Talk:Orgone/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Orgone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Martinphi, you are being really obnoxious, and I know you know how to be civil. If a statment does not align precisely with a ref, work with your fellow editors to find phrasing which suits, or discuss alternate references, thoroughly before making edits like you just did here, adding a "fact" tag to a sourced statement. That is simply WP:POINT, and you've been around long enough to realize that. If you're getting frustrated, take some time off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war..

Of course this may be seen as something of an controversial statement on behalf of psychotherapy as this field itself has been considered by many critics to have no basis in science.^[1]

The linked article doesn't support this. In fact, the word psychotherapy isn't even *mentioned*. Psychoanalysis appears a few times. I don't think that the abstract is remotely clear enough to be used to justify any specific position. Bhimaji (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you sure you read it in it's entirety or just the summery? If you wish adding references from Popper et al is not difficult. I too have no wish to edit war on this but this is just silly. Psychotherapy accusing the Orgone "hypothesis" as having no basis in science is known, where I come from as "the pot calling the kettle black" :-) The7thdr (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any of these do? They are all - I think without checking - wiki compliant. they do use pseudo-science a lot however and I was trying to keep away from that.

http://www.psychology.org/links/Resources/Pseudoscience/

http://www.gwup.org/themen/lesetipps/michaelshermersencyclopedia.html

http://counsellingresource.com/books/science-and-pseudoscience/

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/two-edged.html

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=106&cn=394

This statement as nothing to do with the article on hand, and seems to violate several core policies. What purpose does this serve in this article? What does it have to do with orgone? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that would be obvious. It is simply silly to use one pseudo-science to accuse another of the same. If you wish to include such a thing then in the balance of fairness - and so that the reader understands the background of the argument - this needs to be explainned. The7thdr (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out what "core rules" it violates? The7thdr (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, NPOV, and original research. Not to mention coatracking. Feel free to explain what it has to do with orgone. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - explain in detail The7thdr (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to even justify what it has to do with this article? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The7thdr : As far as I can tell, I need an account to access it. In fact, they state that only institutions may subscribe. However, if you believe that this reference backs up the claim that psychotherapy is pseudoscience, I think you should head over to Psychotherapy and get it into the main article. It would be highly inappropriate for the Orgone article to describe psychotherapy as pseudoscience if there isn't agreement that it belongs in the main article. Bhimaji (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

look, if you want to 'rehabilitate' Orgone for some reason, there are better ways to do it than casting aspersions on the entirety of the psychological and psychiatric fields. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "rehabilitate" anything - I think that all pseudo-sciences should be treated the same way - whether that be be the loopy ones like orgone or loopy ones like psychotherapy. I assume from your defence of the "science" of psychotherapy - which orgone is part of a long line of other pseudo-scientific views in psychotherapy no matter how much you might protest - that you have a vested interest. I consider "rainmakers" as disproved as much as research has disproved "collective unconscious. Falsifiability is falsifiability - or should that be lack of it. The7thdr (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

This is better taken up on the page dealing with psychotherapy. Not the page dealing with Orgone. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

true. do let me point out, though, that (unlike Orgone) psychotherapy is well-established, and generally accepted as scientific. that may be a mistake, mind you, but the weight of current reliable sources do not support your claim that it is a pseudoscience. when and if that changes, I (for one) will happily allow the addition you propose. till then, it's wp:OR, at best. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Orgone is certainly related to psycho-analysis, since, as the article states, it derives from a vitalist hypothesis of the Freudian libido. Such a view was popular in the thirties and anathema in the fifties. Many people hold that the concept of libido is scientifically suspect to begin with, even because it is not susceptible to physical experiment. However, such a view (presenting psychoanalysis as pseudoscience) is deprecated in the wiki pseudoscience guidelines; therefore the remark, piquant though it may be, is really in breach of those guidelines in my opinion. Redheylin (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

