Talk:Judith Reisman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Template:Maintained

I was reading WP:OAS, which says (in part) in regards to article stewardship "In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia." In the see also is a link to Template:Maintained which offers several guidelines, including: "DO place this template on the talk pages of articles for which you either have strong knowledge of the topic or its sources. DO place this template on the talk pages of articles which you have thoroughly read, understood, and checked against sources." The edit history [1] since the major reconstruction started in November up until recently was mainly the same people; alphabetically by user name:

• Joe Decker
• LegitimateAndEvenCompelling
• Limulus
• Nuujinn
• Off2riorob
• TheSoundAndTheFury

Other than LAEC (who got an indefinite block on 8 February 2011), would anyone else in this list like to be included? Is there anyone else who feels that they qualify based on the guidelines I mentioned and would like to be included? I would like to add this template here just before the article editing block expires (though you are of course free to add your name to it later if you so desire). -- Limulus (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• - Hi, I have been a bit out of this for a little while and didn't check in on the article but I would have no objection to being named and paying the article a little more attention again, I have never seen a template Maintained in action before so I can't speak for its benefits. The article is looking good though, well done. If you could stabilize the article without revert and protection I would say a WP:GA review would be a benefit and a clear possibility of getting the grade. A search for a picture would be a good benefit also or a request to the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking for a pic for a while now (and if you go to Google Images there are several), the problem (of course) is that images floating around online are almost never licensed properly for Wikipedia. I was hoping the ones with Shelley Lubben on Flickr might be, but alas they weren't. Based on the previous interactions [2] [3] with (someone claiming to be) the subject though, I am hesitant to ask her... -- Limulus (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... It seems that Shelley Lubben is User:Slubben and has uploaded one of her Flickr pics to Wikipedia. I will ask her if she would be willing to upload one of the ones with Reisman. -- Limulus (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the template; let's see if it does any good :) -- Limulus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edits

(Lede)

"Noted as" -> She is noted as -- Limulus (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See also

Liberty University, at which Reisman is a Visiting Professor. -- Limulus (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual recruitment of children

I think that we should split this section; adding an "Academic pedophiles" just prior to it as a lead-in to recruitment. -- Limulus (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. "Academic pedophiles" is extraordinarily POV, and the article already suffers much being larger sourced from Reisman's own work. This article should not be a soapbox for her hate speech. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ack! It was absolutely not my intention to promote hate speech, so apologies if it appeared that way! I was simply trying to catalog her views; "academic pedophiles" (like "erototoxins") is an unusual term that seems to be Reisman-specific. Let's try this text, closer to the original. -- Limulus (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, we're not hear to catalog her views, we're here to document her. I'm going to ask for some more eyes on this. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted a request for more eyes at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Judith_Reisman, --Nuujinn (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment there about how you can make an alternate (pruned-down) version of the article in userspace; alternately we could work here on the talk page... the first step would be to identify the 'best' refs and work from there. -- Limulus (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As per comments there, please see Talk:Judith Reisman/NPOV for rewriting efforts. -- Limulus (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Reisman is suspicious of homosexuals, especially those who are youth leaders, fearing that their goal is to "seduce and recruit" children. She has claimed that the recruitment techniques employed by homosexuals rival those of the United States Marine Corps.

Reisman describes her first encounter with "a growing and proselytizing 'international academic pedophile movement'" in 1977 at a British Psychological Association conference on "Love and Attraction" hosted by Swansea University during which Paedophile Information Exchange activist Tom O'Carroll was to speak; when asked further about it in a 2006 interview, she stated: "At the 1977 conference it was largely male homosexual power—pederasty– that was in evidence calling for child access."

Reisman cited "a clear avenue for the recruitment of children" by homosexuals in her public support of Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992). In 1994 Reisman spoke at a conference of Christian right leaders in Colorado Springs, saying that homosexual "recruitment is loud; it is clear; it is everywhere." She estimated the homosexual population at the time to be 1-2% but predicted at least 20% (and possibly over 30%) "of the young population will be moving into homosexual activity" as a result of recruitment.

-- Limulus (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) -- Limulus (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC) -- Limulus (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC) -- Limulus (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 article audit

As per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Judith_Reisman, please see Talk:Judith Reisman/NPOV for reference reliability and rewriting efforts.

I have identified the following four ref groups (from the above linked subpage) as the most reliable to form the basis of a rewritten article:

• AlterNet (basically as a 'RS for uncontested facts')
• Books/Journals (I would avoid those w/o online copies; difficult to verify)
• Magazines
• News/AP

The article is going to take a major size (and likely quality) hit by generally avoiding her self-published sources (and WND), but this is probably what we should do for Wikipedia:BLP compliance. -- Limulus (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy seems pretty straightforward about culling less-than-perfect refs; in fact the "Better nothing than a hatchet job" mention on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Final_decision implies that one should do so, so I am. -- Limulus (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References

I saw that the block on "Education and experience" had been removed, ostensibly to meet with WL:BLP regs. I think it would be preferred to located sources for it, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.206.106 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate talk page

I'd like to note that, in addition to this talk page (Talk:Judith Reisman), there is also a Talk:Judith A. Reisman page. It's here. Shouldn't that page be deleted or merged here, or something? There's no need for two different talk pages for one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.167 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good point! Talk:Judith A. Reisman seems to have independent comments. Was there a merge or something that left this hanging? Star767 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

PubMed

As it happens to peddlers of pure pseudoscience, her views are not even discussed in any source indexed by PubMed. Her views are not even rejected, let alone approved of. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The only scientific source I have found on Google about erototoxins is [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's see the search results for "erototoxin":

• PubMed: no results;
• JSTOR: no results;
• EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition): no results.

