and see what you come up with. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America" is not inflammatory? :) Really, creating a NPOV article does not mean that I have to check my brain at the door, but rather that I have to (among other things) back up what I say by good refs and keep in mind the concept of "undue weight".  Calling Kinsey a "Mad Scientist" is clearly not neutral.  Putting it into the article WITHOUT CONTEXT would be irresponsible.  Further saying Kinsey is responsible for all sorts of major ills in society ('a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America' is a minority position and should be juxtaposed with, say, what Kinsey biographers say.  As I said before, IMHO this woman is something of a nutjob.  That doesn't mean I can't help craft a NPOV article about her nor that I should self-censor what I hold to be accurate positions (e.g. titles like those are inflammatory: they are "provocative and arouse passions and emotions").  That's part of the reason why I left the article as a stub; I need to learn more about her from multiple sources (I only just found out about her yesterday when I clicked the link at the bottom of the Kinsey page! 8-) -- Limulus (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a clearer case of POV/SOAPBOX so neatly packaged up as I do here. I say that your saying her titles are inflammatory is POV/SOAPBOX, and you double down by saying again they are inflammatory and even providing a definition.  Never mind that they are the author's own titles to her own works on her Wiki page.  Never mind that the titles are clearly hyperbolic, not inflammatory.  Never mind that it's okay for a page like Markos Moulitsas to have book titles like "American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right".  Never mind that the article is a stub and people are supposed to add things to build the page.  Never mind all that.  You gotta claim self-censorship to censor the titles of publications by the author you describe as a "nutjob" on her own page as if no titles are allowed on Wikipedia if they offend the sensibilities of individual editors.  Really, what's going on here is unbelievable.  I'm thinking POV/SOAPBOX is the least of the problems here. But, again, out of greater concern for the article than for getting overly concerned with a soapboxer doubling down on his soapboxing, I'm still willing to wait around and see what suggestions/edits you may make. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "the titles are clearly hyperbolic, not inflammatory" That is your assertion. The pattern I am finding is that Reisman makes inflammatory comments to further her agenda among social conservatives in the US and as far as I can tell, she really does believe that Kinsey is a horrible man (like worse than Hitler horrible... gotta get a good ref though ;).  It is interesting that you bring up Markos Moulitsas and his (apparently unfinished) book since when I looked at his page just now, the section previous to the bibliography SPECIFICALLY has critical commentary about "American Taliban" (RE Research 2000).  This is why I wasn't going to add a bibliography section just yet (As I said: "Putting it into the article WITHOUT CONTEXT would be irresponsible.").  You however went and did that; whatever, I will work around it as it isn't worth an edit war.  I said that I was not going to self-censor *myself*; did you not read the part where I said that I intend to "help craft a NPOV article about her"?  Would it be SOAPBOX to declare on the talk page for, say, Pol Pot, that you feel that the actions of his government were indefensible and beyond morally repugnant, while looking for references to that effect? *shrug* Sticks and stones...  -- Limulus (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Limulus, now you are being dishonest. You said, "You however went and did that; whatever, I will work around it as it isn't worth an edit war."  You said I added the publications without context.  That is dishonest.  The publications were always there.  You removed them and everything else.  I only restored a portion of what you removed, and now another editor has as well (Off2Rob...).  Yet you cast it the way you did, then implied I was doing it as part of an edit war.  That is dishonest.  You have lost all credibility with me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Um, ok... I don't think you are getting what I'm trying to say *shrug*  Anyway, have a look at the multiple edits I made to the article and see if they are ok.  -- Limulus (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my, you came here from the Kinsey page then removed material critical of Kinsey? Wow.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I clicked in from the Kinsey page, yes (vs, say, finding the Reisman page via a Google search). I didn't know too much about Kinsey and I wanted to learn a bit more and then I saw the link to this article near the bottom, didn't know that name, clicked and found an article that needed work. Now, as has become apparent, almost everything Reisman does is "critical of Kinsey"; starting the article from scratch will necessarily involve removing some material critical of him.  But I do not wish to hide the fact that she is intensely negatively fixated on him and moved it here in the Talk page for now so that work on the article could commence.  In fact, I think the more of Reisman's opinions that can be shown, the more it will support my position. Please don't confuse the fact that I personally find her views deeply disturbing and wrong with the fact that I am trying to help build an accurate page. -- Limulus (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how you can "build an accurate page" when you call her a "nutjob", remove her publications for being "inflammatory", then make dishonest claims that I added the publications without context as part of an edit war when I (and another editor) only restored that portion of what you removed. It is becoming clear to me that you are violated not only WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX, but quite a number of other wiki policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this: I have a few concerns: it doesn't belong in her "Publications" as it's not a book and lacks an ISBN like the others, she only appears in it as one of several people, it's not in the IMDB (though it is [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001RMTQLY/ on Amazon.com])... If anywhere it should be in External links, but after looking over the guidelines for EL and the externally linked page itself (esp. see the "Articles" linked from it which are mostly Reisman's), I don't think it's overly notable considering the vast bulk of her other material available elsewhere online which is basically the same and also that it's inclusion would tend towards undue weight of her personal opinions (primary sourcing of Reisman, again). All that said, I'm just going to strike that line; please comment here if you wish to rv. -- Limulus (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kinsey Syndrome, Starring Joseph M. Schimmel, Clark Aliano, Judith A. Reisman, et al., DVD (2009)

Background
Judith Reisman was born to a second-generation Jewish-American family. Her father, Matthew Gelernter and her mother, Ada, owned a fish business in Irvington, New Jersey. She earned a M.A. (1976) and a Ph.D. (1980) in Communications at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Reisman has also been based at the University of Haifa in Israel.

Reisman has guest lectured at numerous educational establishments, including Princeton, Georgetown, Tel Aviv University and the Rutherford Institute, as well as to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado.