part of the problem here (and this was part of the eventual break between Freud and Reich) was that Freud took libido more and more as a metaphor, whereas Reich took it more and more as a physical fact. as a metaphor it's useful; as a fact its suspect. such is life... --Ludwigs2 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my argument was that the article stated that some claimed orgone was pseudoscience and my response - with many references to support it - was that many respected thinkers have/do also consider/label psychotherapy as a "pseudoscience" but to be honest, it seems that the article has now been re-edited and is no long the POV fest it was only a few weeks ago so simply ignore me :) The7thdr (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I took out most of the radical pro-Reich stuff. just so you know, I respect the pov that psychology is a bit of a pseudoscience (don't agree with it, mind you, but I do respect it); it's just out of context for this article. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave - what text are you looking at? it's been a long time since I read the Reich stuff on my shelves, but as I remember it (and logically, if it comes to that...) the FDA got an injunction against the distribution of Reich's stuff on the grounds that the concept of orgone was false and misleading, and the burning of Reich's books and devices only came after Reich violated the injunction by shipping a device across state lines (which is the only place the FDA has jurisdiction). I don't think the destruction of the material was part of the original injunction; I think the FDA just assumed that as part of their purview after Reich was arrested (the way they might single-handedly destroy a lab full of illicit drugs if they found one). minor point, really, but I'd like to get it factually correct. --Ludwigs2 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See the wee number at the end of the paragraph? Click on it. . dave souza, talk 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - sorry, duh.  :-)

ah, ok. you've got a link to the second ruling, not the initial injunction (notice how it says in the first couple of paragraphs that Reich et all failed to appear?). I'll see if I can dig up the initial injunction; but if not, this works fine. --Ludwigs2 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse - please say what pov issue you have. POV tags should not be permanent features of articles, you know, but I can't see what objection you're making, or how to fix it. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The sourced, overwhelming consensus that Orgone is a pseudoscience belongs in the lede. That is a good place to start. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the source, again? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is the most obvious source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we need an exact quote posted from the source -is one already here on the talk page?- and we need to attribute something like "Martin Gardner called orgone pseudoscience in his seminal work of the skeptical movement Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I say we need a quote where he says it is pseudoscience, is I cannot get more than the tiniest glimpse of the book, even by searching for the word "orgone." So I hope someone has the book and can give us a quote, per this [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, attributing a quote to one individual when it's representative of the mainstream view smacks of giving undue weight to a fringe view. However, as it is now in context it doesn't look too bad. Regarding the judgement, here's a handy link[2] . . dave souza, talk 08:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you know it doesn't matter to me what comes out of the sources when they are given their due weight. However, making claims which our common sense says is correct, as with OrangeMarlin, won't do (of course, common sense also says that all these people haven't heard of the subject, so can't be condemning it; but I recognize OM meant "if they knew about it, they'd condemn it" and was merely leaving out the small minority who would not condemn it). It doesn't matter whether it's common sense: it matters what the sources say see first one. Nice work on your part. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As to giving it undue weight because we attribute, I don't think anyone believes that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse - I am not about to 'guess at what you are objecting to, so don't tell me where we need to start, tell me what you want. the simple omission of a pseudoscience label is certainly not grounds for maintaining an NPOV tag. please spell out your objections in detail so we can address them all appropriately; that way I can move on to more interesting topics. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ludwig - you made a point; that libido is a metaphor. In this case such a metaphor resembles the American idea of a "putative" energy. There is a case for viewing orgone in the same light, and it has been cited as such by NICAM, which represents a volte face in the US govt position. This is not at all what Reich intended - the whole idea was to make the life-force material - but in reality we are left with orgone as the only cause postulated for a couple of claimed and weakly-supported, unrefuted experimental claims; those revolving around the "accumulator" and the "cloudbuster". It is, of course, as wholly unsatisfactory an explanation as are chi or prana, since no point of contiguity can be suggested and tested to observe the interaction of this force with other known forces. But unless the actual effects claimed are refuted or accounted for this metaphoric or putative "explanation" will remain. Apart from this, when viewed in a strictly psychotherapeutic context, the ideas of orgone and libido do not differ in status, it is merely that the former suggests and supports physical and emotional, rather than purely mental, interventions.

Therefore it appears to me that orgone must be viewed at present mainly in its original psychotherapeutic conception, secondarily in its historical context of biological vitalism. From this there proceeds Reich's various failed experiments in the physical domain. The furious anti-vitalist reaction of the fifties does need to be mentioned, but polemic from that period cannot and should not be aligned, given NICAM's position, with the present-day evaluation. As far as I can understand, TMToulouse's position is that a "neutral" account must involve a prominent and categorical presentation of Gardner's views on the tertiary, physical aspects of Reich's ideas as a modern-day scientific consensus on their totality, overriding psycho-analysis, vitalism and the aforementioned claimed effects, as well as any account of Reich's actual concepts. Since this view cannot be defended by scholarship, it has instead been a justification for edit-warring and disruption. As the article stands, we have an absurd and avowedly partial account of "blue skies and orgasms" instead of a coherent account. The achievement of incoherence and untrustworthiness apears to be the goal, and it seems to me that the mentioned tag, then, is simply an extension of this aim and is essentially intentionally disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

well, again, I'm not willing to guess at TMToulouse's motivations. since he hasn't seen fit to respond to my last post, I'll take it that he's been convinced, and I'll go ahead and remove the POV tag again.

