The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Judith Reisman#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on this point, below.
Q1: Why don't you state pornography addiction as fact?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. For example, if the APA will include pornography addiction in the DSM, then Wikipedia will rubber-stamp its decision. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy. There is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. (CSBD isn't an addiction.) See also WP:CHOPSY: WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those six very reputable universities, especially when they all toe the same line.
Q2: Why don't you state that erototoxins exist?
A2: Because the terms "erototoxin" and "erotoxin" are completely absent from PubMed[1][2][3] and therefore not a subject of scientific research by anyone, from right to left, from conservative to liberal, and from mainstream researcher to quackademic. And the very few mentions of "erotoxin" at JSTOR and EBSCO are in fact OCR-errors (misspelled "crotoxin", "miserotoxin", "enterotoxin") or figurative language (which does not denote a real chemical substance).
Q3: Did her strategy convince SCOTUS?
A3: In at least three SCOTUS cases, amicus briefs authored by Reisman and blaming Kinsey were on the losing side. While Reisman cannot be blamed for losing the cases, her arguments were definitely unconvincing to SCOTUS judges; they sided with Kinseyan (i.e. mainstream) science, not with Reisman's criticism thereof.[4][5][6][7][8] Q4: Why don't you state that porn use is paraphilia (pictophilia)?
A4: The majority of US men use porn.[9][10][11][12][13] What the majority does is axiomatically clinically normal in psychiatry. According to The Huffington Post, 70% of men and 30% of women watch porn.[14] Quite probably, the majority of US population between ages 18 and 35 use porn at least once a week.[15] Conclusion? The people who say porn use is paraphilia should suck it up and be a man: they lost the debate, so they should quit whining.
DSM-5 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-10 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-11 code for pornography use? Not any. So, of course it isn't paraphilia. Even allowing that an excessive obsession with porn is paraphilia, normal (ordinary) porn use isn't. Q5: Is there a correlation between the Kinseyan sexual revolution and an increase in pedophilia?
A5: Yes, there is a correlation, but it is the opposite of what Reisman claimed: pedophiles had most to lose (not win) from the sexual revolution.[16] So, LGBT+ won, pedophiles lost. Q6: Why don't you state that pornography increases sexual aggression?
A6: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. Crime statistics make the claim highly unlikely, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY multiple, independent and very strong WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are required in order to overturn long-standing medical consensus, see also WP:RS/AC. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy.
Does Malamuth say that pornography increases sexual aggression? Nope, that's a misreading of his papers, as he himself declared to Quartz publication.[17]
Q7: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A7: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Past discussions References
|
.png)
.png)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
PinkNews edit
According to WP:RSP, PinkNews is in green. No indication that it would be Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, or something like that. Therefore calling it a "far-left newspaper" is a violation of WP:NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)