Talk:Orgastic potency

Now let's promote this new article at DYK

Let's find an eloquent blurb for this article and nominate it for a show at WP:DYK! __meco (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great idea!! I would be very happy if you could do the procedure, etc., but I will gladly help with the text. How about: Did You Know:

• ... that the vast majority of people suffer from orgastic impotence? It's catchy for sure!
• ... that orgastic potency is the ability to completely experience and surrender to the involuntary, pleasurable convulsions at the climax in sexual intercourse? That may be an easier candidate..--Gulpen (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first one is viable because mainstream science and medicine in particular would contest that there even is such a thing as orgastic potency. There would need to be some qualifier for attribution. The second is much too long. There's a 150 character (spaces included) limit on lenght. __meco (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one was a joke rather :). But I checked and the second one is exactly 150 characters (excluding "... that").

It is also possible to use Reich's later terminology, although that may be a bit confusing:

*... that orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion at the acme of the genital embrace? (120 char.) --Gulpen (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It has now been nominated, see Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 16. __meco (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requires sub-section on concept pleasure and sensation

Under central concepts should be added some of Reich's work on the The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety. This is now partially included in the criticism section, but should instead/also be part of the main text.--Gulpen (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The baker reference now used there can be replaced by this one. --Gulpen (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

As yet I'm unhappy with the amount of criticism. I'm confident that it must be possible to find more criticism about this specific concept - I mean serious criticism, not superficial misinterpretations. Additions or suggestions here are welcome!--Gulpen (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that a realistic expectation? Hasn't mainstream science for the most part dealt with Reich by ignoring his work or cursorily dismissing it without scientifically investigating it? __meco (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not a bad question.. However, there is quite some literature on Reich and I had hoped that at least one person took a serious critical look at his theories. (Sharaf certainly wasn't all positive about things Reich in his Biography). There are also many post-Reichian followers, institutions and journals that could provide this.--Gulpen (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel increasing objection to including Wilcox work as a source: he makes too many basic factual errors in his writing - apart from it being a self-published source. I selected what I thought were the only potentially valid arguments - some of which he remains the only source for. What to do?--Gulpen (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Censorship of Reich's work"

This is the name of a section in the article. Why? I cannot understand that this is a topic that should be discussed separately in this article. __meco (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The important phrase here is "...including work related to orgastic potency." Rephrasing the section to 'Censorship' should better cover the intent (namely that the censorship relates back to the title of the article). The 'Reception' & 'Censorship' sections were intended to point out that work about orgastic potency has been affected by this banning and these campaigns. However, the rest of the paragraph in 'Censorship' may be a bit random and generic rather than specifically written about orgastic potency. I lack enough knowledge to write it much more specific. Still do you think having that section is justified?--Gulpen (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the references to DeMeo.--Gulpen (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think the snippet you left in should be removed as well. Since the concept of orgastic potency, i.e. the orgasm reflex and the function of the orgasm, is at the core of all subsequent developments of Reich's research and therapeutic interventions, this is of course what his detractors more than anything else cannot accept, although they often provide vicarious arguments for their objections to his work. Without identifying these mechanics, and I think that would be difficult given the available source material, I don't think this issue, could well be discussed in the present article. The current text discussing reception based on Elsworth Baker is fine, but I find the jump to censorship unwarranted here. __meco (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think that makes sense. It's removed now.--Gulpen (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fringe written as fact

This is completely discredited stuff -- all of it. Written as if it's, well, accurate. So I've tagged it. The article should be redirected to Orgone, which deals with this insanity from the point of view of scholarship, or to the article on Reich himself.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that tag. You should either nominate the article for deletion (or merging) or be specific in your grievances. Your sweeping characterization of the entire topic is not constructive and makes no basis for improving the article. And from your post above you don't seem at all interested in improving the article, you just want to have it removed. __meco (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mysticism masquerading as fact. A really poor job of it. I'm just trying to give the poor suckers that stumble across this some warning.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what that template's for. Unless you want to address the problems as you see with this article in an appropriate manner according to WP policies and guidelines you should find some other area to occupy yourself with. __meco (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You've got my attention now. This article as currently written presents a mystical theory by a discredited researcher as if it's fact. I'm beginning to wonder if a little walled garden is springing up again. Will think on the best course of action, but it's clearly non neutral at the moment. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I offered at the Did You Know nomination to rewrite the article as a relatively brief exposition of Reich's (and Reichians') views. Unless you want to take it to AfD, Bali ultimate, I still think that's the best thing. I have no particular desire to do it myself, and the article's creators declined the offer. But I do think it's notable, and I'm still willing to do that. I'd have done it this morning to provide another base point for discussion, but have been working on an off-wiki task (and it's now past my bedtime so I am not at my most coherent). What's the feeling at this point - should I put that time in tomorrow and/or the day after? or is there anyone else who knows more about psychology who might be willing to rewrite it? Or is the general feeling here that it's unsalvageable as a topic even if presented neutrally? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the current text as unsalvageable, and it is basically a fork of "orgone energy" aka Orgone, Reich's grand theory. But if you want to take on a top to bottom rewrite, I'll help out a little, and certainly support the attempt.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. Next steps include: condensing repeated references using ref name; seeking non-Reichian scholarly mentions to improve the referencing and to make the Reception section more compelling; dealing with the citation needed template (and possibly other points in the article that need more support from references; quite possibly reinstating details I removed (such as the entire description of the ideal sex act) and/or removing further details that I left in. I did not examine the references as I wrote, but merely incorporated them into the new text, so the paraphrasing also need to be examined for overly close wording (including places where I may have inadvertently rephrased something too close to the original where the earlier article wording had avoided that). I would also like, for the sake of completeness, to have more about Reich's focus on heterosexual vaginal sex, what he said about masturbation, and modern criticisms of the heteronormativity (a word I don't often use, but if this is linked from the Main Page as it is now, there are sure to be many, many criticisms of that aspect). And anything else required by good practice on a medical topic. (I removed the prescriptions for dealing with the specific male and female sexual problems since Wikipedia does not provide therapeutic advice. There may well be more that should be either rephrased, omitted, or explained in modern terms from that point of view.) But otherwise of course - simply feel free to edit this version. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is truth in Bali ultimate's statements that Reich's 'orgasm theory' is not "fact" as defined by general scientific consensus. However, all the details and other comments made by Bali ultimate show how little s/he knows about Reich's work. Reich's orgasm theory evolved and was presented a decade before he made any inquires into what he termed orgone energy. His concept orgastic potency is based, as I indicated, on Reich's psychiatric and psychoanalytic work. As I also indicated, Reich's interpretation of 'neurosis' as caused by a stasis in libido energy is in full accordance with Sigmund Freud's own, original psychoanalytic theories. Reich simply elaborated on that. Hence, your claim to simply discredit Reich's 'orgasm theory' because of the status of his orgone work, would be the same as using the status of orgone energy to discredit Freud's theories! Only after Reich thought he discovered orgone energy did he re-interpret his 'orgasm theories' from the viewpoint of orgone energy. Still, he himself always presented his 'orgasm theory' from the original viewpoint, not the orgone variant.

I'm also not impressed by Bali ultimate's simple claim that orgone is "completely discredited stuff -- all of it," etc. etc. Yes there are several sources claiming his work is discredited. However, I, for one, after months of research have NOT found even a single academic source where Reich's work is discredited: no single reference is ever made to where such discrediting would have actually taken place! Just to be very clear on this: I'm not implying his orgone theory is valid, I'm just saying that as far as I could find it is factually incorrect to say orgone is "completely discredited stuff". Increasingly I get the impression that the academic world has almost not engaged with Reich's work, and that claims about the status of Reich's work are simply continuations of the many politically motivated "media campaigns" against his person and his work (read: in particular as fueled by the Nazis, Soviets and US govt against his The Mass Psychology of Fascism). Hence, writing on this topic is a very delicate endeavour and I'd really like to ask editors to contribute and comment on the content only if they really first familiarise themselves with Reich's work which, for example, Bali ultimate seems not have.

A few comments regarding Yngvadottir's work. I found sources for the missing "Malinowski" citation. Also, I had tried earlier to find more about Reich's views on heteronormativity, but have been unable to find an explicit discussion of this topic (though he implies it in every possible way). A description of Reich's views on masturbation are available in the archive. I would indeed like to see some of the description of the "ideal sex act" to be re-inserted, as the conceptual difference between orgastic potency and impotence - during intercourse - becomes clearest in the contrast between that experience and the experience of the sexual disturbances. Regarding the references, however, I'm quite unhappy to see you completely changing the referencing format. I thought the general rule was to conform the the first referencing system used in any given article and I clearly adopted one uniform system. Now I'm facing difficulties. For example, I made a commitment on the DYK page to include page references and though I readily admit that I have been very slow to live up to my commitment, I now feel unable, because (I believe) it is not possible to repeatedly use "ref name" with different page numbers at each instance. I invested much time in choosing the most ideal referencing system for the way in which I made use of the sources in this article.