I'm not sure I agree with (or maybe I'm misunderstanding) your other point. it seems clear to me that we can discuss Orgone from a variety of perspectives: as the material substrate that Reich envisioned, as a development from Libido, as a putative energy that has no empirical verification... I can see why you object to the 'blue skies' quote on the grounds that it's a sarcastic statement - maybe we should find a better one - but in fact, the phrase is fairly accurate, for all its sarcasm. For Reich, orgone was a 'grand unification' theory; I can even see the Hegelian dialectical elements that infused so much of Germanic academic thought from that period (think orgone as the physical manifestation of Geist). trying to present it as a mere extension of libido - or even as a mere bodily energy, as from Reich's character analysis days - would miss the full breadth of scope of the concept. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

POV tag stays. The article implies orgone exists, and since it doesn't, and everyone removes NPOV language, it stays. Quit reverting it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - I don't think you mean to suggest that the POV tag should stay there indefinitely, and I'm trying to find out exactly what we need to do to remove it. I don't see where the article says that Orgone actually exists (maybe I'm missing it?), and I'm more than willing to remove an obviously incorrect statement like that. can you point me to this objection, so that I can revise it? --Ludwigs2 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this comment is an uncivil personal attack and not an explanation of why the tag should or should not go, the tag stays. I've made my points. The article claims Orgone works, and there are no reliable sources that support that statement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

well, since the article doesn't actually say that orgone works, anywhere that I can see, then I don't see any reason to keep the tag on the article. plus, I don't think you can turn my previous comment into a personal attack, and even if you could, that wouldn't be grounds for maintaining a POV tag. so again - can you show me where the article makes this claim, so that I can edit it out, or do you have a more general objection? I'm open to either, but I'm not open to leaving a POV tag in place for no real reason whatsoever. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to edit war is certainly your modus operandi. I've placed the tag back, since there are statements like "as a "putative energy" – one which has to date defied any measurement but provides some therapists a paradigm for clinical procedures." There's no verification for such a statement. And no, the NCCAM website that is essentially a self-promotion of this stuff is not a verification. Show one reliable source that states it's a paradigm for anything.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the POV tag. Every time I read through it, I try to figure out precisely what I think needs to be changed. I'm not happy with the arrangement of the information; it doesn't seem to flow in a reasonable way. I think that too many of the sections in the article sound like they are authoritatively true. Yes, there is information that talks about the conflicts, but I don't think it's in the right areas. Bhimaji (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks Bhimaji, I appreciate the feedback. I'm not averse to reorganizing things if you can clarify what's bothering you. for instance, which conflicts are you referring to - maybe we should bring the conflicts straight up to the forefront?

OM, your objection to putative energy is noted, but it is reliably sourced, so far as I can tell, and the context makes it clear that this is no claim that orgone is a true fact. we could rewrite it, though, to make that more prominent; would that satisfy you? --Ludwigs2 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I got a suggestion from elsewhere to rewrite the first line "Orgone is a theoretical energy first postulated and then promoted by Wilhelm Reich. There is no evidence that it actually exists." I'd be fine with that; would that go any length towards solving the problem? --Ludwigs2 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It its better than what we have right now, I think it should state There is no evidence that it actually exists and has been called a pseudoscience. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (Coming from ANI for a quick comment and run.) I don't know much about this nonsense theory, and I have only read the lede, but I am not too happy with that. I think that the proposed new first line (presumably followed by "It is a bioenergetic interpolation...") would be a big improvement. I would also suggest removing the second sentence but one ("putative energy"), which I think is more or less implied by the adjective "bioenergetic" in what is currently the first sentence. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is an improvement, but a long ways from NPOV. This is a fringe theory, pseudoscience nonsense. There are no reliable sources stating that it exists. Tmtoulouse's suggestions would work for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The only additional thing that Tmtoulouse wants is "and has been called a pseudoscience", right? Is it really necessary to say that? What would that help? Those who are at least somewhat scientifically minded, or able to read between the lines, will come to the conclusion that it is a pseudoscience. The others won't be impressed by "has been called". --Hans Adler (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans: I don't actually think you'll get a response to this, so let me try to fill in. labeling is an easy way to frame a concept without going through the trouble of analyzing it. it's like slapping a 'kick me' sign on someone's back. the prominently attachment of the label 'pseudoscience' instantly discredits the concept without anyone understanding why or how it's discredited, and frees the labeler up to go slap more labels elsewhere. this isn't about whether orgone is actually pseudoscience (since that term is so loose that it defies any meaningful definition); this is about making the topic look bad in the most expedient and effort-free way possible. I'm not objecting, mind you, though I think it's juvenile. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been some talk of creating a template for articles such as this one, which merely says something like "This subject is scientifically controversial. It may encompass pseudoscience, unverified scientific claims, or claims which are disputed. Therefore, all its content should be subject to skeptical analysis on the part of the reader." Place that tag, and stop quarreling so much over the exact wording of the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