Also, what about her work with Captain Kangaroo? -- Limulus (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, instead of a Background section I did a "Credentials" one; I think that sufficiently covers enough of her early history except for the incident involving her daughter. -- Limulus (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for direction of this article
Some thoughts. First, there should be a brief bio. I should like to know how she came to fixate on Kinsey, what some of her specific claims are about him and what others have said about that. Then there is the whole conservative thing; from brief searches, it seems she was involved in a Mapplethorpe obscenity trial, there was that DOJ funded 'investigation', she's syndicated on WorldNetDaily, I saw something to the effect that she was involved with NARTH, Phyllis Schlafly, groups with "Family" in their name (always a bad sign ;) etc. It seems (again, based on brief searches) that when some conservative wants to denounce something as sexually deviant, they get a quote from her. I will use this section to store interesting links as I find them until someone (maybe even me O:) has time to incorporate them into the article. -- Limulus (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography
Here are my notes from reading her online autobiography:


 * "Media Forensics" does not have a Wikipedia article; also, what she specifically describes would be something like 'in relation to sexually explicit material and how it affects women and children'. How does her degree relate to this?  Is she a bona fide expert? (there was some questioning of this in relation to testimony she gave in the news articles I scanned) or is she pushing an agenda? (the red flags in my head point to this)
 * The phrase "fraudulent sex science, sex education" as this will likely become a recurring theme RE Kinsey
 * "the way in which media images restructure human brain, mind, memory, and conduct by hijacking rationality"
 * "former president of The Institute for Media Education" (quick search turns up precious little; not notable?)
 * "scientific adviser for the California Protective Parents Association" I think... but not notable?
 * "She was Principal Investigator and author of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice study, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1989)" <- this should be in the article, but with lots of refs and I KNOW there was controversy about it at the time...
 * "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman, et al., 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991), Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation (w/Johnson, 1995), and Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000)" (check notability, reactions, etc.)
 * Partner Solicitation Language was a NARTH publication! -- Limulus (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "a news commentator for WorldNetDaily.com" (contributor? her articles seem to be posted there verbatim)
 * [ http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=43 ] -- Limulus (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "She has been a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, The U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." (does that imply Republican admins only?) (almost certainly -- Limulus (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC))
 * "Dr. Reisman is listed in numerous Who's Who biographies such as: Who's Who in Science & Engineering, International Who's Who in Sexology, International Who's Who in Education, Who's Who of American Women and The World's Who's Who of Women." So she's notable (we agree on that ;) BUT... do they say NICE things about her? ^_-; (if someone gets an interesting quote, you can copy it into the article, but we should have plenty for now -- Limulus (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC))
 * "Her scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia," fact tag on that.
 * "while The German Medical Tribune and the British medical journal, The Lancet demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated" article mentioned is from 1991... was that an editorial? By the Lancet editors or just printed in the Lancet? Any opposing editorials?  The result of that demand after 19 years?
 * browsing on for "Volume 337, Issue 8740, 2 March 1991, Page 547" gives "Noticeboard  Really, Dr Kinsey?"
 * from the tidbits I'm finding, it appears to basically just favorably present talking points from "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud." As she quotes no follow-ups after almost two decades, this looks like a dead end. -- Limulus (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Assertions made in "A Personal Odyssey to the Truth":


 * "Kinsey's child molestation protocol"
 * "his false data"
 * "evidence of how the cultural acceptance of pornography's view of sex was increasing rates of divorce and sexual disorder."
 * Important quote: "a Canadian psychologist took me quietly aside. Certainly, I was right, he said. Those images of children in Playboy/Penthouse would cause sexual acting out on children. But if I was looking for the cause of the global child sex abuse epidemic, he directed me not to neglect reading about Kinsey in The Sex Researchers, by Edward Brecher. "Why?" I asked. "I worked with Kinsey and Pomeroy" he said. "One was a pedophile and the other a homosexual." Which is which, I asked? "Read and discover," he replied." (this will need to be compared to what Kinsey biographers say)
 * there was a growing and proselytizing "international academic pedophile movement" (while I don't doubt that a couple people were advocating this, I suspect fear leading to extreme exaggeration...)
 * "Kinsey's use of infants in sex experiments," Tables 30-34 (info only recalled for Kinsey, not actively solicited?)
 * 1982 "The commercial sex industry now joined forces with the Kinsey Institute and academic sexology to prevent any light from being shed on their world." (assertions of conspiracy; compare to what others say)
 * Phil Donahue = "Kinsey devotee" ??? (there must be some discussion of her appearance on his show)
 * There's a PDF on Reisman's site. -- Limulus (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(skipping lots of Autobiographical stuff that is really unnecessary for Wikipedia other than maybe that she's of European Jewish ancestry if it can be tied into the article in a relevant way) Then it starts to get disturbing when we learn that her 10 year old daughter was molested by a 13 year old and this detail: "He knew she would like it, he said, he knew from his father's magazines, Playboy" and then comments from others that "Children are sexual from birth" and "I recognized an ideological "party line." I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey."


 * "was a producer of music-videos for "Captain Kangaroo,"" but stated reason for stopping was that "I would have to speed up my tempo to compete with the fast-action and the increasing violence of the cartoons on other stations." and she didn't want that.<s?
 * "Determined to earn a doctorate in communications, I entered Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland to study television effects"
 * June 23, 1981 "The Scientist as A Contributing Agent To Child Sexual Abuse; A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations" "I was positive that the international, educated sexuality community would react as I did." (reality: not so much. She appears to have a valid point here about ethics (certainly it would be held suspect if done today), but what was the reported reaction?)
 * Note to self: read it here: -- Limulus (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Need to find 3rd party reactions. -- Limulus (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is frustrating. I created a section tentatively titled "Ethics" (after the paper title) I wrote: "New section, 'Ethics'. I hope to complete this section tonight; this is a stub. Better title suggestions anyone?)" and then less than half an hour later, user Nuujinn deleted it saying "removed section referenced only by self published sources, section title is inappropriate"  Then, I tried finding 3rd party refs and couldn't.  I did read through it though and while the title uses words such as "Preliminary" and "Possible" the contents are quite definitive; it is nothing really too new though as it reads much like her other writings.  In her autobio she says "I was positive that the international, educated sexuality community would react as I did." yet the paper doesn't just mention the children in Kinsey's works, it becomes rant-like and has odd statements like this:

"A natural law: The anti-sex, anti-life roots of sex industry materials can be seen in the sustenance these materials must (and do) inevitably –organically--draw from fear/death themes: sadism, necrophilia, lust/hate for women, infants and children."