I have not found the time yet to check the new text - and I have only very little time now. However, I will be able to contribute more actively in the near future. At any rate I am very happy to see other editors engaging with the article!--Gulpen (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Bali Ultimate again. I would much prefer someone other than me to add coverage of characterizations of orgastic potency from non-Reichian psychologists, both because I don't know the field and because I don't have adequate library access (including no JSTOR). From the search I was able to do, it appeared that it has been discussed more than I had expected. But on things like the heteronormativity and the dismissal of masturbation, it's not Reich's views that are needed, but those of non-Reichian scholars, in particular from recent decades. Feel free to re-change the reference format; one of the reasons I changed it was my own limited time - using templated references adds hours to my working on a long article - and to make it more evident how many sources were being used. If you now have page numbers to add, that will result in breaking up some of those repetitions of the same reference; and since I can't see the academic articles that need to be added, someone else is going to have to add them anyway. I hope my rewrite clarified that the topic is notable and made it easier to get a grasp of its outlines (including its relation to Freud's work and to teh later development of orgone theory). I'm sorry if I introduced inaccuracies; feel free to revert some of my rephrasings, but I do not think the lengthy characterization of the sex act is worth including. Highlights in the context of making points (or of criticism), maybe; but WP is not a how-to guide and the article does not need to be lengthy; readers can consult the sources for the details. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no non-Reichian psychologists interested in this rather kooky non-thing. The failure to achieve a tautologically defined "full" orgasm is not, in fact, a cause of neuroses. The "vital energy" stuff (a non-measurable thing since it is non-existent) is particularly fun. I don't care about reference formatting and have no expertise in that area. Gulpen is an advocate for this fringe belief, so is unhappy with a rewrite that improved this article (which is still problematic).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are non-Reichian psychologists interested in his work. I just yesterday came across and read Pietikäinen's 2007 [http://www.amazon.com/Alchemists-Human-Nature-Psychological-Utopianism/dp/1851969233 Alchemists of human nature], for example. Whether libido/"vital energy" is a real energy or should be used merely figuratively here is a discussion which belongs to the orgone article rather than here, because, as I explained above, the non-validity of orgone energy need not invalidate the concept orgastic potency. But the fact remains that Freud himself proposed 'aktualneurosen' as neuroses caused by 'actually' frustrated libido, which he originally defined as a physical energy. To give you another relevant quote of Sigmund Freud: "The uninitiated can hardly believe how rarely normal potency is to be found in the men, and how often frigidity in the women, among those married couples living under the sway of our civilised sexual morality" ("Civilised sexual morality and modern nervousness" in Collected Papers Vol.2: p 69.). Also, please refrain from calling me "an advocate for this fringe belief"; I am merely doing as critical as possible research on Wilhelm Reich's work. If you too are sincerely interested in the 'facts' about orgone, then I cordially invite you to send me the references (e.g. on my talk page) on which you base your conclusion that either orgastic potency or orgone is experimentally falsified, so I too can learn about that.--Gulpen (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pietikainen? bzztt... try again. Pietikainen is a historian (not a psychologist) who has written about Reich as part of a failed, utopian movement in American life in the early 20th century. Here's an abstract from another of Pietikainen's articles on Reich: "While pointing out that Reich's orgonomic theories have no scientific merit, this article argues for the relevancy of his ideas for understanding the nature of utopianism in dynamic psychology." Let me reiterate, there are no non-Reichian psychologists who take any of his ramblings seriously, and certainly not this obscure one. You are here to do advocacy. "experimentally falsified?" I wonder if you know how science is done. The very definition of a theory is that it can be falsified. "Orgastic potency" can't be falsified, because it posits a thing ("vital energy") that can not be measured. It is not science at all. You are here to advocated a discredited set of beliefs. No matter. There are many like you at this website. For the sake of anyone who wanders along, I'll quote a psychiatrist who lectures at Johns Hopkins from this [1].

"Recently, I came across The Function of the Orgasm by Reich (1973), at a yard sale. For only twenty-five cents, who could resist it? It is one of many books by this charismatic and controversial man. Up to that point, I had never read anything by him, and I thought that his bizarre movement had faded away. I was sorely mistaken. A semi-autobiographical work, first published in 1940, the book describes the development of Reich’s career and his thinking over the previous twenty years, from Vienna to his early years in the U.S. He was a psychoanalyst who was recognized for his work on character analysis, but he quickly became impatient with merely verbal therapy. His book describes a departure from psychoanalytic technique in the form of a hands-on “character-analytic vegetotherapy.” Reich’s advocacy of such beliefs and practices led to increasing conflict with his analytic colleagues, and he was expelled from the International Psychoanalytic Association in 1934. He had been expelled from the German communist party a year earlier.

Although Reich’s strange theories have no scientific validity, Reich himself should interest psychiatrists and psychologists as a case study. Reich claimed that “orgone” treatment could cure mankind of social, political, medical, and psychological ills. He claimed that it was the solution to everything from totalitarianism and war to psychoneurosis and cancer. He also called it orgasmotherapy, because he believed that frequent genital orgasms are a goal of treatment and the key to good health. It is said that he caught syphilis while practicing what he preached, but this claim is unproven. Reich claimed that the function of the orgasm is to discharge energy particles called orgones, thus maintaining a balance of vital forces. According to Reich, this approach led to dramatic therapeutic results. From there, he went on to develop his orgone theory.

...According to Reich (1973), “biological energy is atmospheric (cosmic) orgone energy” (p. 381). Orgone energy is found throughout the universe and flows from the sun to the earth. The earth’s atmosphere is charged with orgone energy, and clouds, thunderstorms, northern lights, and other atmospheric disturbances are due to imbalances in atmospheric levels of it. Microscopic, blue vesicles, which Reich called “bions,” are charged with orgone energy and are essential to living cells. Reich (1973) even claimed to have seen them under the microscope. Although bions are “developed from inorganic matter, they propagate like bacteria” (p. 383). Orgone energy seems to be the basis of life, but can be toxic in excess, according to Reich. As with atmospheric disturbances, human mental and physical disturbances are due to imbalances in orgone levels. A healthy balance of orgone energy is achieved by absorbing orgones from the atmosphere and discharging them through frequent genital orgasms. Character armor is one of the causes of orgone imbalance. Besides mental illness, orgone imbalance leads to such things as sexual impotence, dictatorship, war, and cancer

... Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas. There is an increasing degree of overlapping and blending of orgone therapy with New Age and other therapies that manipulate the patient’s “biofields,” such as Therapeutic Touch and Reiki. “Biofield” is a pseudoscientific term often used synonymously with “orgone energy.”

... To avoid further trouble with the FDA, disclaimers are used, but the message still emerges that the boxes possess therapeutic value for a wide variety of physical and emotional problems. One can also buy Orgone Accumulators to treat diseases of pets or to help one’s garden grow. Purchasers are warned to avoid orgone overdose. The label reads: “Warning, misuse of the Orgone Accumulator may lead to symptoms of orgone overdose. Leave the accumulator and call the Doctor immediately.” I suppose this warning tells us that even placebo reactions can be toxic."

This is not science.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of these mentions are evidence that the the topic is notable. The critiques need to be in the article, in the words of historians and writers about psychology, rather than of you and me. Please add both of these. I didn't rewrite it so it could be my version, but as a starting point; what it most needs now is non-Reichian evaluations. Both of these count, and I did see some in articles when I searched on Google Scholar - but I can only see the abstracts, so I didn't add any. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

none of the outside views on "Orgastic potency" address it outside the context of the rest of his discredited and metaphysical grand theory. Gulpen appears to be a true believer. [2]. Science weeps.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Bali ultimate drop the rhetoric and simply address the issues of the article as they pertain to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. As for the opinions of a "psychiatrist who lectures at Johns Hopkins," but whom otherwise seems in no particular standing to present a scholarly critique of Reich's work, the subject of the present article in particular, Gerald D. Klee himself diminishes his own authority as anything other than a cavalier debunker as he promulgates several urban legends about Reich, apparently for no better reason than to spice up his superficial critique. For instance, anyone with more than a casual acquaintance with Reich's theories will simply roll their eyes at Klee's awful misapprehension of Reich's orgasm theory of which he paraphrases "that the function of the orgasm is to discharge energy particles called orgones, thus maintaining a balance of vital forces." __meco (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Look. There are no, none, non-Reichian psychologists or doctors who believe that human orgasms have something to do with magical "bione" particles (magical because they do not exist) or who study "Orgastic potency," which is fancy way of referring to his belief that a special kind of (also not measurable) orgasm is central to human physical and psychological health. Accredited institutions do not teach this stuff, and that needs to be the lens through which all of Reich's beliefs are discused. And "Scientism?" Good lord. It is not an ideology to demand people grapple with the observable natural world as it is, and to keep metaphysics out of rational inquiry.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I can sympathize with it being cathartic to be able to vent your frustrations at the folly, as you see it, of people like Reich and those who find credence in his work and theories, I will again request that you begin focusing on the problems as you see them, of this article, with respect to Wikipedia's guidelines. You are currently verging on a WP:NOTAFORUM infringement. __meco (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a fringe set of beliefs completely discredited by mainstream scientists. All of the writing on this stuff (as "science") is done in the Reichian walled garden, completely outside the modern academy. It's wikipedia policy to present things from a scientific point of view. I understand you may be unhappy with that. So it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 13:54, August 30, 2012‎ (UTC)