what is the status on that? last time I checked, it was fizzled, but I haven't been paying attention. I mean, I could whip up a simple infobox template in about 2 minutes - should I just do that, apply it, and see if it solves the problem? --Ludwigs2 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to work for anyone I know, except for the two of you. There's no "may". It is pseudoscience. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

well, you're the one who wants to label it pseudoscience, OM. if it were up to me I'd leave silly labels like that out of the picture entirely, and just let the ridiculousness of Reich's position speak for itself. I don't quite understand why you're objecting to us helping you out on that, though the irony of it tickles me. sheesh indeed - lol. --Ludwigs2 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a pseudoscience label of some sort would be reasonable. Or, perhaps, a template stating how the scientific community views Orgone. In fact, I think that a template like that would be a useful thing on most scientific and pseudoscientific articles. Wikipedia is moving away from "criticism" sections, but I think in this case a summarization of how accepted something is would really be clearer than fitting the criticism only within the body of the article. Bhimaji (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that a template might relieve some of the more intractable cat-fights on fringe articles, where various editors mangle prose while trying to shade an article to discredit or promote the topic. just put it right out there, say that the reader needs to read with a few big grains of salt, and let the squabbles go. I made a mockup, here. forgive the color scheme (which I stole from wikipedia), but what would you think about something like this on the page? also, I rewrote the lead with some of the comments I saw here in mind. is this an improvement, or does it move away from the mark? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel-worded nonsense. I'd revert it from any article that I was editing. You POV-pushers would just use it to say, "see, it has a tag, so you don't have to write any criticisms." The tag is worthless. Instead of this constant pushing, why don't you do some real work on this project. I note the FAR list has never seen an edit from you.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> I struck out the unjustified and insulting personal comment. I'll leave the bad faith assumption, because it at least deserves some discussion. you should really read the comment about labeling I made above... so, two points:

1. even assuming someone was dumb enough to make the argument you suggested above, what possible chance would it have for success? a short discussion, and the inclusion of reliable sources, would cut the legs out from under it. the tag would simply obviate a whole lot of article-damaging argument about trivialities
2. what in heaven's name is the FAR list? if it's something you think I ought to be editing - and particularly if you want to attack me personally for not editing it - you'll have to clue me in on what and where it is.

incidentally, do you realize that over 90% of the posts you've made to me have contained personal insults of one form or another? when I get a chance, I'll whip up the statistics - may need to write a bot to do it, though. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are both not being very nice to each other (each of you just reacting to perceived misbehaviour of the other, of course), and suggest that you make absolutely sure to keep the personal dimension out of this article.

The tag is an interesting idea, but I am very skeptical about it. I think it shouldn't be introduced without extensive discussion. I'll unwatch the article now, because I can't keep quiet otherwise. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ok by me. and I'm adding a header to set this discussion apart - it's a side point that doesn't really apply to the main topic. --Ludwigs2 09:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Orgone Energy category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Orgone Energy category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:PSCI which is policy on pseudoscience. The current arbitration has no standing until such time that Arbcom makes a decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