 * So... yah... what to do with this. I think I will try to integrate a sentence into the first paragraph. -- Limulus (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Months later, my daughter died suddenly of a brain aneurysm. Never knowing if her childhood rape had contributed to her death, I would spend decades working to protect other children from the growing multitude of Kinsey-Hefner disciples." (does this not raise a red flag that she is internally blaming Kinsey for the tragic death of her daughter? Let us look for refs discussing this, I am sure I cannot be the first to think that it may be clouding her judgment)
 * 1982 justice department study; American University
 * "It is time to identify what effect Alfred Kinsey, the father of the sexual revolution and sex education has had on the lives of so many."
 * "Congress readies itself to investigate Kinsey under HR 2749, The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act," (what became of that?)
 * As per Republican Gomorrah (see link below) P. 238 "the bill went nowhere" -- Limulus (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed a lot of the court mentions; there are certainly going to be some choice quotes in her testimony which we should be able to ferret out from Google News searches... based on what I saw previously in some brief searching, she doesn't have a high opinion of gays (we need to see specifically what she says about homosexuals and pedophiles and if she believes the two are related). Also, there will be other witnesses who will certainly contradict her; quotes from them will be instructive.

In summary, she comes across as a somewhat tragic and misguided individual, almost certainly tormented by the death of her daughter, focusing her anger against those she feels helped lay the foundation for her daughter's death (Kinsey and the pornography industry), who may have reasonable points about the ethics of collecting that data (certainly circa 1950 the important safeguards were not in place... think Tuskegee syphilis experiment, HeLa, etc.), but went way too far and cannot see why others might reasonably disagree with her. Let's find some refs. Comments? -- Limulus (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)




 * Which is a copy/paste of a now-404 webpage that's on archive.org: -- Limulus (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)





Many choice quotes, eg.:

-- Limulus (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am one of the few specialists in human sexuality that have not been Kinseyan trained — one of the few that have scientific credentials that allow me authoritatively to identify the frauds that underpin that entire "field" — a pseudoscience created by Alfred Kinsey's followers." This is very interesting given the fact that her PhD was in Communications and not anything related to human sexuality... She later says "I specialize in the communication effects of images on the brain, mind and memory, fraud in the human sexuality field and the addictive properties of sexually explicit images."
 * "erototoxins"
 * Q posed: "How did you get involved in this research?" specifically mentions her daughter

Recent Edits

 * Regarding the removal of Heterophobia from the See also section, I would like to request that it be added back as that article contains the following:

The 1990 book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud by Judith A. Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, J. Gordon Muir, and J. H. Court included a whole chapter on heterophobia

-- Limulus (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I will just add that one back right now as I am supplying a good reason. -- Limulus (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the renaming of the "Controversial claims" section to "Notable claims" and the rewording of the first sentence, I don't quite understand the stated reason:

change "controversial" to "notable" to remove someone's POV that the controversy is Reisman instead of people sexualizing children