These searches verify the above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Academic

Seen the results at Talk:Judith Reisman/Archive 2#PubMed, I agree with the removal of the term "academic": by publish or perish she isn't an academic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

On EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition), searching for the keywords "reisman, judith" (without the quote marks), there are no academic papers written by her. There are indeed some newspaper articles from Human Events, but nothing scholarly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

On JSTOR, searching for the keywords "judith reisman" (without the quote marks), there are no results germane to medicine, psychology or sexology (speaking of her papers). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

As hinted by Morton Hunt, there are ethical problems with advancing her viewpoint. So, regardless of the lack of actual evidence for her claims, she could not have been an academic due to major ethical problems with her books. E.g., actual empirical evidence for string theory: 0. But string theorists may be academics since they play by the rules of the game. There is a difference between Philosophy as a Blood Sport and demonizing a whole academic field as Nazi paedophiles who have forfeited their Constitutional right to free speech due to being exposed to porn. (Which is so hilarious, but no, I did not make this up.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

At https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(reisman%5BAuthor%5D)+AND+sex there are shown no papers written by her. There is indeed a Reisman, J., but in fields wherein she has no expertise whatsoever (i.e. cardiopulmonary and sleep medicine). Same applies to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(reisman%5BAuthor%5D)+AND+porn , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(reisman%5BAuthor%5D)+AND+kinsey and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=reisman+kinsey , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=reisman+porn and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=reisman+pornography . For https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=judith+reisman , there is only one paper, namely "Sensory processing disorders" (PMID: 12498067), obviously not her paper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, on JSTOR for "reisman porn", "reisman porno" and "reisman pornography" (without the quote marks) there are no results. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

On EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition) for "reisman porn", "reisman porno" and "reisman pornography" (without the quote marks) there are no scholarly papers written by her. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So, peer reviewed publications by Judith Reisman about porn and/or erototoxins: PubMed: 0, JSTOR: 0, EBSCO: 0. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

0 papers shown at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=erototoxin and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=erotoxin . Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114095638/http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=43&authorId=97&tId=8 to http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=43&authorId=97&tId=8

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

The == Advocating for children == section appears to be far from neutral POV. The following sentence appears most significant - "What is really interesting is that quack gay therapists like Joe Kort and Robert Weiss claiming to be gay-affirming clinicians cite spurious research similar to Reisman's when they misdiagnose conditions rejected by mainstream psychiatry like sexual addiction."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.182.171 (talk • contribs)

What you don't understand is that Wikipedia is quite biased for the scientific mainstream, see WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Berendzen

The remark about Richard E. Berendzen is true, but has absolutely no relevance for this article, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I.e. the word "Reisman" does not appear in the source, nor anything related to the rejection of her study. It's merely an association fallacy. The way it was stated it seems to be part of a paranoid conspiracy theory about such rejection. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

POV

The editorial work on this article is truly embarrassing, and I have to believe it is done in bad faith. It gives the veneer of impartiality while carefully curating biased sources in order to trivialize this academic's controversial work. It cites ad hominems by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a shamelessly left-leaning advocacy group, and then turns and admonishes would-be editors for, and I quote, "pet ideas" that don't reflect "medical orthodoxy." Wikipedia might be given the benefit of the doubt if those citations that actually did make it into the article -- citations, presumably, that aren't intended to support "pet ideas" of any partial sources or ideologues -- were not so grossly misapplied. The source quote on Note 6, for example, has very little to do with the claim it is being represented to support. Someone went over this article with a fine-toothed comb of ideology, and I think it's shameful that Wikipedia hasn't taken action to police it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc77158 (talk • contribs)

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jcc77158: Quoted by Tgeorgescu. At the end of the day, all that she wrote as scholarship was overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream scientists and mainstream scholars. That's why WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS apply to this article.

She blames Kinsey for the sexual revolution, but penicillin and the contraceptive pill did more for the sexual revolution than Kinsey could ever do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rephrasing

@Lemonpip: I tried to rephrase the statement. The reality is that facts stood in the way of her allegations: pedophiles did not win from the sexual revolution, they had most to lose, i.e. they are worse now than before the start of the sexual revolution (in a worse situation). They gambled and they lost, they lost big. I'm not advocating for the pedophiles, just stating that they are the losers of the sexual revolution. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Captain Kangaroo & evils of cartoons not mentioned?

Why is her tenure as a singer & writer for Captain Kangaroo not mentioned other than the brief comment in the Mappelthorpe section? She's stated in both her own books & in interviews that "the fast-action and increasing violence of cartoons on other stations" was what spelled an end to the CK show & in large part inspired her to turn to academia & researching media. That certainly qualifies as significant. (Quote is from her book "A Personal Odyssey.")SLEPhoto (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IP edits

@A09090091 and Hey man im josh: I think you're too hard about the IP edits. The stuff they claim isn't a secret, and there are enough sources about it cited in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: There were no sources about "falsely given", in fact my edit summary was adequate and appropriate. Edit is clearly failing Wikipedia:Citing sources. A09090091 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@A09090091: Maybe the IP does not know how to cite sources, however, just citing some of the sources already available in the article would get them to achieve their goal. I don't say that I endorse their edits, but their edits aren't "false", whatever "false" might mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn’t make any sense. IP was warned twice for the same reason. PS: “falsely” points to IP edit, with such edit he negated the whole sentence. A09090091 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@A09090091: My point is that their edits make the point of the article a bit too obvious, not that the IP is essentially mistaken. The IP is too zealous but not mistaken. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)