W:PSCI is based on that arbitration, so i don't really know what you mean.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. in the absence of a reliable source or some talk page justification, I think the pseudoscience category tag should go. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, we have been through this a dozen times, there are sources now archived. Gardner is the best one of the top of my head. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orgone energy is pseudoscience par excellence. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Wilhelm Reich [3] identifies it as pseudoscience. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Self ref, please see WP:PSCI. This issue was settled over a year ago. So let's archive this thread and move on to editing other articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If Gardner is the best you have, that's pretty sad... but still, I'm not disagreeing that it's pseudoscience; I'd just like to support that with some references (which I don't happen to have). can we do that, please? --Ludwigs2 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we know you have some inherent prejudice against Gardner that I and several others feel is completely unjustified, regardless it is more than enough for the cat. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is an entertaining writer and a mathematician. Can you point us to some real scientists? I don't find him convincing as regards what the general scientific community thinks of as pseudoscience. Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting from the standpoint of this project's effort to become a serious, useful reference work. Brittanica can state the obvious—that "orgonomy" is widely recognized as a canonical pseudoscience. We, apparently, cannot. Five points to Britannica. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add to self-ref's comment that I have no particular prejudice against him, except that he's really not all that qualified to say the things that he says, and he certainly doesn't merit the level of adoration that some editors here laud on him... he's probably a nice guy, though.

Mastcell - no one is saying that we cannot say that Orgone is a pseudoscience. but in point of fact we shouldn't be saying anything at all; reliable sources should be. or is that not correct? --Ludwigs2 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources do call orgonomy pseudoscience. Brittanica considers those sources sufficient, and correctly and simply reflects expert understanding of the topic. We have recurring, circular, interminable debates about whether the sources are reliable enough, or whether a given scientist is "real" enough to debunk an orgone accumulator. I was getting at that contrast. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I remember. I think they have sources for a good attributed statement including the word pseudoscience. Is that the fuss? But the article isn't POV merely because it doesn't contain someone's pet word. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Brittanica is a tertiary source - not normal wikipedia fare, but I could be convinced (maybe) if someone bothered to make the argument. MastCell, you're misconstruing my issue here. me, I'm not trying to argue that orgone isn't a pseudoscience; I'm trying to get the editors who want to use that term to actually participate in developing the article. hit-and-run labeling is just a silly way to make an encyclopedia.

While you're here, though, maybe you can get Orangemarlin and Tmtolouse to explain the POV tag. there's not a whole lot I can do to to satisfy their NPOV concerns if they refuse to discuss what their NPOV concerns are, and OM, at least, has been adamant about not talking to me. maybe they'll respond differently to you. --Ludwigs2 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:PSCI. This qualifies as obviously pseudoscience. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

still no explanation of the POV tag, OM? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep reverting my good NPOV edits. There's your answer. Thank you for your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that. Propose your edit and its sources on the talk page first, and when you get consensus you can put it in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your methodology is useful when all parties actually understand the principle of consensus; moreover, consensus does not trump core policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV...oh, you know all of the NPOV policies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone can please provide a rationale for the NPOV template on this article, please do so; we can discuss necessary revisions. barring that, I'll remove the template later this afternoon. thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For goodness' sakes, there is an NPOV template on the article because the article is obviously and blatantly POV. Orgone by all reliable sources is not a credible theory and is taken seriiously only by a few proponents way out on the fringes of psychology, if even connected with psychology at all, and should not be treated so credulously in an encyclopedia. How hard is that to understand? It's interesting that you took this to ANI not two weeks ago and were told that the article was not NPOV, and were given some good suggestions for improving it, and now have the very same question back at ANI again. This looks like an extreme case of IDIDN"THEARTHAT to me. I can see why people get testy, after making this case again and again and again and again and making no headway. Recent changes have helped the lead considerably, but the body of the article still gives the theory too much credence for a neutral presentation. Woonpton (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Orgone energy is a hypothetical and largely disputed extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido first proposed and promoted in the 1930's by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich.

Comment, it is not just largely disputed, it is flat out rejected, I am also not a big fan of the word hypothetical here, but it is not as big a deal.

1. Content from skeptical sites describing how Reich used this in a ridiculous number of ways has been replaced with a general "lying behind and causing much, if not all, observable phenomena." This whitewashes a lot of the crazier claims
2. there is no credible scientific evidence that it exists as a physical reality.

Comment: why the "physical reality" part in this sentence, there is no scientific evidence that it exists in any way shape or form.

1. This focus on sexuality, while acceptable in the clinical perspective of Viennese psychoanalytic circles, scandalized the conservative American public even as it appealed to counter-cultural figures like William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac.