This section isn't about the 1981 ethics paper (which I would suggest is her basic "notable claim" and more along the lines of "people sexualizing children") but rather the odd things she's said that would be considered untrue by most people educated in the respective subject matter (e.g. the Pink Swastika thing). I thought "controversial" was a good compromise; but if not, is there a word to describe them that reflects the fact that they aren't... universally accepted, shall we say? -- Limulus (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As there is now a "bias" tag on the article, I am no longer interested in trying to please those who would rather edit timidly than get complaints from the subject. Describing her wild accusations as "Controversial" is NOT biased. -- Limulus (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying to hell with WP:BLP or to working with instead of against the community. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Loaded with POV
The entire rewrite as currently constituted is loaded with POV, as if the author who rewrote the page thought the person to be a "nutjob". He does, see above, and it shows. Be that as it may, I'll not take much action at this time as I know the page is being built by the guy at this very moment. So, despite his being dishonest as I noted above, I will allow time to pass for him to continue building the article then improve it before I take significant further action here. Hopefully he will have removed the POV and the WP:BLP by then. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not being dishonest; did you actually read what I wrote? Also, I referenced the heck out of what I posted.  Forget the "nutjob" thing for a second; do you think her whole thing about "erototoxins" is *anywhere* near mainstream?  Do you think that her $735K "study" that both Republican and Democratic congressmen were calling a waste of $, wasn't??  (Do you think that there was a vast sex-wing conspiracy to undermine her?)  A gay movement in Germany caused the Holocaust???  I'm not here to build up a well written article only to watch you try to tear it down later.  I just noticed that you  were the one who added WRONG unreferenced info about her being a DOJ investigator.  There was a week and a half between my first edit on the 14th and the previous one; you could have been 'fixing' it all that time.  Please make specific objections known now before I finish up the last two sections that need to be written.  Arguing with you here is a waste of time when I could be finding good refs to support the, ahem, fact that Reisman is WAY out there on most of what she says. -- Limulus (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, I was going to say exactly the same last night, Limilus, if you don't like this person and your additions are attacking - ish in nature, why don't you let neutral people expand the BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike him(?) per se, as I don't know him at all ^_^; I just want to get the article hammered out in a roughly good form first.  If I am coming off as brash and rude, I should apologize for that; sometimes I get a little obsessive/possessive about my work :(  I spent many hours hunting down refs in Google/News/Books and I think that they paint a fairly accurate picture of Reisman, but I'm very open to alternate views where good refs are supplied :) -- Limulus (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't respect or agree with anything to do with her do you? You have been adding content in a negative manner, would you not prefer to edit the article of someone you like as NPOV is hard when you hold such negative opinions about someone. As for spending many hours hunting down refs, it is easy on the internet to write a hit piece using selective citations and selected negative comments from within those citations. Bt the way she is a woman  -  Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were talking about "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling"! ^^; As for Reisman (who I did know was a woman ;), I need to finish reading about her 1981 paper (which I am inclined to be sympathetic towards, as I mentioned) and about her late daughter who was molested (which I do have refs to indicate that her obsession with Kinsey likely started with).  She may look like a sweet grandma, but the things that come out of her mouth and flow from her keyboard these days (especially towards gays) are vile (and the claims section certainly has numerous refs to back me up on that!).  Her "credentials" as far as human sexuality go are a joke, which is terrifying to consider how she testified in a trial that could have sent a man to jail for a year and has the ear of the far-right wing in politics (This is almost certainly Reisman's words flowing through another's mouth: ).   If you would like to accuse me of "using selective citations and selected negative comments from within those citations" please do so with specific examples.  But do also consider the possibility that she really might be a nutjob :) -- Limulus (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So your personal COI is related to homosexuality, I did some some related edits in your edit history, why not go edit some of those articles, you are not going to be able to write in an WP:NPOV way here, and your comments and some of your edits, like adding negatives are examples of that, we only recently had a WP:OTRS complaint from the subject and we don't want another one. See, you think she is a nut job and have very negative opinions about this living person and you are creating the article with those strong personal opinions in mind, and you are affiliated with a group of people that she is polarized to. Wikipedia is not for that type of editing, NPOV is very important to the project as is WP:BLP, can I suggest you would be better getting a blog and posting your feelings there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am adding the BIAS tag and am doing so based on the above conversations and since the admittedly biased Limulus is writing the majority of this material. It is unfair and a possible BLP violation to leave this page without a bias tag when it is so out of line with Wikipedia standards. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is interesting; because I have strong feelings on that matter, therefore I have a conflict of interest? No.  Because the subject of the article doesn't like that there is an article about her because of unspecified claims of "defamation and libel", so we should be timid?  No.  But we do have to pay particular attention to cite references, which I have done (and if you think a specific source is wrong or misinterpreted you need to say that).  I asked for "specific examples" of what you feel I was doing wrong and you replied with a very vague "like adding negatives".  That's not helpful.  Talking in circles here is a waste of my time. -- Limulus (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Talking in circles here is a waste of my time." You are into games, aren't you.  A BIAS tag has been added for the reasons stated above, and you continue to make outrageous statements like "I am no longer interested in trying to please those who would rather edit timidly than get complaints from the subject. Describing her wild accusations as 'Controversial' is NOT biased."  You are out of control.  You are saying she's a nutjob and you will write whatever you like, without consensus, and who cares if she complains that you are violating BLP.  You are one of the most out of control editors I have ever seen in my years here at Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Limulus is so out of control that as a result of my adding the BIAS tag, he said since the bias tag was there he can continue to be biased, then restored biased language he added previously that I had removed for bias!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Limulus, you have written something that appears to have the basis for an excellent article. It is still dripping with your view that she is a "nutjob". Will you please try on your own to remove such POV? That Blumenthal guy from MMfA, for example, does not impress me much because of the clear bias that happens to coincide with your "nutjob" viewpoint. Please make an effort to find unbiased sources. Please try to remove the obvious contempt for her. Congratulations, you've made her look like a clown, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Please try your best to remove the POV. Thanks. If you have time, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) Thank you for mentioning a specific issue; regarding "That Blumenthal guy from MMfA," if you look at his article, he is a notable journalist with a LOT more than just MMfA experience. Again, just because someone has political leanings that differ from their subject does not mean that they aren't telling the truth.
 * (2) Regarding "Please make an effort to find unbiased sources," I did. For starters, I read through her autobiography and took lots of notes which I posted here; for the most part I used that as a skeleton for this article.  NOTE: in this regard, I was concerned about "unbiased sources" due to WP:SELFPUB (specifically the "self-serving" part) as I do not consider subject to be objective.  A good example of this was her description of the events surrounding the 'Images of Children' work for the DOJ; as I catalogued from AP articles, it was overpriced and to quote Avedon Carol again, a "scientific disaster."  I tried to balance that with what Reisman herself said; if her conspiracy theories and far-out-of-the-mainstream remarks make her sound like a "clown," that is her own fault.  Note that Off2riorob did an edit  "sm write to address npov and weight"; he kept all the main elements that I found and basically just shortened it.  I'm happy with that (mostly the reason I wrote that section so long is because that was the one I found the most and longest references about as it was in the papers at the time).
 * Ooo... not an "unbiased source" (it's Reisman herself ), but it specifically details some of her complaints about her Wikipedia entry! I'll have to use that :D -- Limulus (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the nice thing about Reisman's website is that she seems to catalogue everything about herself; here's a book excerpt that will provide more refs on the DOJ matter: -- Limulus (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (3) I find it interesting that my alleged "obvious contempt for her" in the article apparently is mostly the result of quoting her own words and opinions. What Wikipedia is definitely not is a set of uncritical fan club pages.  When she writes an article  the thesis of which is that we need to "restore social virtue once again to our nation" like it was "Prior to the Kinsey Reports, [when] American law held that not only were sodomy, adultery, fornication and the like transgressions, [but] those who committed such acts were themselves unacceptable." should I not quote it as one of her strongly held opinions?  Is the fact that one of the papers she lists in her autobiography with her books was published by NARTH not notable?  Or that the groups she's worked with over the years read like a who's-who of the far right wing in the US?
 * (4) Probably the best way to solve your concerns about POV is to go through it section by section. Please start with the intro.  Off2riorob just took out what I would consider a very mild criticism, which I will move down into the Opinions section in a moment (and rename it Opinions and criticisms).  Are you ok with how the intro now reads?
 * -- Limulus (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The intro is much improved. It could add her work for the government.
 * Other than the DOJ work (which was actually via AU), was any other gov't work notable? AFAIK, no, but do you consider any to be?  In the short term, if you feel that the intro is not POV, then I would like to switch from Template:POV for the whole article to Template:POV-section for individual sections. -- Limulus (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have added "and legacy" to one sentence such that it now reads: "Judith A. Reisman [...is] best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey." If that is still ok, I would like to make the POV template modification previously suggested. -- Limulus (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. (Boy, these intercalated comments are annoying.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; the only suggestion I can make is to look at the history across multiple edits in one tab and use that as a guide for replying in another. POV template change ok or no? -- Limulus (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the use of her quotes. The problem is the way you selected them, then presented them.
 * I could take any person, select certain quotes, string them together in a certain way, and make that person look like a nutjob. Sure, they are still actual quotes, and from reliable sources, but they are still not Wiki compliant if they are being used in a way to promote someone's WP:SOAPBOX.  For example, I don't see any quotes/sources saying anything of a positive nature about her.  Nothing.  It's almost as if she's pure evil and stupidity, and Wikipedia is to be used as the platform to broadcast that view worldwide.
 * For that section, I tried to set limits on the subject of quotes to "pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality and Kinsey" as that's what she's notable for talking about (note those are not normally topics of a "positive nature"). She may love kittens and daisies for all I know, but finding "anything of a positive nature" she's said about Kinsey especially is basically impossible ^^;  In the MP3 of her and Schlafly I linked in the external links section ~6 min in as I recall, she says that there were about 2000 children molested for the Kinsey reports (she started by saying ~500 which is her usual number but then corrected herself; not sure why she upped the number 4x).  I think if you skim what she's written for WND it will reveal that what she writes generally is not usually "of a positive nature" either.  Do you know of any quotes that should be in there?  Has she done any charity work or anything else like that that could show a different side of her personality?  Should I specifically look for praise of her? (This will come from far-right groups though and will not necessarily be free of it's own bias, e.g. consider that Conservapedia says that she "debunked the famed Kinsey Report" ) -- Limulus (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I had previously mentioned, she had a reference on her site to "a book excerpt that will provide more refs on the DOJ matter" and it is sympathetic to Reisman... to a point. While it does not assert that her research had merit, it does show that there were additional players involved, each with their own interests.  Good stuff.  Hope that helps make it less POV-sounding. -- Limulus (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even the See Also section is bent with your nutjob-colored glasses. "Involuntary celibacy, which Reisman blames on pornography." I have never, ever, have seen anyone, ever, use the See Also section to make such POV/unsourced statements such as that.  Never.  And even if there was a source, the use of See Also for this purpose is not Wiki compliant, else you could load up See Also with hundreds of tangential wikilinks to topics on which someone has opined.
 * Ah! I can explain that; other than the first two, I started adding see also links based on her being mentioned in the articles (just do a Google search on Wikipedia for her name  which reminds me that I should add List of Conservative Roundtable episodes).  After you removed Heterophobia  I felt that I need to justify each inclusion; I've been doing this by paraphrasing what it says in the linked articles:


 * Heterophobia article says ""The 1990 book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud by Judith A. Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, J. Gordon Muir, and J. H. Court included a whole chapter on heterophobia, describing it as a new concept and defining it similarly to Francoeur's definition.
 * Involuntary celibacy article says "Meanwhile, some social conservatives such as Dr. Judith Reisman claim that that pornography has increased internal anxiety amongst both genders and has made men and women feel generic and possibly worthless, leading them to become incel." AND in that article it is referenced to one of her writings on WND: [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16066 Sex revolution triggers national impotence]
 * Jeffrey Dahmer article has a ref which reads: "Anti-pornography activist Judith Reisman, Ph.D., wrote, "This author 'met' Jeffrey Dahmer in July 1991, just before he was arrested. Dahmer, naked except for his sadomasochistic leather straps, chains and crotch gear, jumped off a parade float manned by his sadism colleagues in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin gay rights parade to greet a group of us onlookers..." Reisman, Judith A. (2002) "Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth." Regent University Law Review, Volume 14, Number 2, Spring 2002, p. 329."
 * List of discredited substances article includes erototoxins in its list: "The Erototoxins of Judith Reisman - Addictive chemicals allegedly produced in the brain by pornography. There are addictive opioids (i.e. endorphins) in the brain related to pleasure in general, but not specific to pornography."


 * My actions in see also were not POV, but rather they were done to be informative based on neutral searching. Please do not WP:ABF ;) -- Limulus (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not recall ever seeing that ABF page before! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's humorous but does make a point. WP:BAD is also funny :) -- Limulus (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So, without further complaining about me or my comments, move straight on to doing your best to work with the community to make this page Wiki compliant. I do admit you have provided a fantastic start and worked hard on this page.  But it still needs to be Wiki compliant.  Out of courtesy, I am asking you to do this on your own writing so it is done to your liking as much as possible. Off2rob has been removing a pile of the POV.  It's getting better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reisman's objections from 2006
As previously mentioned, here is the link to an article, Kinsey critic refutes Wikipedia entry I will be going through these point by point in relation to the current Nov 2010 state of the article. -- Limulus (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia deliberately ignored the data on Playboy's use of children, focusing only on Hustler."

n/a


 * "The systemic findings of child sexual abuse cartoons and illustrations were directly purged by Wikipedia from its pages. In fact, Playboy averaged eight child images per issue (five percent of its cartoons and visuals) and 16 such images per issue during 1971. Most of these images portrayed children in sexual scenarios."

Section: Images of children, crime and violence

I think we're good for stats.


 * "The work which Reisman produced was later denied publication by the American University, where the study was based, after their independent academic auditor reported on it.' Well, no. First of all, the president of American University, Richard Berendzen, was convicted shortly thereafter for obscene phone calls of a child sexual abuse nature, while the head of AU's psychology department, Dr. Elliot McGinnies, was arrested for sex with a nine-year-old girl in his trailer park at a nudist colony in Maryland, suggesting the obvious. While I was researching pedophilia and child sexual abuse at AU, there were highly compromised AU administrators who were most anxious to be rid of me."