Dear Bali ultimate, Reich most certainly designed and conducted several experiments to test several hypothesis about the existence and nature of a possible sexual energy (read: not orgone) - and its relation to the orgasm. You can find some information in the first chapter of this book available online: The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety. Regarding Reich's expulsion, you might want to read-up on the reason for that. Your other comments are about orgone energy which, again, I pointed out twice now, is only of relatively minor relevance to the concept orgastic potency and the discussion of which should really take place on the Talk:Orgone page. If it is true that "none of the outside views on 'Orgastic potency' address it outside the context of the rest of his discredited and metaphysical grand theory," then it shows that these sources have not understood a yota about Reich's work, as it is as simple as the difference between the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Finally, yes, I have built an Orgone (hence, irrelevant here) Accumulator - is that a crime? Your accusation that building such a device makes me a "true believer" shows you are biased against rather than that you approach this in a scientific manner. How can one possibly test some of Reich's claims without one? I, at any rate, prefer to see proof with my own eyes. But the whole of this is irrelevant, because I can state here that I have not yet tested any of Reich's experiments.--Gulpen (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify the 20s, 30s, 40s remark: orgastic potency was based on the idea of a sexual energy or instinct in the body, a theme that covers Reich's work up until the 'Bioelectrical Investigations'. Only later, when he thought he was observing radiation around "Bions" did he postulate "orgone radiation", and only again later, after different experiments, "orgone energy" as a universal energy. Those two fields of research, bodily "energy" and universal energy, can be valid or invalid independent of each other. Hence, please, stop bringing orgone in the discussion here.--Gulpen (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

However, that does not imply that orgastic potency is "fact". Bali ultimate may still have some point if rephrased as: "theory written as fact". My initial aim, however, was to present the concept, the theory of orgastic potency as accurately as possible, and I myself already indicated that sufficient criticism of the concept is lacking. You are cordially invited to join that discussion and recommend some articles critically dealing with orgastic potency, or add it to the text yourself.--Gulpen (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that his crazy, unsupported theories, got progressively crazier and more elaborate as he aged.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I just came across a 2010 PhD study verifying Reich's bio-electric experiments. There is a very very short English summary at the end. Perhaps this is of some interest to Mr. Scientist (just joking).--Gulpen (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Yngvadottir, regarding "quite possibly reinstating details I removed (such as the entire description of the ideal sex act)," I now inserted a different summary, which I think should really be left in the article, because it is so important for grasping the meaning of orgastic im/potence in contrast with concepts like "in/ability to have orgasm" or even "clitoral/vaginal orgasm". I made several other edits and have one big further improvement on my list (Boadella has a very useful section discussing the reception of orgastic potency). Afterwards I'll clean-up the references mess now created. I want to please note though that I think you did a pretty good job at summarising. I was very hesitant at first sight because you omitted so much from the lead, but I found on further reading that you re-inserted that elsewhere. By the way, there is probably still quite some (or I am creating now) opportunity for further summarising. You are more than welcome to give that a shot whenever you feel like it. I'll stay around to check for details.--Gulpen (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This article clearly falls under WP:FRINGE - and as such we have to get heavy-handed about the rules:

1. We clearly identify this as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lede.
2. We do not state anything as 'fact' unless it's solidly backed, not just by reliable sources - but by WP:MEDRS (medical reliable sources). Everything else has to be stated as "so-and-so claims whatever" and not "whatever is true".
3. We are required to give due weight (per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE) to the mainstream scientific view - as backed by reliable sources. If the subject is so non-notable in mainstream science that is little or no evidence either for or against it in WP:MEDRS sources - then we must agressively prune the article to keep the pseudoscientific view in proportion to it's due weight relative to the mainstream. In this case, that could easily (and justifiably, per Wikipedia policy) reduce the article to a tiny stub or result in it being deleted altogether as non-notable.

Those are the rules - and if anyone wants to fight them, then please take THAT discussion to WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE - because this is not the place to discuss the correctness or otherwise of those rules. SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear SteveBaker, I just want to submit one suggestion here, namely that you try to take this a bit easy. You sound like you are entering a war zone. One month ago, with the start of this sub-topic, someone else had at any rate such an attitude, and wrote "This is completely discredited stuff -- all of it". However, s/he was unable to quote a source where the word "orgastic potency" occurred even once ("sexual impotence" is mentioned once, but that is so broad that it could mean anything - useless for this article). Elsewhere on this talk page I have asked whether people have access to three journal articles discussing this concept, but nobody has taken up this lead. (I asked my local psychology department but they are apparently on holiday - or hiding.) Perhaps you have access to them?

Anyway, I am well aware that the article grew out of proportion and have no objections to cutting it down significantly - but I would not like to see the baby being thrown out with the bathtub. So lets try to improve this step by step. I have just removed the most medical / advice sounding material, which had become a bit redundant anyway. Furthermore, the "Recurrence in Reich's work" section could be summarised much more. However, as the concepts discussed there do not have articles of their own, there is reason for elaborating a bit more on them would be otherwise necessary.

I also want to stress that this article primarily falls under psychoanalysis - I have now included the according template - and want to ask you whether you take a similar stance when it comes to articles such as Psychosexual development. Don't we also have to classify that as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lede? Please explain how these two compare.--Gulpen (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your three references are basically junk. They don't pass WP:MEDRS because:

1. These are primary sources. That might be OK to back up an occasional point - but the underpinnings of an article like this should be from secondary sources.
2. These are old, old articles. The first was published in 1936, the other two in 1970. WP:MEDRS requires important sources to be recent...within 5 years, preferably 2 to 3 years. So find us papers dated 2007 or later.

Few if any of the references in this article pass WP:MEDRS - and we should remove those that do not - then remove all of the statements backed up by those that we remove - along with the many claims that do not have sources at all. What remains then needs to adhere to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE by stating the mainstream view front-and-center.

This article is just a sea of red flags. Honestly, it should just be deleted...it's beyond repair. SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please comment on "I also want to stress that this article primarily falls under psychoanalysis . . . and want to ask you whether you take a similar stance when it comes to articles such as Psychosexual development. Don't we also have to classify that as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lede? Please explain how these two compare". I ask this because I feel that out of many psychoanalytic articles dealing with sexuality this one seems to be subjected to quite more stringent rules. The psychosexual development article has three, I repeat, in total three paragraphs dealing with scientific criticism, not to mention the sources on which that is based.--Gulpen (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at some medical articles, such as Autism (and these articles are medical in ways that the Orgastic potency article is not), they don't always use sources "within 5 years, preferably 2 to 3 years," even regarding important statements and/or assertions, but they try to. Sourcing medical topics is generally about using the most up-to-date source for any one particular medical statement. Coming by up-to-date sources on Reich's views, however, is difficult, if not impossible. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Can someone please explain why the three articles I listed would be primary sources? 2. Please do still comment about the psychosexual development-analogy of the whole article. 3. To actually improve the article: can you please list specific instances where MEDRS is violated?--Gulpen (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Having let all the above simmer in my mind for a while I want to submit the following concerning WP:MEDRS, specifically as regards the status of this topic. I have presently the following in my mind. As orgastic potency is a psycho-somatic concept, it extends into both psychology and physiology. The former in psychoanalysis, the latter in biology. It is, therefore, simply inaccurate to treat it as a purely medical concept. Likewise it would be inaccurate to treat it as purely psychoanalytic. How to determine the status of this? Well, it is actually quite complex. We have at least to differentiate between the following:

1. The status in psychoanalysis - a) how it links in with different psychoanalytic theories, b) how well does it correlate orgastic impotence with neurosis and c) whether there are therapeutic advantages. Independent sources acknowledge that Reich did a great job as regards a), e.g. the reviews mentioned in the article, and some statements in Rycroft that are not yet added. As regards b), there are the critiques of Schilder and Kardiner, but they criticised another sexual concept - not orgastic potency. At any rate, according to Boadella "No serious refutation of Reich's conclusions has ever been published" (21). Regarding c), is there any evidence that psychoanalytic therapy focussing on problems associated with orgastic impotence is more/less effective? I need to look into that a bit more. This could for example also include the effectiveness of Reich's later vegetotherapy - though that brings up a discussion which is more appropriate on the talk page there (but I know there are published clinical studies of a dozen therapists that claimed high effectiveness).

2. The status in medicine - how accurately is it as a typology of different psycho-physiological sexual experience. As someone noted on this page, the concept is not discussed e.g. in PubMed. As mentioned in the article, other research does not seem to contradict Reich's typology. (We also have Reich's clinical and statistical evidence). Please note here that even the human sexual response cycle e.g. because it includes homosexual sexual relations, does not contradict Reich's typology either. Reich's concerned a psycho-somatic typology, the human sexual response cycle concerns purely "physiological responses". (No doubt someone with orgastic potency in Reich's typology could engage in homosexual relations showing the same physiological responses.)

However, even if the status of both above-mentioned aspects are taken into account, then we still lack treatment of perhaps the most fundamental element: namely 'sex-economy' - whether there is indeed in the case of orgastic impotence a type of energy that is inadequately discharged and hence something can be the 'core" of neurosis, and vice versa. That is:

3. The status of the concept of sexual energy - is it metaphorical or a factual energy? Very important to note here: this concerns a field that is strictly speaking NEITHER medicine NOR psychoanalysis. Most accurately would be to describe it as exactly in the middle between the two.

Now the great question is of course how to check this last point, if it is at all possible? And this brings us back to Reich, because he designed several experiments that could test this hypothesis: in specific his bio-electric experiments. Among others, he investigated whether the orgasm could be an "electro-physiological discharge". I mentioned elsewhere the 2010 PhD research that reproduced and verified Reich's findings. However, I have to look at this in great detail and with much care to see exactly what they found, what they think this implies and, in particular, precisely how the bio-electric experiments relate to orgastic potency. If there is a high relevance between the two, then I think we have a source that passes WP:MEDRS concerning the arguably most important aspect of the status of orgastic potency.