Comment: seems totally superfluous for the introduction of the article, and seems to make an indirect claim that the rejection of the idea was more social-political than evidence based.

1. Today orgone is regarded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine or NCCAM as a "putative energy" – i.e., a paradigm or model which some therapists use for clinical procedures, but which is generally considered untestable and defies effective measurement.

Comment: The whole NCCAM stuff seems highly questionable at best, and needs a lot more qualification, and doesn't seem to deserve its placement in the introduction either.

There are also substantial problems elsewhere in the article but we are not even through the intro yet. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tm - thanks for getting this started. though I do have to point out that I did edit the article to reflect the one clear comment that was offered the last time I took this to ANI. If you and I had had this discussion then, we likely wouldn't be having it now.. so, point by point (I've changed your bullets to numbers for easier reference):

1. I don't have a source for 'flat-out rejected'; do you? if so, I'm happy working it into the article. in the absence of a source, I think we have to go with the weaker statement (which seems clear). maybe we can compromise by taking out the term 'largely' and just saying 'disputed'- would that work for you?

   Not a single reliable source can be found that studied Orgone. 50 years of searching in medical journals brought me one from a midwifery journal (not RS), one from a disputed article, so not RS, and two others from an Italian alt med journal from 40 years ago, not an RS. This qualifies as flat-out rejected. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

2. you can get that same content from Kelly as well as from skeptical sites, but why should we indulge in either bias? the main problem with the original statement that was there was that it was markedly sarcastic. I don't think we need sarcastic dismissals in the lead any more than we needs proponents claiming at as god's honest truth, so I opted for a nice, neutral statement that captured the sense of Reich's megalomania without pushing it in either direction. do you have an alternate suggestion?

   Fairness is your issue, but not important to WP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

3. the pseudoscientific portion of Reich's theory is its extension as a supposed physical reality, and that's what scientific evidence fails to support. anything beyond that is a matter of pure belief, and in that respect your beliefs have no more authority than anyone else's. let's not engage in wp:SYN.

   Per WP:PSCI, obvious pseudoscience may be described as such. This is obvious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

4. 'the focus on sexuality...' This is correct as a matter of historical fact, and is in the lead because (again, historically) orgone research was ended largely as a political act by the FDA, in response to public discomfort. this isn't to say that orgone research wouldn't have died anyway (no real evidence to support it, so science would have simply forgotten about orgone in another decade or so regardless), but it is a noteworthy historical feature of the topic. I'm open to revisions, mind you; I don't think this is necessarily the best way to phrase it. what would you suggest?

   That is mostly a discussion for the NCCAM page. it's purpose here is to indicate that orgone is still used as a guiding principle in certain holisitic-type therapies. which is true.

I'll be honest, most of these objections feel more like you just don't want the topic to be discussed at all, rather than concerns about the fair and accurate way to discuss it. are these really NPOV concerns? 'flat-out rejected', 'Reich using it in a ridiculous number of ways', 'questionable NCCAM stuff'... these are highly judgmental statements.

so, responses to the above are welcome, and we can move on to discuss the body if you like. --Ludwigs2 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your tendentious editing style is getting out of hand. Tmtoulouse has made valid points. You asked, he replied, now you're upset with him. That's why I stopped replying to you, because it's like an endless round and round discussion with you. Honestly, why don't you go edit a real article with support of a broad range of editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out the personal comments from your post, OM, and interestingly there doesn't seem to be anything left of it to respond to. I'll remind you that wikipedia policy asks us to comment on articles, not on other editors. thanks.

Don't touch my edits again on talk pages. Please stop your uncivil comments. You are tendentious. Tmtoulouse made valid points. You disputed his valid points. You do engage in endless conversations that usually end up with you're being blocked. And why don't you go edit a real article and gain support. None of that was a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

again, striking personal comments. I will leave it up to others to decide whether or not it constitutes personal attacks, but I don't see how any of that commentary is relevant to resolving the NPOV dispute on this page. please read Wikipedia:Civility#Personal_attacks_and_harassment. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please don't change other's posts. Similarly, there's no need to un-strike it. Drop it and move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