"suggesting" 'speculating'; why then would they have been eager to accept Reisman's project, knowing the topic? Would it have actually made a good cover to associate themselves with an anti-pornography researcher? (consider good upstanding citizens like Mark Foley or Ted Haggard) Could they have been leading double lives? Who can say; next objection.

''
 * ''Moreover, the only 'independent academic auditor' hired by AU was Dr. Emanuel Landau, who stated: 'This is a sound study, producing high quality data in a complex and difficult area conducted in a scientifically acceptable fashion.' Dr. Landau was also one of my six peer reviewers, and all had defended the study.

AP is our source; if she can point to a retraction, we can take it out. Also tempered the AP comments by labeling them as contemporary and adding the Trento ref.


 * Wikipedia cites Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania, a peer reviewer who belatedly 'changed' his mind. Figlio did not complain to AU (Wikipedia's claim) that the research was bad. Figlio's sudden distress showed up in Playboy. But as Figlio was paid by the U.S. Department of Justice, as one of the peer reviewers, to oversee each methodological step of the two-year study, his tardy charge that '[t]he term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless' is false — as he well knew.

Not going to get into he said/she said arguments without 3rd party refs to help; see previous comments about AP.


 * "Figlio also falsely stated that 'the love scene from Romeo and Juliet [was considered] child porn' (p.116). There is no Romeo and Juliet in this study. The Romeo quote is from a book by pornography apologist Avedon Carol who claims the 'world's foremost researcher in this area' is the (deceased) sex-change guru John Money. Money — interviewed in The Journal of Paedophilia advocating sex between men and boys — found 'no evidence that pornography causes' harm, according to Avedon. Well then, I'm glad that is settled."

n/a


 * "Wikipedia also wholly distorts the facts regarding my lawsuit against the Kinsey Institute for 'defamation of character' and 'slander.' Go to my Web site at drjudithreisman.com and see 'The Coverup' for full documentation."

n/a


 * "Wikipedia asserts that a reviewer of my book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, called it 'at best an inflated political pamphlet.' The reviewer further noted that the arguments in the book were based on 'innuendo, distortion, and selective representation of decontextualised 'facts.' The source of that citation is William Simon, Kinsey Institute researcher and long time apologist for adult sex with children who also revealed that Kinsey 'used only about a quarter of the [18,000] cases in his two reports.'"

n/a


 * "Dr. Reisman says the entire Wikipedia entry is riddled with such falsehoods in order to protect Big Pornography and the tax-funded Kinsey Institute."

POV? :) We have refs.

I think it is safe to move forward with the article in the direction we're going considering that the objections to material still in the article are easy to overcome. -- Limulus (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rephrasings
Would anyone object to my continuing to make changes along these lines? I find the constantly interpolated quotes irritating. What if it was just a smooth narrative. That is how encyclopedias usually work, isn't it? I will await feedback from my peers before proceeding further. Thank you. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it. I will submit tweaks (as I just did now) if it looks like it's straying a bit from the refs. -- Limulus (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinions and criticisms
Note, I'll cross these out as usual as they get incorporated or become moot. -- Limulus (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reisman has made numerous claims related to pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality and Kinsey which include that:

* Playboy magazine, through carefully planned cartoons, was creating child sexual abuse. Reisman specifically accused Playboy of targeting tweens with a 2009 issue featuring Marge Simpson.


 * "a growing and proselytizing 'international academic pedophile movement'" existed in the late 70's.


 * naturism is a front for child sexual abuse.


 * sex education which includes references to homosexual relationships and the diversity of human sexual practices is "institutional child sexual abuse."


 * she "endorses" the book "The Pink Swastika" and has written that "The Nazi Party and the Holocaust itself [...] were largely the creation of 'the German homosexual movement.'"


 * "all pornography promotes homosexuality"


 * "the 'recruitment techniques' of homosexuals rival those of the Marine Corps."


 * followers of Kinsey sent "America in a downward direction, promoting today's entire panoply of sexual deviances more common to the Pre-Christian era." By exposing Kinsey's "fraudulent and criminal science," Reisman hopes to help "restore social virtue once again to our nation" like it was "Prior to the Kinsey Reports, [when] American law held that not only were sodomy, adultery, fornication and the like transgressions, [but] those who committed such acts were themselves unacceptable."
 * Detractors, such as the Kinsey Institute dismiss Reisman as a "long-time anti-Kinsey crusader."


 * Kinsey sexually abused children and had a "child molestation protocol".
 * This allegation drew a response from Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, who wrote that unless new evidence to the contrary becomes available, Reisman's claims that Kinsey may have witnessed or personally participated in child molestation under the guise of scientific research must be considered groundless. The Kinsey Institute has stated in response to Resiman that "Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form."