Anyway, reflecting the above and all what is written now in the Reception and Legacy section, it is really a very poor qualification to categorise this as purely a fringe theory or pseudoscience (notwithstanding this acknowledged status of some of Reich's later work, in particular of orgone energy). I therefore suggest this label to be removed asap. Moreover, I'm suggesting that all of the above will be the subject of a new section "Status". Finally I'm suggesting to add a section elaborating on Reich's research methods.--Gulpen (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: the way Reich and his work was expelled from the Psa should still be added to place it more in the context of the "mainstream" development.--Gulpen (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a "status" section listing some of the above, (re-)added to the lead and removed the fringe template as I suggested (I really think it is stated clearly that this is predominantly a Reichian concept). I'm well aware that directly using the 2010 PhD study requires great caution. But it should definitely be part of the "status" section, as it is of such importance to this article - if only for qualifying at least some of Reich's work as not purely pseudoscience. I'm not out to justify the whole of the concept orgastic potency or the orgasm theory based on just this one study: this is impossible, I have already outlined the many different aspects to the status above. We ideally require secondary sources to interpret this study but I have not yet found any.--Gulpen (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The fringe template was reinserted, because I supposedly didn't discuss this change on the Talk page. I hope it is clear from the above that I most certainly did. Moreover, please note that WP:Template_messages/Disputes reads "Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page." I will wait a while for this list suggesting specific improvements, but otherwise the label should really be removed. Just one note: it is really made clear in the lead that this is a Reichian and not a mainstream concept.--Gulpen (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The template indicates that this is a topic covered under WP:FRINGE (which is certainly is) and that it's not giving due weight to the mainstream view. (Which is that this is all a pile of steaming hogwash!). Almost everyone but you seems to agree that the article is not spending the majority of it's text expressing the mainstream view (As required by WP:FRINGE and the ArbCom decision of 2009 covering fringe science articles). Until that is completely fixed...and the consensus here in the talk page agrees that it has been fixed...the template has to remain in the article to alert readers to the fact that this article is not to be trusted. Please do not remove the template again without getting formal consensus to do so (eg with a !vote) here on this page. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The majority of an article has to deal with the mainstream view if it is an article about a mainstream topic. The WP:FRINGE requirement regarding "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view" is that it "should not make it appear more notable than it is". Anyway, the template should no be used to indicate this is a fringe topic, but to indicate that its status is not clearly stated in the article. I submit that this is duly covered - in case this is Fringe - by classifying this topic in the lead as "Reichian", "Reichian psychology" "Reichian circles" and that only "Reichian therapies" concerns notable present-day usage.

At any rate, you are abusing the fringe template. You have not even attempted to "exhaust... other measures" before introducing the template, nor do you seem willing to "please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page . . . [nor aware that] Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates" both as required per WP:Template_messages/Disputes. Therefore your appeal to not remove this template until formal consensus is really unwarranted. I'll be awaiting your/anybodies detailed list of suggestions, but if that is not forthcoming there is no reason to not remove the template.

In the meantime, by the way, nobody has seriously responded to my reply above of "15:25, 20 September 2012".--Gulpen (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the requirements of WP:FRINGE. Articles about mainstream topics typically don't warrant any mention of the fringe view whatever. It is articles about fringe topics that are required to contain the mainstream view as the dominant POV.

Some guidance from WP:FRINGE:

"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."

"The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."

"Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported."

We should also be especially cognizant of the ArbCom decisions on fringe science: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science. The most telling finding of which is:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus."

Until we have more text and references discussing the mainstream view than we do about the counter-to-mainstream view, this article is in severe breach of WP:FRINGE. If insufficient, reliably sourced, information about the mainstream view can be found to provide this balance, then the subject of the article should be considered highly non-notable and pruned back aggressively - or perhaps deleted entirely. Until that is done - to the degree that we can get a consensus that it has been done, the fringe template is 100% justified and must remain here.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have stated nothing that goes against what you quoted. It says "should document", "be documented as such", "put in perspective", etc. This is not saying that "the majority of it's text [should be] expressing the mainstream view," as you put it. The majority of the the text may very well extensively detail the fringe topic, as long as the overall status of the topic is clearly indicated.

Moreover, you seem to confuse the policies regarding whether a topic falls under WP:FRINGE and whether the use of the fringe template is warranted. The policies governing the latter are laid down in WP:Template_messages/Disputes. I have stated my case regarding this.--Gulpen (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Premature DYK rejection

User:David Eppstein has intervened in our DYK-promotion effort and boldly closed the discussion with the edit summary "Boldly closing the discussion. Any further attempt at revisions now is so far past the deadline as to make the DYK deadline rules meaningless." Although I concede Eppstein's argument that a decision on this nomination is painfully lingering, I have protested his intervention at his user talk page. There are two main grounds for my appeal, and consequent request for a mandate here, at the article's talk page, to reopen the DYK nomination (as the {{DYK top}} instructions provide for). The first reason is our ongoing, constructive process of improving the article to the required standard, despite one user's filibustering activity of raising a wall of text absent any actionable suggestions for improvement. The second, more significant reason I want to present is the early intervention and sustained enterprise by User:Yngvadottir, a veteran of DYK affairs (as it would seem by my cursory assessment), in making the requisite changes needed in order to pass the article for DYK. And it follows from this that Eppstein, who has not been part of the process relating to the present article, ought to have either consulted with Yngvadottir or simply left the matter in her capable hands (not necessarily for a decision on the nomination in which she has invested herself considerably, but rather for a would-be signal from her that the process had come to an intractable impasse). Bottom line: With meco, Gulpen and Yngvadottir actively engaging in constructive efforts to surmount any remaining obstacles towards passing the article for DYK, the exceedingly long time it has admittedly taken to get us this far ought not impulse an arbitrary abortion of this process. I therefore move that we should reopen to DYK nomination and finish the article's preparation. __meco (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see it make it to Did you know, yes :-) For one thing, we don't have many psychology or sexology-related DYKs. However, the fact the community made me an admin gives me no special managerial standing. I imagine someone could equally boldly reopen the nomination, but more than one person has said it's taken too long; and Drmies is also an admin, and PumpkinSky has been around DYK a lot longer than I have and is a former admin. I thought of putting in what I could find in the way of non-Reichian scholarly comments to meet the end-of-August deadline Drmies suggested, but as I have said, I have neither the knowledge of the field nor the library/database access to make it a good idea for me to add that material. GoogleScholar tells me there is some, and gives me minute quotes that I then cannot see in situ, and that's not good enough. The best person to add that dimension to the article is Gulpen - who has said they are too busy right now. If you could do that, Meco, or if someone else were able to do so (including Bali Ultimate) then I would propose a really simple hook like "... that according to Wilhelm Reich, lack of orgastic potency led to neuroses?" I'm more than willing to copyedit and to help make any further cuts/structural changes required, and I can help find us another reviewer, but do you and Gulpen want to - and are you able to - put in the time and effort, including keeping the article brief and accurately reflecting what are likely very dismissive outside views, to justify sticking our necks out and reopening this for someone to pass a new judgment on? The psychology wikiproject is very inactive and it appears this is not going to find expert help from them, so it falls to you two as nominator and co-writers. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm fully committed and will have more time very soon. Does anyone have access to these psychoanalytic journals?--Gulpen (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about one of these?

Alt 1: "...that in the teachings of controversial psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, orgastic potency, defined as the capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union, is a measure of health?"

Alt 2: "...that in Reichian therapy, orgastic potency, defined as the capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union between male and female, is a measure of an individual's health?"

Alt 3: "...that orgastic potency, in the teachings of controversial psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, is a measure of the individual's capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union?"

__meco (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'd take Alt 1. --Gulpen (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've been asked to weigh in again here and to consider offering support. Unfortunately at this point I think it has to be moral support only. Gulpen didn't have time to rewrite the article earlier - this happens on Wikipedia - and is still working on it. That pretty much fits with the assessment made by more than one editor at the DYK nomination that it had just taken too long. Again, that happens on Wikipedia; it's a volunteer project, and sometimes one just can't move fast enough to meet DYK expectations. If you want to petition to the editor who closed it, and/or raise the issue at Wikipedia talk: Did you know, the article needs to be ready, and the leaner it is, the better, and the briefer the new suggested hook is, the better, IMO. Instead I'm seeing expansion and a return to long hooks. From the point of view of the slim chance of persuading people it's DYK-ready, those are not helpful; in terms of making a more informative article, they might be, although there is always the danger that others have raised here, of seeming to advocate for the approach. I tried to tighten it up and get it over the DYK hurdles by making it a barebones summary; I'm glad to see Gulpen now realizes I didn't throw out so much as he/she had originally thought; but the article ran out of time, I'm afraid. And still isn't re-edited to Gulpen's satisfaction. So my feeling is, it's a pity, but in this case there just wasn't time between off-wiki commitments and DYK's mission of showcasing new work. I won't counsel against trying one or both avenues to getting the nomination reconsidered, but I think realistically the time for doing that has passed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd find it sad to see all the efforts for DYK nomination to be unsuccessful. But I believe the article improved much in the meantime - that has been a nice consequence.--Gulpen (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Meco, just noting that Bali is correct about these edits. They fall under our definition of original research because they combine sources to give an impression that the authors did not intend to give. That is, the authors you're using to discuss premature ejaculation were not discussing, and did not intend to support, Reich's ideas.