will do. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> OM, what I'm saying is that I would like to support you if you have some sources and wording to contribute. As before, I do not mind adding the word "pseudoscience." But if you won't discuss or propose, I have no choice but to support Ludwigs contention that you are being disruptive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no Journal of Pseudoscience, and you probably know that. Scientists don't review every fringe theory to determine if it's pseudoscience. That's why WP:PSCI indicates that ones that are obvious should be labelled as such. All it takes is a review of the 5 or 6 points that make pseudoscientific principles labelled such. However, I'm willing to compromise, since you seem willing. I think we want to remove the POV tag as a first step. I don't think that the lead should describe it as a pseudoscience, but I think the category should stay. Second, the lead needs to remove weasel words and say, in essence, " there is no scientific support." A pubmed search shows 4 articles in 50 years on Orgone, and that indicates to me no scientific support. It's impossible to prove a negative, so that seems to be support of the null hypothesis. An article like this one needs to say what it is, because it should be about Orgone. The lead should have one or two sentences stating, with support, that it is not supported by the medical and scientific community. Then the rest of the article should be history, explanation, research (whether pseudoscientific or not), criticism. We need to leave out POV descriptives like "skeptic", "mainstream science", and other similar terms. Is this a step in the right direction? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "There is little or no support in the scientific community" I think is a non-controversial statement. It may be difficult or impossible to source, but because it is non-controversial, there is not reason not to put it in. Science doesn't deal in complete absolutes. This follows from my position of OR: if it's non-controversial, we can put in OR. There might be better ways of putting it, such as

"Today orgone is regarded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine or NCCAM as a "putative energy" – i.e., a paradigm or model which some therapists use for clinical procedures, but which is generally considered untestable and defies effective measurement. "There is little or no support for the concept in the scientific community and medical establishment." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, this works for me as well. with your permission, I'll go ahead and edit in some of these changes (and some of the ones that Tmtolouse suggested above). if they are sufficient, then we'll remove the tag. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Better wait for a response before editing the article... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a request here. Ludwigs, you poison the well with me. If I can come to reasonable working lead, then chime in. Look at what you've done here, you are going to make changes, and we are still in discussion. This will take some time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you should immediately redact the insults and accusations in the post above. If you want me to work with you you will have to be nice. I want to work with you, if possible, but not if you are going to poison the environment. I thought you were going to play nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't consider them an insult. He does poison the well for me, meaning that I'm not able to look past his constant personal attacks on me to give him good faith. I'm willing to give you much good faith. Moreover, he wanted to make changes to the article without a response from me? How is that helpful. Finally, I will redact the motorcycle comment. That probably wasn't nice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

←"Orgone is regarded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine or NCCAM as a "putative energy", a model which some therapists use for clinical procedures, but which is generally considered untestable and defies effective measurement. "There is no scientific support for the concept in the medical scientific communities."

• In the first sentence, I removed "today" since Wikipedia is not supposed to predict the future. I remove i.e. for MOS purposes. Otherwise, I think the sentence is absolutely fair. I made the changes in the second sentence to remove weasel words. "Establishment" is a POV word, especially certain of us old folks who railed against the establishment when I was in college. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't go with any absolute statement, as I said above. The word "today" was referring to history. It's not necessary, but was not POV. A statement that there "is no" scientific support is not verifiable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Today" was not for any POV purposes, just MOS. We're not supposed to predict the future. Let me see if there's a good way to rewrite it. Give me a few minutes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

←"Orgone is regarded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine or NCCAM as a "putative energy", a model which some therapists use for clinical procedures, but which is generally considered untestable and defies effective measurement. There is little or no scientific support for the concept in the medical and scientific communities."OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also don't like the Isaacs quote so much. But I would like it to be in the reference for this statement.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, there is no deadline, and Orangemarlin and Martinphi seem to be having a productive discussion. Please do not edit the article until they come to a conclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. One change, there is no need to have "scientific" before the word "support," as we are talking about the community. Just take that out and I certainly agree to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kind of redundant. You want to tackle Psychic in the same way? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tune-up of the remainder of the lead can happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope we could tackle Psychic that way. The problem is that there I could agree with a statement that there is "little support in the scientific community" but I couldn't agree to statements that say or imply that parapsychologists can't be scientists, or, for example, that their work isn't published in peer reviewed journals. Or statements that there is "no evidence." But there are certainly statements I'd agree to which would give a good idea of the extent to which their views are accepted by the larger scientific community. Also, I can agree to attributed statements of how they are criticized, perhaps even including the word pseudoscience if you wish. I'm against all general statements like "scientists say that..." I'm against the implication or statement (if not attributed) that parapsychologists are not scientists or that the "scientific consensus" is "no evidence."