POV to say she is an American Conservative?
Edit by Off2riorob removing "an American conservative" as "pov" That is POV? You couldn't even leave in that she was an "American"? Does even the blindingly obvious need a ref or it gets cut? -- Limulus (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's simple enough to source it. In general, if a claim can be sourced, it's easier to source it than argue it. I do think it's "obvious", but what I personally believe is moot.
 * In fact, the article refers to her as a "leading cultural conservative", although "leading" seems ... like it might need more sourcing. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article refers to her as a "leading cultural conservative", although "leading" seems ... like it might need more sourcing. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, Limulus. Merely as an observation, the people like the MMfA editor being used in the body of the text are not described as progressive, etc.  "Max Blumenthal commented that...."  "Avedon Carol commented that...." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an equivalence beween comments describing the article subject and comments describing other people quoted in the article, the point of the article is to describe the former to people unfamiliar with her or him. I haven't gotten as far as seeing "the MMfA editor", but it's moot to this question. Got no problem with "conservative" or "liberal", if it's well sourced across the spectrum of reliable sources, and I'm seeing a couple sources from different parts of the policial spectrum referring to Reisman as conservative. I honestly don't see the problem, this time. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was directly involved in improving the Mark Levin page. So much so he mentioned the change I did on the radio as finally showing improvement, though not me personally. There are billions of sources that Mark Levin is conservative.  Yet his opening paragraph does not describe him as conservative.  While it's not a killer issue to me, I think it is best to leave out that description and let the reader come to his own conclusion.  Calling people names like conservative or progressive is usually used for POV reasons.  I suggest we avoid that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this seems like a different argument. To the earlier argument (or what I thought the earlier argument was)-- I will say is that I picked the first three liberal (to my mind) names that came to mind and saw the word liberal in the lede of each. So if the argument was that only conservatives get called conservative, I don't immediately see the evidence, in fact, it'd be more POV to remove the term. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be a problematic argument for either one of us to use.  ;-)
 * In this last comment you seem to be suggesting that all such terms are, even when sourced across reliable sources spread across the relevant spectrum of possible POVs problematic, and maybe they are, but that's a harder sell to me. ("Let the viewer decide" has weight, but so does avoiding weaseling when direct terms are verifiable. Neither "conservative" or "liberal" feels to me in the class of words described at WP:LABEL.) So I lean to "this is an okay use of conservative", but I won't lose sleep over it either way. Hey, one thing--if you've got a pointer to WP consensus on that point, a policy or guideline on this I've missed, definitely poke me with it, I'm certainly capable of missing the obvious!  Cheers,  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 02:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a name that popped into my head for "conservative" is Rush Limbaugh; his article begins:
 * "Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (born January 12, 1951) is an American radio talk show host, conservative political commentator, and an opinion leader in conservative politics and conservatism in the United States."
 * I am going to add it back in momentarily with a ref. -- Limulus (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the term "cultural conservative" from the ref (thank you j⚛e decker for providing one wrapped in a bow like that :). -- Limulus (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the way it reads now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've been bold and removed the tag. If anyone has a problem, I apologize, just put it back. I find the article pretty neutral though, and there seems to be no consensus in the discussion that the tag is useful. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask that if anyone wants to put back a POV tag, please use the Template:POV-section to label individual sections. Hopefully the intro is acceptable enough :) -- Limulus (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good here, I'm sure there's still work to do, but the improvements y'all have been making have been improving the article far more quickly than I could have hoped. Nice work, folks, seriously. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent revision
I rolled back a recent edit. Too many words is not a problem. Swain is mentioned in two very reliable sources, we should be adding more of this kind of detail, not removing it. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It just seems like overkill; while Swain is mentioned in good refs, it adds nothing to the story about Reisman other than being a non-notable person (contrast with Regnery). Also, the $ going from 800K to 735K is in the refs; I originally had it in the article but mention of specific $ was removed by Off2riorob: .  Also, the CNN ref  was in there to detail what was in the proposed sex ed course that Reisman found objectionable ("homosexual relationships and the diversity of human sexual practices")  -- Limulus (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the the article cited is that she wrote a memo arguing that the grant was excessive, please review the title of the article in question. In regard to the CNN reference, the fact that the article does not mention Reisman means it's inclusion is OR. The CNN article is an A, Reisman objections to "homosexual relationships and the diversity of human sexual practices" is B, and the link between them is a C, please see WP:OR for the relevant policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I am a little confused, but here is what is I did and I don't think it's quite what you listed, but you can tell me if its still wrong and how to fix it if it is: In the first ref Reisman is asked a simple question: "2. Now, what seems to be happening in the state of Montana?" and she gives a nutj... er, Reismanesque answer:


 * "Montana is seeking to impose an unscientific, Kinseyan ideological model of pathological sexual instruction on the undeveloped, immature brains of vulnerable children. I would argue that the exposure of children to the kinds of sexual stimuli proposed by Montana’s education mavens reflects unmitigated ignorance, malevolence or both. Their imposition of sexplicit and indeed deviant forms of sexual conduct on captive schoolchildren is institutional child sexual abuse. Were a man or woman to stop a child on the street and whisper the same information teachers will force on these school children, he or she could be arrested for child molestation. Thus yes, the sexual stimuli “education” planned is unmonitored, untested, not validated and on the evidence provably traumatic for normal child development. Moreover, the assault on parents as the single responsible caretakers and instructors in sexuality for their own children is deliberately repudiated by the sexuality curriculum starting in kindergarten and continues conditioning, confusing and hijacking these children until they are free should they graduate…."


 * Now, I can't tell from the Reisman-speak what exactly was proposed in the Montana sex ed course, so I looked it up, which leads to ref #2 which mentions "homosexual relationships" and "sexual intercourse "includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration."" the latter of which I rephrased to diversity of human sexual practices (see that article).


 * Thus Reisman objects to the Montana sex ed curriculum (ref 1), which is this (ref 2), as being "institutional child sexual abuse" (ref 1). Again, if that is OR, sorry+please help me fix it -- Limulus (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and since you are combining information from two different sources, one of which has nothing to do with Reisman. You're falling into OR because you are researching the situation in Montana and drawing a conclusion about what Reisman is talking about. Ideally, we would find an article or other work that analyzes Reisman's view of the situation in Montana. Relying on interviews and sound bites from Reisman herself is really not very good since she is a primary source, but I see that there's not much out there about her. I recognize and applaud your enthusiasm, but the article should really be trimmed back--I think this is a case of where less is more. FWIW, I've been dealing with a similar situation over at Camille Paglia, I've built it out in a similar fashion, but really need to start cutting it back. Like Reisman, most sources are just quoting her, and there's too much of her in the article. So I understand how painful it is to reduce your own efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nuujinn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think then that I will try to extend out the quoted comment to something like "imposition of sexplicit and indeed deviant forms of sexual conduct on captive schoolchildren is institutional child sexual abuse" -- Limulus (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, this page is getting a lot better. You, Limulus, are working the hardest on this page, both in substance and in responding to constructive criticism from the community.  I wonder if a barnstar is in your future.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research
I am about to add a tag to a section. The OR is addressed above in the subsection called "Various concerns". Let's use this new subsection to attract more editors to consider the concerns and address them here (instead of the Various Concerns subsection). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The section now has three secondary sources that talk about Reisman discussing homosexual recruitment of children. I think it is now more than fair to say that that specifically is not OR. -- Limulus (talk)