It's sometimes legitimate to add these asides to inform readers of background, but it should only be done when it's not contentious, and when there's no risk of misleading the reader. But in this article, the addition of mainstream scholarly sources who were not discussing Reich might tend to mislead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted Bali before reading your post. I quite disagree with your assessment of the effect of having this information, sourced to medical authoritative references, appear the way Gulpen added them to the article. Yes, very stupid readers are going to see a peer-reviewed (I'm assuming) journal among the article's references and think that must mean this topic has mainstream support. For all that are not exceedingly blunted it remains however very apparent that this information, insidence (or is it prevalence) of various forms of sexual dysfunction, does not opaquely conflate with the subsequent discussions which in both cases begin with "According to Reich". I find it absolutely intolerable that contextually relevant mainstram statistics should be attempted purged from an article because its topic is a non-mainstream therapy or theory. Also, I believe as you refer to original research you do in fact mean original synthesis, which I also cannot concede being the case in this matter. I'm more than willing to hear your elaboration on your previous post and response to what I have just written. __meco (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "Slim Virgin." What you find intolerable as you seek to push pseudoscience is neither here nor there.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Meco, the edits were a variant of SYN in that they combined sources (American Urological Association in 2004 and Reich pre-1957) that were discussing different issues within different contexts:

About 21% of men experience ejaculation within two minutes. According to Reich, ejaculation soon after penetration prevents sufficient concentration of excitation in the penis and therefore renders complete discharge of the excitation impossible.

The synthesis gave the impression that 21 percent of men suffer from a lack of orgastic potency -- that Reich's ideas apply to that 21 percent. If you want to include research about premature ejaculation, you would need a reliable source that refers to it within a discussion of Reich – a source that combines the material the way you want to combine it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Having ruminated upon this for a couple of hours I can soften my categorical opposition somewhat. I remember having read a guideline which did use an example similar to the present case (can't find it now though), however, the significant difference would seem to be that with this article, the alleged synthesis is not used to give added authority to the other information. That I believe is the key issue. I have two questions for you. The first, if the Reich sources contained reference to statistics on prevalence of these conditions, say from 1935, that referenced official, undeniably RS sources, would it then be ok to have it included? The second question, if, rather than using a scientific journal, the statistics was referenced from e.g. an article in Time magazine, would that have lessened your objections, since this obviously wouldn't have the previously discussed effect of "spicing" the prose with tangential (contextural) information referenced to high-authority sources? __meco (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the second question first, no, it would make no difference whether it was a news item or an academic source. The issue is that a Wikipedian is making the link between the subject matter of source 1 (21 per cent of men suffer from X) and the subject matter of source 2 (Reich's theory of orgastic potency). No reliable source has been presented that makes the same link. That makes it original research.

As to your first question, yes, if Reich or any other source discusses those conditions while discussing orgastic potency, you can include it. You just have to be careful to make sure it's not misleading, i.e. be careful not to reproduce old science or bad science without signalling that in the text. It can be tricky to do that without engaging in OR again, which is why articles like this need some careful writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents here. A) please note that reliable statistics of anything related to orgasms and sexuality basically did not exist when Reich wrote most of this material (ie. before Kinsey and Masters&Johnson). At that time, therapists that paid attention to sexuality, like Reich, probably had a better idea of the prevalence and absence of such phenomenon in society than anyone else. (Also, lets not forget Reich delved through many case files.) B) even nowadays there is no consensus on a definition of e.g. premature ejaculation, but the standard definition used is 'ejaculation under 2 minutes'. Thus, C) the challenge is what to do when Reich writes, say, 'premature ejaculation, very common among men, ..', where "premature ejaculation" = the definition, and "very common" = the statistic. The point is here simply to clarify what "very common" would roughly mean. Even clarifying that it is "under 2 minutes" in a standard definition is of value here.

Also please note that the interest of that whole section is primarily to understand that Reich defined potency very different from the mainstream view, with major consequences for what would be considered sexual health on the level of society. Here the 'size' of the statistic could become important - and in this I can somewhat understand Bali ultimate's point - because it explains why Reich's criticism of society would still be of contemporary relevance, i.e. even after the sexual revolution...Though I'm not sure whether this adds to or subtracts from the validity of this theory.--Gulpen (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I deleted this section altogether now. I did this mainly because it was framed like a medical subject rather than an elaboration of the theory. I hope parts will be re-inserted when framed more like the latter.--Gulpen (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Minor issues

1. Why is the information about heterosexual marriage being the all-encompassing context for this teaching in the lede? And without any further discussion it would even tend to baffle the reader.
2. When listing the different names Reich used for the energy he believed he had identified (in the section Background and theory), the word "life" (in parenthesis) appears following the word orgone. Surely, "life" and "orgone" were never synonyms, not even for Reich? He did use the separate term "life energy" I believe, so why not list this independently? __meco (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first: not only is it factually wrong in a strict sense ("marriage" was surely NOT part of orgastic potency, though this could be replaced by something like "union"), it is also very misleading to focus on the actual intercourse, because orgastic potency first and foremost is a measure of a psychological capability ("is having the ability to..."). I have therefore removed it for now. Regarding the second: the order I have in my mind is now: libido, bioelectric, biophysical = orgone = life. However, I am not very familiar with Reich's later work, so feel free to make changes as you see fit. But the main reason for including ("life") behind orgone is simply to very shortly explain what it means to a new reader.--Gulpen (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

3. Another item in the lead I'm having trouble with is the implication that orgastic impotence, in orgone theory, leads to physical illness. Did Reich relate the two directly in this way? For sure that is not written anywhere in the article. I think it is more important to explain impotence is used as an indicator of the health of the whole personality, both in psyche and soma. I changed it to reflect these views.

To return to the 'heterosexual marriage' - rather "sexual union between male and female", or as Reich put it the "genital embrace" part: it could be of relevance in the lead in the context of Reich's view that the contact-ability of person was part of orgastic potency. The importance of this was clear from the 'detailed description' of orgastic potency, but that was removed. I changed it now, though I'm still hesitating very much because of the reasons I gave earlier.--Gulpen (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to vital energy

In the third paragraph of the second section, Background and theory, the term vital energy is used. If one links to this and follows the link it becomes apparent why this is an unfortunate term to use in connection with Reich. If the referenced source, Ellsworth Baker, indeed uses this term within the framework of Reich's theories, so be it, however, I suggest this is not a preferred term among followers of Reich. Instead I will suggest we replace it with "energy housekeeping" which is used by Raknes in his essay on sex economy (currently cited as footnote #12). Also "energy metabolism" is a synonymous term which I think is used in Reich's theories, although I don't have a reference for it. __meco (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think energy housekeeping or household is preferred here, because metabolism is again easily confused with a different concept.--Gulpen (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation request, but for what?

In this edit on September 4, Bali ultimate adds an inline citation request for the phrase "His last published definition of orgastic potency (original date unclear, published in 1961)". It is unclear to me, however, what exactly needs to be referenced according to the user. I would like to point out that the phrase continues past the inline tag and the sentence as a whole does have a footnote reference. __meco (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is merited, because the 1961 quoted definition of orgastic potency comes from a glossary in front of the posthumous published Selected Writings. It is not listed there where Reich himself first/last wrote this definition. I haven't come across it yet.--Gulpen (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you make that caveat explicit, there should be no need for an additional reference request. __meco (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so do you suggest any additional info to be added (in a footnote?), or can the tag be removed?--Gulpen (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The orgasm reflex

The orgasm reflex in my opinion merits an article of its own, unless it can be incorporated in the existing orgasm article. It certainly needs to be detailed in its four distinct stages and with it the characteristic flowchart which can be found in Reich's literature. In the context of the present article I find it specifically lacking without a distinct explanation and discussion of the orgasm reflex, as it relates to the free flow or stasis of the energy that is ideally released fully during the orgasm. And as part of discussing the orgasm reflex, the function of the orgasm should be explicitly and as lucidly as possible explained and defined. Any thoughts? __meco (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it probably merits a separate article. But I'm not quite clear about whether you want it to be part of this article or not. Also, could you please specify which flowchart you are referring to? (I presume it is in The Function of the Orgasm?) By the way, I just came across this article: having images similar to figures 14a, 14b and 15 there would be very useful to explain the orgasm reflex. I would have liked to include several of Reich's flowcharts on orgastic potency too, but direct copying to Commons is not allowed. Do you think that it is worth the effort to create graphs 'inspired by' Reich's? It seems almost impossible to make them any different from his.--Gulpen (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, simply copying charts made by Reich (the one I'm thinking of surely was in The Function of the Orgasm) will not be allowed until 70 years after his death, however, the charts should be easily duplicated. As for the images you suggest, I do not like them. I find them confusing. __meco (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And I do want it included in this article. Other central Reichian concepts that similarly I believe warrant their separate articles, but pending that should be considered for inclusion in the present article are "character structure" (i.e. genital vs. neurotic) and "muscular armoring". The latter is currently parenthetically defined as "chronic muscular contraction," however I believe that is much too cursory to imbue the minimum level of understanding a reader should have in order to grasp its encompassing ramifications in the context of Reichian theory. __meco (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they warrant their separate articles too - same applies to the sociology section. In fact, I was thinking that it may be better to split "the orgasm theory" and "orgastic potency" into different articles, at any rate that theory and the latter concept could be differentiated between a bit more clearly in the present article.--Gulpen (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate what I mean by extracting "the orgasm theory" from this article, please take a look at this: the human sexual response cycle. Perhaps that could be used as a model article for (the most important part of) the article "orgastic potency".--Gulpen (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know about that cycle, and Reich isn't even mentioned in that article depsite the obvious analogy to his model! That's an omission. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have not known about the human sexual response cycle? It's covered in various reliable sources and is often mentioned regarding sexual arousal/orgasm. There is no "obvious analogy to [Reich's] model" when it comes to the human sexual response cycle. Do read up on it; it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed. Further, it is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). It is not a theory or anything of the sort. All of that is why Reich is not mentioned in that article. Nor should he be, per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, except for in the See also section where Gulpen listed this article. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and "orgasm reflex" does not merit its own article; it is a fringe theory, for goodness sakes, even less significant than "orgastic potency." It should not be treated as fact, or as otherwise having as much weight as scientific consensus. It should only be mentioned in reference to Reich. In this article. You both really do need to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. I'm going to ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to comment on some of this. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You conflating orgastic potency, the orgasm theory and the orgasm reflex is precisely why three separate articles are justified. In particular the first and the last are conceptually worlds apart, based on very different arguments and theories. Though there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory, there most definitely is between the former and orgastic potency (cf. foreplay, penetration, voluntary phase of sexual movements, involuntary phase of muscle contractions, phase of relaxation (as it is summarised by Boadella) with excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, and resolution phase)