So, about Orgone, how about integrating the text and pasting the whole lead here before putting it in the article? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I already made the changes to that sentence. No matter, I'll bring over Ludwigs' edits plus our agreed edits, see how it looks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy for the next couple of hours. Can Martinphi bring over the comment above to Psychic? I think there's a workable sentence or two that I might agree to. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, OM, I was actually agreeing with you, and since Martin seemed to be in agreement as well I thought editing in changes in that regard would be acceptable. what you've done satisfies me, though I hope you'll look over that revision of mine you reverted (particularly the second paragraph, where I was trying to accommodate some of Tmtolouse's comments)...

This 'poisoning the well' thing you mentioned is a problem. I do not enjoy having to work with someone who has that kind of intense dislike for me, and I don't get the sense that you enjoy it either. We are going to need to find some sort of workable truce, otherwise we are going to make the editing process miserable for each other and for every other editor who has the misfortune of working on a page with us. If you're still resistant to talking it out, fine; I'm open to other suggestions. tell me what works. --Ludwigs2 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orgone energy is a hypothetical and disputed force extrapolated from the Freudian concept of libido, first proposed and promoted in the 1930's by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich. In Reich's view, orgone was a universal bioenergetic force supposedly lying behind and causing much, if not all, observable phenomena.^[2] Although Reich's followers, such as Charles R. Kelley, went so far as to claim that orgone was the creative substratum in all of nature, comparable to Mesmer's animal magnetism, the Odic force of Carl Reichenbach and Henri Bergson's Élan vital,^[2] there is no credible scientific evidence that it exists as a physical reality. Investigation into orgone was effectively ended when the FDA obtained a federal injunction barring the interstate distribution of orgone related materials by Reich's Orgone Institute, on the charge that Reich and his associates were making false and misleading claims, and under the terms of that injunction destroyed all devices and written material associated with orgone or its promotion.^[3]

Orgone was closely associated with sexuality: Reich, following Freud, saw nascent sexuality as the primary energetic force of life. This focus on sexuality, while acceptable in the clinical perspective of Viennese psychoanalytic circles, scandalized the conservative American public even as it appealed to counter-cultural figures like William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. This notoriety was partly responsible for the intervention of the FDA, due to the combination of dubious research and cult-like status. Ultimately, however, the concept had little impact outside the Beat Generation and some of its authors.

Orgone is regarded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine or NCCAM as a "putative energy", a model which some therapists use for clinical procedures, but which is generally considered untestable and defies effective measurement. ^[4] There is little or support for the concept in the medical and scientific communities.^[5]

This is incorporating the agreement between myself and Martinphi, along with some unrelated edits from Ludwigs and others to the first two paragraphs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

this looks good to me. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"there is no credible scientific evidence that it exists as a physical reality" ought to be replaced by the agreed upon wording which is now at the end of the proposed lead. That puts it up the page farther, and eliminates absolute statements which can't be verified.

I have to go now, I'll be back later and move the discussion about Psychic. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, since there is no further discussion here, I'll make the change Martin suggests and edit this in as the new lead. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were done here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

we are, as far as I'm concerned; it just hadn't been edited in yet (unless that's what you just did). --Ludwigs2 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just did it. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We probably want to avoid long-term use of the pov tag. If the article isn't neutral, work together to make it so. If anyone is disruptive or persistently tendentious, I'll deal with that under provisions of the general sanctions linked at the top of this page. I'd also like to point out that neutrality and due weight are based on what the reliable sources say, not on the proportionally weighted opinions of the editors who choose to work on the page. As we move forward with that, everyone please keep it civil. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see we have a surprising number of pages about orgone energy, and many pages that deal with related topics: vitalism, Odic force, etc. I'm not prepared to closely follow all these subjects, so I'd appreciate a message on my talk page if any related problems arise elsewhere, because of merging or for any other reason. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 123.255.22.236 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Two editors seem to be opposed to making this article NPOV. We've tried, but it's really not that high interest article since it's such a fringe theory, so it's hard to get science editors to lend their good name to this article. I guess it's a choice between spending energy getting articles to FA level, or battling here. I try to do both, but it's draining.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, this is great. Often one just needs to avoid inserting text which is not supported by sources. There is also the contention, often stated much like this, that we "have to make clear from the start that the subject is bunk." Rather, we have to use the lead to summarize the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)