 * It's been just over two months since the OR tag was added and it's generated no new article editors or comments here... I'm going to take it off.  If you still object, rv but please also try to find someone (an admin?) willing to arbitrate or edit more. -- Limulus (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding claims of COI
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (has not only previously lied about having a bone in it (see first comment above, insisting that he only has the ALA as a COI when it is obvious he does makes it very hard to remain convinced) but seems intent on using a double standard of conflict of interest. I would love a logical and compelling argument for why, if homosexuality is a conflict of interest, heterosexuality is not. After all, both are considered perfectly normal by modern science. Fallacies (I expect the actual argument to depend on at least one) will be disregarded. If I might add, this is the same commenter who insisted on expanding the role of WND as a source far beyond what is acceptable for a newspaper which, I'll remind, is based on blatant lies of the "Barak Obama is a kenyan muslim" sort 70.53.138.241 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, it looks like LAEC got hit with the banhammer at the beginning of February: Special:Contributions/LegitimateAndEvenCompelling so I don't think he's going to reply any time soon. -- Limulus (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Items to add on the 28th of June, 2011
Sorry if you wanted to make changes to the article; it's been protected until the 28th. But we can still add things to the talk page now and merge them later. -- Limulus (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oh and do comment on the ones I've been adding if they are of concern. -- Limulus (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that putting my proposed edits here is quite nice; I can tweak them all I like until they're ready to go, people can comment on them before they actually go in the article, there are no edit conflicts, article issues can be resolved first (e.g. I can post upcoming reverts of good faith edit I plan to make too and then let them sit for a bit in hopes of generating a reply)... I think I'll have to make a personal policy of editing on the talk page more and then doing a relatively few move edits (crossing things off after they're shifted over). -- Limulus (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(Infobox person)

It seems the NNDB was incorrect about her ex-husband's name, it's Arnold (I sent them a message about it). He passed away in April:  See also [ http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Reisman/e/B001KMGUCO ] -- Limulus (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like he had a Wikipedia page, but it's unfortunately since been deleted Articles_for_deletion/Arnold_Reisman_(2nd_nomination). Text was this: -- Limulus (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Just had a look at ancestry.com; while they don't show you much if you're not a member, their free search does show a divorce between Judith A Reisman and Arnold Reisman in Cuyahoga County ("county of decree") in the "Ohio Divorce Index, 1962-1963, 1967-1971, 1973-2007". -- Limulus (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) AHA! You can search Ohio divorces here Searching for Judith Reisman in Cuyahoga shows a "Date of Decree" of "07/10/79" Now we can use this in the infobox:

Arnold Reisman (married 1954, divorced 1979)

-- Limulus (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Interestingly, as per the marriage search  (which only has info from 1970-1990) it looks like he remarried in 1980. -- Limulus (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(Lede)

Regarding "debunk" I found another ref

"Dr. Judith Reisman, Debunker of Kinsey Sex Research, Advises Catholic Church to Sue the Sex Experts for Medical Malpractice" (The "Catholic Citizens of Illinois" group to which the article is attributed (authored by their Vice President) is mentioned a few times on Wikipedia, e.g. in Tom_Roeser and William Anthony Donohue so at least somewhat notable) so regardless of whether you feel that Reisman's views have any merit or not, that she has 'endeavored to debunk Kinsey' is well supported. -- Limulus (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article used the word debunk in a novel sense. It usually means to reveal the fallacies of pseudoscience; Reisman used it to mean attacking genuine scientific research that produced findings she found distasteful. -- Donfbreed (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2011


 * As per Debunker, "A debunker is an individual who attempts to discredit and contradict claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious." In the "Education and experience" we quote Reisman saying that sexology is a pseudoscience; she really believes that she is exposing falsehoods (note the one ref used right now describes her as "the much debunked Kinsey debunker" which I think illustrates the use of the word nicely). Still, maybe we should go back to this revision of the lede:  and remove "the much debunked Kinsey debunker" mention in the ref (which is also being used for the Gruenhagen quote).  Would anyone else care to comment? -- Limulus (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we switch back to the 429719282 revision I prefer the current "Noted as" instead of the more bulky "She is considered to be" -- Limulus (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Children in the Kinsey reports

Name "Allegations About Childhood Data" ref "controversy2" -- Limulus (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of child sexual abuse

When Playboy and Penthouse published nude photos of Madonna in 1985, Reisman warned that because of the entertainer's idolization by youth, their publication would destigmatize and "encourage voluntary display by youngsters," leading to an increase in child pornography. -- Limulus (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Pornography and homosexuality

Probably should tack a "—Judith Reisman, 1994" on the blockquote just before the ref. -- Limulus (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mapplethorpe exhibition obscenity trial

obscenity -> obscenity -- Limulus (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Litigation against the Kinsey Institute

In 1991 Reisman, with an attorney from the Rutherford Institute, sued the Kinsey Institute, its then director June Reinisch and Indiana University for defamation as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress regarding alleged attempts to censor her book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. The case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice in 1994. -- Limulus (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This should go right after the Mapplethorpe section as it followed chronologically. -- Limulus (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On her site, Reisman also mentions a Playboy libel suit -- Limulus (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) But I note on closer reading that she was not directly involved in the lawsuit (it was by Playboy against the Dutch religious broadcaster Evangelische Omroep over a program which had a Reisman interview in it; "Playboy Lost to Reisman!" is a bit of an overstatement) and as I'm having difficulty finding other refs, it can probably be skipped for the article (anyone wanting to learn Reisman trivia can certainly visit her linked site, ne?) -- Limulus (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See also


 * Fairfax High School (Los Angeles), which Reisman attended. -- Limulus (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles City College, which Reisman attended. -- Limulus (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * University of Haifa, at which Reisman was an Associate Professor. -- Limulus (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)