Nowhere do I (or Meco, I believe) argue that Reich's views have as much scientific consensus as those of e.g. Masters and Johnson - obviously it doesn't - nor do I (correct me if I'm wrong) in anyway argue to present them as holy facts, nor that Reich's concepts should be presented as a non-Reichian concept. I'm trying my best to write factually accurate about Reich's work, something that has proven to be very difficult, though a nice challenge. I have no hidden agenda to hide any relevant, reliable view, verification, falsification, etc. when it comes to Reich's work. However, it is very frustrating to constantly encounter people writing and claiming stuff about Reich and his work while not referring to any sources. So to make this a constructive exchange - so that I can learn about this too - please refer to the sources on which you base the following:

• "There is no "obvious analogy to [Reich's] model" when it comes to the human sexual response cycle. Do read up on it;" > can you please find the source discussing the (non-)analogy between orgastic potency and the HSRC?
• "it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed." > can you please find the source where the relation between M&J's work to that of Reich is discussed? Kinsey, for example, mentions Reich's work when he introduces his differentiation between "orgasm" and "orgastic pleasure" (Kinsey, A. (1948) Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male: p. 59-60).
• "It is not a theory or anything of the sort" > can you please find the source comparing Reich and Masters and Johnson's work, concluding that orgastic potency was based on "a theory or anything of the sort" while the HSRC had a 'non-theory' basis?
• Finally, "It should not be treated as fact" > can you please find a source discussing the status of orgastic potency, concluding that it is not valid?

That would help us very much to have an informed discussion here.--Gulpen (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not conflate a thing. Nowhere did I state that "orgastic potency" and "orgasm reflex" are the same thing, even though "orgasm reflex" is apparently discussed as part of "orgastic potency." And even if I had, three separate articles still wouldn't be justified. What you state about conflating "orgasm theory," I don't know what "orgasm theory" you are referring to, other than Reich's. The human sexual response cyle -- excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, resolution phase -- is not "orgasm theory." It is a four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation, coined by Masters and Johnson. It is a cycle that has been observed by many researchers since Masters and Johnson identified it. It does not relate to Reich whatsoever, other than your and Meco's WP:Original research assertion that Reich came up with the "concept" in some way before they did. As for you trying to "write factually accurate about Reich's work, something that has proven to be very difficult, though a nice challenge," you are promoting or attempting to promote this theory in other articles, especially if you, like Meco, believe that it should actually be given more weight than its See-also mention in the Human sexual response cycle article. Other than that See-also link, it does not belong there. I have no comment on any hidden agenda you may or may not have on this topic; one does not have to have a hiden agenda to want to promote their work across Wikipedia. I have no problem understanding wanting others to see your work and read about this topic. But WP:Fringe and WP:Undue must be respected. So must WP:Notability. Perhaps "orgastic potency" has a bit of notability, but I doubt that the same can be said of "orgasm reflex." If notability is not there, why should Reich's theories get more Wikipedia space than other psychoanalysts? It's not like his views are as notable as Sigmund Freud's, or even close to as notable. And like it or not, just like a lot of Freud's views, Reich's views fall into the fringe and undue categories when applied to other articles. The only difference is that Freud can almost always get some bit of weight because he was so prominent.

I don't have to find a source discussing the non-analogy between "orgastic potency" and the human sexual response cycle; you have to find a source -- a reliable one -- discussing the analogy between them. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. I don't have to find a source stating that "it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed." It is your job to provide a source claiming the opposite. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Kinsey mentioning Reich's work when he introduced his differentiation between "orgasm" and "orgastic pleasure" does not mean that the human sexual response cycle has anything to do with Reich. I do not have to find a source comparing Reich and Masters and Johnson's work, concluding that orgastic potency was based on "a theory or anything of the sort" while the human sexual response cycle had a non-theory basis. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. But I will state that Masters and Johnson observed this cycle in their subjects; it wasn't something they simply postulated. Like I already stated, the human sexual response cycle is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). It is accepted in various reliable sources as valid, and very much not a theory in those sources. If it wasn't scientifically sound, it would not be so widely accepted in today's scientific world. The same cannot be said of Reich's views. I certainly do not have to find a source discussing the status of "orgastic potency," concluding that it is not valid. The WP:BURDEN lies with you to provide a source -- a highly reliable source in this case -- suggesting or showing that it is valid. As the lead of this article currently says, "The concept is not accepted as valid outside Reichian circles." 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also addressed this issue at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Reception section, which is invalidated by the realistic last sentence of the lede. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reinserted the "reception" section, because that is at any rate based on sources, contrary to the last sentence of the lead - can you please suggest some constructive improvements for that section? Or are we here only trying to destroy things?--Gulpen (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

199.229.232.42, are you sure you understand the difference between the "orgasm theory" and the concept "orgastic potency"? Please compare these four sentences:

• me: "there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory"
• you: "The human sexual response cy[c]le . . . is not 'orgasm theory.'"

Yes, that is exactly what I said. You still seem to ignore however the analogy that I did suggest.

• you: "The human sexual response cyle -- [1.] excitement phase, [2.] plateau phase, [3.] orgasmic phase, [4.] resolution phase . . . is a four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation"
• me: "there most definitely is between the [HSRC] and orgastic potency (cf. [1.] foreplay [and] penetration, [2.] voluntary phase of sexual movements, [3.] involuntary phase of muscle contractions, [4.] phase of relaxation"

True: that is based on my own observation and I won't try to include it in the HSRC article. I just find the analogy staggering (perhaps M&J got away with plagiarism!) You imply in every way that Reich came up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air. On the contrary he undertook a most serious research effort, studying many clinical cases (as detailed in Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis). The wide support for the HSRC seems only to (indirectly) support Reich's model and the accuracy of his clinical research! Sad for Reich if nobody noticed, if nobody wrote an article on that.. But hey, he is dead anyway.--Gulpen (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your detailing a four-stage cycle, based on Boadella, in the context of the stir triggered by me pointing out the obvious analogy between the HSRC and Reich's "orgasm reflex" seems to me to cause an unwanted digression since my observation was solely regarding the structural similarities between the HSRC and the orgasm reflex, not the HSRC and orgastic potency. The latter I must say is less relevant and simply adds confusion as the situation currently stands. The four phases of the orgasm (reflex) is discussed throughly in Reich's seminal The Function of the Orgasm. And the centrality of this book to all of Reich's subsequent work, and similarly to everybody that followed up on his work is clearly not evident to the casual reader nor to the zealous debunker, so for this reason also this book needs its own article, along with Character Analysis as these are his two most important books. All in due time. __meco (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, you appear to have a habit of telling those who object to any part of this article or this article as a whole that they simply don't understand the difference between "orgastic potency" and "orgone" or "orgastic potency" and whatever else. I don't want to understand. As others have stated, this is not sexual science; it certainly is not something that I have any bit of interest reading up on, even for the entertainment factor. Nor do I have to read up on it to understand the problems with this article, especially when it comes you or Meco trying to expand these fringe ideas to other articles or discussing creating articles on them. It was me who stated, "There is no 'obvious analogy to [Reich's] model' when it comes to the human sexual response cycle." You stated, "can you please find the source discussing the (non-)analogy between orgastic potency and the HSRC?" And, well, you saw what I stated to that. You also added, "Though there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory, there most definitely is between the former and orgastic potency (cf. foreplay, penetration, voluntary phase of sexual movements, involuntary phase of muscle contractions, phase of relaxation (as it is summarised by Boadella) with excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, and resolution phase)." I also responded to that. But I'll do it again, with consideration for your second reply: Reich's model is based on heterosexual sex and his #1 specifically somewhat focuses on penetration; Masters and Johnson's are not/do not. For his #2, Reich focuses on the "voluntary phase of sexual movements." For their #2, while voluntary sexual movements are a part of it (just as they are a part of each human sexual response cycle phase, the actions leading up to the involuntary reactions that happen during orgasm and those regarding how people voluntarily move during and after orgasm), Masters and Johnson's #2 does not focus on that. Yes, their #1 does. But their #2 does not. Nor, like I stated, is it based on heterosexual sex. The plateau phase is characterized "by an increased circulation and heart rate in both sexes, increased sexual pleasure with increased stimulation, and further increased muscle tension. Also, respiration continues at an elevated level." So the only true similarity between Reich's model and Masters and Johnson's model are the last two phases. It does not at all imply that Masters and Johnson stole Reich's model and put a few spins on it; you won't find a reliable source claiming such either. I don't know about Reich coming up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air (nice rhyme), but I do know that his theories are postulations only; nothing backed in science, with the exception of parts of Masters and Johnson's human sexual response cycle. I also know that not all of his theories were researched as you claim. Some of his theories simply could not be researched, and he obviously did not do enough in his "serious research effort." Unlike his sexual response model, Masters and Johnson's was based on having observed this in individuals; theirs debunked myth after myth. So, again, I very much doubt that they decided to steal the model of a psychoanalyst whose views were considered pseudoscience even at the time he shared them. Masters and Johnson were about proving/disproving postulations, not about holding on to unproven ones.

