I wonder if maybe the reason he has an article deserves more space than gossip about his sex life... Tuf-Kat

Most of the important facts are already in Kinsey Reports. Abraham seems to think that Kinsey's sex life is interesting, but I admit that after removing his POV slant, it reads out of place. --Eloquence 21:38 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite, but I don't have time to do it now. Perhaps later. Right now the article takes a strongly non-neutral position (for example, the position that group sex between consenting adults is wrong, while widespread, is not a neutral position). The "NPOV" edits that have been made have done nothing more than tone down some of the loaded language. The original text was very obviously carrying an agenda. The edits, however, left the agenda in place but legitimized it by improving the words. I'd rather the original loaded article stand. It would be useful to break the article up so that Kinsey's professional practices and his personal positions are discussed separately. His unconventional beliefs and the controversy around them are certainly worth discussing, but there is no need to use his eccentricity to demonize him or attempt to discredit his work.

Anybody I ask either considers him to be a great enlightening researcher or a despicable pedophile. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. This deserves a more balanced article than what it has now. Adding NPOV tag.--TexasDex 22:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not that i am any great expert, but this article seems to be more about people's reactions and opinions of his work that his work itself. I wanted to knoew the results of his research, the methods he used etc. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to separtate, but this comes across as gossip and rumour than cold objective fact.

sorry, i have now found the page i was looking for! Apologies.

While I agree that far more needs to be said about Kinsey's findings, nothing about the article, as it currently stands, suggests that the author is disingenuous or pushing an agenda. Many of Kinsey's critics have pointed to his unusual sexual practices to impugn the objectivity of his sexual research. The fact that those practices and the accompanying criticism is mentioned in the article therefore seems appropriate. (Sex educators might make reference to an "abstinence-only" organization's evangelical religious views in critiquing that organization's research.)

The problem with this article is not that it's "biased," but that it's too short. And I say this as someone who values Kinsey's contributions to the field of sexual research.

Does anyone know how Kinsey died?

• I looked it up and found Pneumonia as the cause of death. KingTT 07:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Awful.

An article on the life of a scientist should explore his formation and his achievements instead of laying out prurient gossip about the man. This article has clearly become a forum for ad hominem attacks, and has caved in to people with a political agenda. As the German saying goes, When you are swimming against a river you are still swimming in the river. Haiduc 20:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gall Wasps

If Kinsey devoted a significant portion of his career to entomological studies, perhaps those studies should be at least mentioned? Mokele

A Disgrace

This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's just a smear-job. I didn't find much useful information here... maybe a tiny bit of relevant data about the man's life, but it seems obvious to me that this is a case of conservative forces slandering a man who tried to deal with a very important subject in a scientific way. It's shameful when this happens to scientists and atheists who question popular conceptions.

Radical Mallard Fri Feb 4 21:52:45 EST 2005

I agree with the above sentiments. Remove the putrid filth. This is the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I had held Wikipedia in high esteem, now I'm hesitant to recommend it to anyone.

Paulx82 12:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major updates

I have made major updates to this including all information on his early years, education and some bits on his work as an entomologist. I have not yet gotten to more and better information about the Kinsey reports, but I expect to do so in the near future. I am deeply concerned with the controversy section. If anything I think the list of alleged sex acts ought to be removed and replaced with a more general statement such as Author <Can't remember his name> has charged in his book "Alfred Kinsey a Public/Private Life" that Kinsey was involved in a number of deviant sexual acts. While a few of these have been confirmed some of them remain of dubious veracity. (Which is all objectively true). Perhaps we had ought to also include something about his development of the scale where homosexuality is a gradient and showing Kinsey more near the center rather than at either the exlusively homo/heterosexual extreme values. We do need to hae something about Christian groups who oppose him of which I know the most about the Family Research Council (FRC) which has a running attack on him at their website. Perhaps we ought to also post something about the Children of Table ## which is a book claiming he sexually abused children. Although it appears this is unlikely since the Kinsey institute points out that all information was taken from adults recalling their childhood sexual experience (and in one instance, one man telling a lot about his childhood). Obviously there are much needed additions such as Kinsey's important method of the interview as a method of collecting data (which I regard as possibly the most notible thing about the Kinsey reports from a scientific point of view). Also, more implications on the sexual revolution ought to be explored. Also, a final note, he did a lot of work at the the Indiana University in Bloomington and we need to have some comments about how he taught the marriage course there and how that was the gateway to his studies on human sexuality. In any case, please evaluate my work and make better what I've started. I really was pretty sad about the state of this article when I found it, but I think this is a good step toward making it better and hopefully through the process of having lots of editors we can make this article the type of article it ought to be encompassing the full impact of Kinsey's work and faithfully giving him a biography. For further comments directed to me please contact me on my talk page. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you all toward a better article. I'll be watching for your comments. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

So I updated the controversy section. Added some stuff on the Family Research Council and messed a bit with the wording. I removed some of the specific details on the masochism such as:

• The sticking a spoon down his urethra bit which is almost true. Gathorne-Hardy reports that it was a small straw inserted by a girl in the company of several other people, but it was done as a child (circa 13, if I remember right?) so I thought the act of a child was hardly relevant and it seemed to have no serious impact on Kinsey.
• Unanestetized circumcision. I have seen no evidence for this in my research, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen either (I'm not an omniscient Kinsey know-it-all). In any case, if someone could verify this through multiple sources it might be okay for inclusion. I think this is pretty well summarized in the bit about calling him a bisexual masochist. It seems overkill to me to say "He's a masochist. Therefore he liked being hurt." Please discuss if you disagree. I'm open to pursuasion on this topic.
• "Tied rope around his testicles and pulled". Same idea basically as unanestetized circumcision. I think this one is a lot more unverifiable too, but again, just because I don't have the info right in front of me doesn't mean it isn't true. Again, however, it seems superfulous to include that type of thing.

Thoughts please.

Oh, will someone also please look over my work on the FRC? I'll be up front and say that I disagree with their policies virtually all the time, but when I'm on wikipedia I really do try to uphold the standard of NPOV with zealousness. So, if you'd please look over the FRC thing and merciliously remove any POV still remaining in it (I think I did well, but you never know until someone with the opposite viewpoint looks it over and tells you), I would certainly appreciate it.

Anyway, happy editing. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)