Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sexual revolution"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The statement should be supported by a reference that analyzes his statistical methodology. To say that his statistical sampling methods must be faulty because he was an unpleasant person is a very pure example of argument ''ad hominem.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | The statement should be supported by a reference that analyzes his statistical methodology. To say that his statistical sampling methods must be faulty because he was an unpleasant person is a very pure example of argument ''ad hominem.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | Just to clarify, since I see that [[User:Suricou]] removed the statement. I don't like the statement as Ed phrased it. Apart from the question of ''what'' he said was true of 10% of the population, which Suricou clarified I believe there is a case to be made that Kinsey's | + | Just to clarify, since I see that [[User:Suricou]] removed the statement. I don't like the statement as Ed phrased it. Apart from the question of ''what'' he said was true of 10% of the population, which Suricou clarified I believe there is a case to be made that Kinsey's sampling methodology wasn't good enough to produce quantitatively accurate percentages. So if Ed or someone else wants to say something about faulty statistics, that's OK with me but it a) needs to be supported, b) by a reference that addresses ''that question,'' not some other question. |
Now, as for the references, which I see were added by RobS. They are both traceable to the same source, a Dr. Judith Reisman, who says that Kinsey and his associates had many repellent sexual abnormalities. They are both reported by distinctly conservative websites. If RobS wants to add a statement to the effect that "Psychologist Judith Reisman says thus-and-such" about Kinsey, that's OK too, as long as it's carefully qualified so that the reader can make a judgement about credibility. I'd like to see it attributed to "Conservative psychologist Judith Reisman" actually. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | Now, as for the references, which I see were added by RobS. They are both traceable to the same source, a Dr. Judith Reisman, who says that Kinsey and his associates had many repellent sexual abnormalities. They are both reported by distinctly conservative websites. If RobS wants to add a statement to the effect that "Psychologist Judith Reisman says thus-and-such" about Kinsey, that's OK too, as long as it's carefully qualified so that the reader can make a judgement about credibility. I'd like to see it attributed to "Conservative psychologist Judith Reisman" actually. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 19:58, May 8, 2007
There was a sexual revolution in the 50s? Where? --Emmeline 14:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
- I think the writer means it had its roots in ideas developed in the 50s? It would be much more appropriate to say 60s and 70s, though. Human 15:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
References that do not support the statement
The statement
- Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men were homosexual. He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.[Citation Needed][1][2]
is followed by two references. Although both of the references make many unflattering statements about Kinsey, neither of them says anything about his statistical sampling methods. The statement should be supported by a reference that analyzes his statistical methodology. To say that his statistical sampling methods must be faulty because he was an unpleasant person is a very pure example of argument ad hominem. Dpbsmith 15:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify, since I see that User:Suricou removed the statement. I don't like the statement as Ed phrased it. Apart from the question of what he said was true of 10% of the population, which Suricou clarified I believe there is a case to be made that Kinsey's sampling methodology wasn't good enough to produce quantitatively accurate percentages. So if Ed or someone else wants to say something about faulty statistics, that's OK with me but it a) needs to be supported, b) by a reference that addresses that question, not some other question.
Now, as for the references, which I see were added by RobS. They are both traceable to the same source, a Dr. Judith Reisman, who says that Kinsey and his associates had many repellent sexual abnormalities. They are both reported by distinctly conservative websites. If RobS wants to add a statement to the effect that "Psychologist Judith Reisman says thus-and-such" about Kinsey, that's OK too, as long as it's carefully qualified so that the reader can make a judgement about credibility. I'd like to see it attributed to "Conservative psychologist Judith Reisman" actually. Dpbsmith 15:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
- ↑ Judith A. Reisman, The APAs: "Academic Pedophile Advocates", WorldNetDaily, March 26, 1999.
- ↑ Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, retreived from Accuracy in Academia 8 May 2007.