Meco, no, I am not detailing a four-stage cycle based on Boadella. Again, it "does not relate to Reich whatsoever, other than your and Gulpen's WP:Original research assertion that Reich came up with the 'concept' in some way before they did. And seeing as, before yesterday, you didn't even know that the human sexual response cycle existed, I cannot take anything you state about it seriously. Not until you at least read up on it and see just how thoroughly accepted it is as the definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm), unlike Reich's supposed similar model. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my poetic abilities. (By the way, I was not serious about that M&J stole Reich's work, just to be clear on that). Yes you have many good points and - though there are some parallels, there are many (more) divergences.

However, I have to take objection to the following: "I don't know about Reich coming up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air (nice rhyme), but I do know that his theories are postulations only; nothing backed in science, with the exception of parts of Masters and Johnson's human sexual response cycle. I also know that not all of his theories were researched as you claim. Some of his theories simply could not be researched, and he obviously did not do enough in his "serious research effort." Unlike his sexual response model, Masters and Johnson's was based on having observed this in individuals"

Forgive me now for quoting from Reich directly here - but secondary literature confirms this: "The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis: 39-42). That is: close to a decade of research concerning close to a thousand clinical cases. The book is 226 pages detailing all the various types of sexual practices, and arguments to link it to theory.

Is that not serious science? The problem is not that he didn't undertake a serious research effort, but that nobody else ever seriously reproduced this! This is the fact: Reich's research evidence stands (both unchallenged and unverified).

So I just wanted to ask here - how did you know what you claimed?--Gulpen (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to think my previous post above was addressed to you. It wasn't. As the indentation dictates it was addressed to Gulpen (and I'm still waiting for a response from them btw.). __meco (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to submit here that, relative to orgastic potency, I know only very little about the orgasm reflex. I should have limited my claim about the analogy (from my pov, which seems to have been [partially] wrong anyway) to orgastic potency, without implying matters about the orgasm reflex. I will look into that analogy after this article is of somewhat agreeable quality - or perhaps to add a paragraph about that in this article.--Gulpen (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To Gulpen, Reich's research is called pseudoscience. I expressed that his theories are not backed in science because, unless only going by his word or speaking of the "orgastic potency" orgasm phases and how they compare to Masters and Johnson's, they weren't shown to be supported by science, completely, mostly, or even a little bit. They haven't ever been. Specifically, we were talking about "orgastic potency," not neurosis concerning a disturbance of the genital function. Did he set up a lab environment to bring subjects in and observe the orgasmic phases he described, like Masters and Johnson did with their subjects? It doesn't appear so. You ask "How did [I] know what [I] claimed?" as if again the WP:BURDEN lies with me. So we're supposed to assume that Reich did the kind of research Masters and Johnson did, but simply failed to document it or that the documentation got lost? If there is no research supporting Reich, other than his own claims, then his claims are only claims. I know what I claim about his theories not being backed in science because scientific consensus doesn't support his theories. It doesn't matter if part of something Reich claimed seems to be supported by today's research, because his work in total is not supported by today's research. Even back then, as noted, he didn't have much support for his theories.

To Meco, the editors I've seen on Wikipedia don't always or mostly follow that aspect of the WP:INDENT essay. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:BURDEN as regards edits I make. Here, you are also a human being who bases his or her statements on something or another, or nothing. Here I have asked you what you base your claims on. I ask this because I AM TRYING TO LEARN but like everyone else here stating whatever about Reich... I will have to move through my own research. Pseudoscience is something that defies the scientific method. What I know is that his Character Analysis and Mass Psychology of Fascism are still considered classics and authoritative - the outcome of which was Reich consistently applying the concept orgastic potency. As regards the statistics I mentioned, that statistical observation is very easy to reproduce. What I also know is that Reich adhered to the scientific methods at least regarding his bio-electric experiments.[3]. So at least then he still knew the meaning of and applied the scientific method. This I ask, have you seriously looked into how he constructed his description of the sexual experience in case of orgastic potency? Or are you assuming he had no scientific basis, arguments, methods, etc. for constructing it as he did until someone else shows you the opposite? A hypothesis is not proven wrong by not supplying evidence - you prove it wrong by supplying evidence that proofs it wrong. Again, notwithstanding WP:BURDEN as regards edits. Though your comparison is sharp in some regards, you missed out on that Reich's is a psychosomatic typology, M&J's is purely somatic. Delving into the human psyche is therefore at least one aspect one has to investigate, is it not? And perchance this happens to be the case in psychoanalysis - in therapy. That is where Reich got most of his early evidence and this is most certainly described in detail in his publications. M&J's model does not seem to directly undermine Reich's - that is my main observation, fortifying the thesis that Reich was not just conjuring up evidence to support bizarre theories.--Gulpen (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To continue talking with you about this seems hopeless. I have answered what I have based my claims on. Specifically regarding Reich's research being pseudoscience and fringe, mine aren't even claims. Reich's theories are pseudoscience. They are fringe. "If there is no research supporting [Reich's hypotheses], other than his own claims, then his claims are only claims." Therefore, they are not supported by science. Pseudoscience is also about defying scientific logic/consensus. The Big Bang is also still a theory, but it is supported by a ton of science and is accepted by most scientists. The only things about "orgastic potency" that are supported by science are the aspects of it that are supported in Masters and Johnson's four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation -- the human sexual response cycle. But we've already went over how the models differ, that they are not the same, and that no reliable source discusses the similarities between them. It is only our observation that "orgastic potency" is somewhat supported by Masters and Johnson's four-stage model -- the human sexual response cycle. If any of Reich's other research "is very easy to reproduce," then it would have been reproduced by now. You commented that "A hypothesis is not proven wrong by not supplying evidence," but hypotheses are sometimes proven wrong by newer research clearly showing older research to be unlikely or an impossibility. And it's usually research that is not supported by science that is ignored by scientists/other researchers. It is not like Reich's research has not been included in the mainstream view because of a simple overlooking; it's because mainstream scientists see no validity in most of it. Some likely see no validity in any of it. It's not like his research is just waiting for a researcher to come along and "actually" look at his work and then declare that most or all of it is valid. I didn't miss out that "Reich's is a psychosomatic typology, M&J's is purely somatic." I'm the one who outlined the differences between the two models to you. You can obviously keep your opinions about Reich's research, but, while adding information about it on Wikipedia, you need to better respect how that research holds up against scientific consensus. You removed the fringe tag from the article and created a Status section about the status of "orgastic potency" not being clear because "it remains little discussed in academic literature"; this is WP:Original research/dishonest WP:Editorializing. The fact that "orgastic potency" and/or any of Reich's theories are discussed little (very little) in academic literature makes the status of the theories fringe. And to state that "in 2010, Reich's experiments investigating the biological grounding of the orgasm theory were independently confirmed"? If that line is not simply stating that his having done these experiments is confirmed, then it is a lousy attempt to make it seem as though "orgastic potency" is supported by science. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a louzy attempt - those experiments were actually reproduced and confirmed, follow-up on the link I supplied (admittedly, that sentence needs further elaboration - working on it). You comment: "If any of Reich's other research 'is very easy to reproduce,' then it would have been reproduced by now . . . It is not like Reich's research has not been included in the mainstream view because of a simple overlooking." Are you not aware of the way in which Reich was attacked ad hominem in the media throughout his life? That has been the main platform for the verification of his theories - not through scientific argument or reproduction. That the first time an academic took up Reich's 1937 bio-electric experiments happened only in 2010 supports my claim here. Nowhere do I write Reich's work is mainstream - I'm very well aware that it is fringe in that sense - and also that it is not science in your definition of "consensus". But that does not imply it is pseudoscience in the meaning of defying scientific logic. Feel free to rephrase that "status is unclear" to whatever is more appropriate. But the fact remains that I found a study confirming a/the major underpinning of the orgasm theory - while we do not have a single source stating that and explaining why orgastic potency/the orgasm theory is not valid, and note that translating the absence of the later into "the orgasm theory is not valid" is likewise dishonest editorialising. I removed the fringe tag in accordance with what I proposed in the "fringe written as fact" discussion, and to which nobody voiced objections for three days. It is clearly indicated in the lead that this is a "Reichian" concept and theory, enough connotated by that, no?--Gulpen (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Most of this article is based on primary sources. The few other sources that aren't primary or fringe don't discuss this subtopic about Wilhelm Reich as the focus; the ideal merge target is therefore Wilhelm Reich. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this merge will be difficult. There's so much obvious POV in this article, for example the section concerning Kinsey's "Similar observations" appears to be entirely the view of the editor and not Kinsey himself. The references section at the bottom of the article is also a puzzler since few of them seem to have any direct relevance to the article. In short this article is a mess and will require a heroic effort to make something useful of it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No I just didn't get to finish that section yet: it is Boadella's interpretation, not mine. (Though Boadella deals with Reich's complete work, it treats Reich's sexual theories extensively: several dozens of pages.) Neither have I finished writing the way in which orgastic potency was received in the psycho-analytic world, by the way. I'm against merger anyway: there is simply no room in Wilhelm Reich to adequately explain this concept. If there are any of Reich's concepts that deserve separate articles, than it would be orgone and orgastic potency. For one, I still want to reduce the numbers of references to Reich's own work (except direct quotes).--Gulpen (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The soapboxing insistence of the two main authors of this page to promote pseudoscience, together with their reliance on primary sources, makes it difficult to suggest improvements (or even a genuinely neutral merge). —MistyMorn (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the article based mostly on primary sources - but they are old primary sources. WP:MEDRS requires sources to be recent - less than five years old, preferably less than two or three years old. Of the couple of dozen references in this article, six are more than fifty years out of date, six are forty years old, six more are thirty, four more were published twenty years ago - only six are less than ten years old and of those, just two are within the WP:MEDRS five-year recommendation. One of those two references is only used to back up the claim that three books were written by Reich - the other isn't used at all in the text! Neither of them talk about the subject matter of this article other than in passing. In essence, there is not a single acceptable reference for a medical topic anywhere in this article...not one. It's overwhelmingly full of obsolete ideas that have been outmoded for at least 20 years. The modern, mainstream view falls completely by the wayside here - and that is a gross violation of WP:FRINGE - and of WP:UNDUE. That means that it's entirely unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. It needs to be reduced to a stub that basically explains the term as an historical anachronysm and links to more modern viewpoints...or just delete it, there really isn't much to salvage here. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not insist on soapboxing. And there is only one main author of this page. Just outline recommendations so that we can see whether those can be adequately realised. I want to stress that the article has improved very significantly since it was first added and there is no reason to suspect further improvements are not possible.--Gulpen (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If editor/s insist on highlighting in any way the contemporary relevance (as distinct from historical documentation) of the concept (eg [4]), then they must follow WP:MEDRS. Otherwise, at the very least, those parts which are not adequately sourced will be removed. (Btw, PubMed retrieves no article on the topic that satisfies MEDRS [5].) —MistyMorn (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated in the "Fringe written as fact" section above: Looking at some medical articles, such as Autism (and these articles are medical in ways that the Orgastic potency article is not), they don't always use sources "within 5 years, preferably 2 to 3 years," even regarding important statements and/or assertions, but they try to. Sourcing medical topics is generally about using the most up-to-date source for any one particular medical statement. Coming by up-to-date sources on Reich's views, however, is difficult, if not impossible. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. The article should be a short treatment of Reich's concept, as suggested as one option by Steve Baker above, but I disagree that it should be a stub; there is enough material for satisfactory coverage of the topic, which by definition is not a stub. I attempted a shortened, neutral rewrite with this objective; I don't think I took out enough, and as I feared, I may have introduced inaccuracies. But the topic is encyclopedic as a historical approach; provided it is presented purely from that point of view, there is no compelling reason to merge it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding IRWolfie-´s "The few other sources that aren't primary or fringe don't discuss this subtopic about Wilhelm Reich as the focus". Please note that orgastic potency/orgasm theory is such an important topic in Reich's work that the "few other sources" all place extra emphasis on this topic - they at least have a separate chapter dedicated to it, and usually spans across several chapters. I see no reason to doubt the quality with which they deal with this topic.

Regarding MistyMorn's "If editor/s insist on highlighting in any way the contemporary relevance (as distinct from historical documentation)." I completely disagree with your interpretation of that edit: that statement concerned the historical usage, historical reception. It was not meant as a medical evaluation.

Yngvadottir, I stated "there is only one main author of this page", but you most certainly made a significant contribution as well. I did not want to give you the impression of a lack of appreciation.--Gulpen (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Against merger Regarding the status of orgastic potency and regarding WP:MEDRS, please note my response in the "Fringe written as Fact" discussion. Also, as regards WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, please take into account the significant changes to this article since merger was first proposed. Furthermore, an additional section on the "historical context" could be useful to explain WP:DUE - I get the impression this is not known to many editors. Finally, I want to stress again here, as I have done several times elsewhere, that the status of Reich's work in general, orgastic potency, and orgone energy are all very different, are based on different types of research, and can be considered fringe or not fringe independent of each other: don't conflate these to justify merger.--Gulpen (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've turned it into an RfC to get more opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of Orgastic potency and Orgone into Wilhelm Reich. The biography is 7,900 words long, and is still missing important biographical details, so it would not be feasible to merge these articles into it, unless by "merge" we mean blank the content and redirect the titles. Whatever anyone thinks of Reich's work, he led an interesting life, and the biography needs the space to describe it without going into detail about ideas that I think would lose the general reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to trim most of this article (which is crap and badly sourced) in the merger. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it doesn't make clear that this is an historical treatment of an idea that was very influential at the time in certain circles. Norman Mailer, for example, embraced it enthusiastically: better orgasm = better life. You can imagine the results. Time magazine and the Village Voice got on board; Time had a cover story in 1964 on Reich and the "Second Sexual Revolution," according to Reich's 2011 biography (Christopher Turner's Adventures in the Orgasmatron). Everyone wanted a Reichian therapist and an orgone accumulator, or sex box as they came to be called. Reich apparently insisted that the accumulators could not give orgastic potency, but no one was listening.

This is the angle the article needs to take, then the primary sources can be used to elaborate, rather than framing it as they currently seem to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I believe Dr. Allen has the last word on this teenage boy fantasy. [6].Bali ultimate (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

:D Turner writes that the evil Dr. Durand Durand, who tries to kill Barbarella with pleasure in the Excessive Machine, may have been based on Reich. Except she burns out the machine rather than dying ("What kind of girl are you? Have you no shame?"). [7] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea at all. At any rate we can start with a section "In popular culture" or something of the sorts (which Turner's book accurately represents).--Gulpen (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of either. I don't find the nomination very well thought through. I find IRWolfie-'s arguments when it comes to these articles lacking in reason. __meco (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Reich's Orgastic and Orgone works were equally transparently way-out fringe claptrap characteristic of the period. However, though sterile, each was sufficiently notable, though only in terms of its prominence, to justify a suitably disciplined factual article on the historical aspects of the subject, plus alerts against any claims that it might have been shown to have any merits in terms of evidence-based therapy. In internal detail neither topic has much of relevance to contribute to Reich's own history. JonRichfield (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title in scare quotes

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Use of scare quotes in article title. __meco (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The attempt to elicit a qualified opinion from this noticeboard failed as only one person who is already active in the dicusions here voiced their POV. However, others have appropriately intervened to restore ordinary orthography, without the scare quotes, which is what I sought for in the first place. __meco (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing or just removing?

I'm very happy with critical feedback. This is not a "good article" by miles. But please differentiate a bit between improving and removing. The latter can work to cause the former, but much of the content that has been removed the last few days also could have been simply rephrased, etc. For example:

1. similar? Sez who? Says a peddler of fringe science on wikipedia, that's who > that is per the source. (and Alexander Lowen was a student of Reich's.) But you don't like it? Solution: just remove it all.
2. undoing . . . source not per WP:MEDRS > this statement concerns the historical reception, not a medical evaluation. Do you have the book in front of you? I guess not, because then you would know that what you reverted it into does certainly not reflect the source more accurately than what I changed it into. But this is more convenient: just remove it all.
3. remove soapboxing. > is it, really? All of it? No rephrasing possible? No, its a great opportunity to - guess what: just remove it all.
4. remove WPSYNTH Masters & Johnson etc not "Reception" of Reich's concepts > Firstly, there is no SYNTH. This is in the source - you have of course checked the source before making such statement, I presume? Secondly, if the reason for removing the section is that it does not concern "reception", then why not simply place the lot under a different heading? No, this is too great an opportunity: just remove it all.
5. rm Reception section: as currently framed makes no sense at all given that the concept is entertained only within Reichian circles True, it was a bit strange like that. (Much has changed since then). But any way. Improving it is not an option. Oh no - we can't resist: just remove it all.

Can I please kindly request those editors that feel they can only function in binary mode to instead indicate possible improvements here?

Any comments on 1.? (2 is being discussed above.)--Gulpen (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite clear on the distinction between "improving" and "removing" - and in my opinion, "removing" is the correct option - which is "improving" Wikipedia as a whole. SteveBaker (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Just removing would be a major improvement. Failure to do so would be no improvement at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you don't suggest specific aspects that can be improved - which I have in the meantime done in a dozen ways on this Talk page - you clearly are not interested in improving this article in any way. I see in the meantime that your opinion is shared by one more: suggesting nomination for WP:AfD on users' talk pages without mentioning it here...? Really, this is very low. First removal by replacing the article with a referral, then proposing removal through merger, then removing whole portions of texts and then suggesting removal through nominating for article deletion.. creative for sure - what's next? Perhaps I should start filing complaints for (coordinated) vandalism. --Gulpen (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see this article go as well. My problem is that it's an almost entirely "in universe" account of one small aspect of Reich's theories which does not give due weight to the mainstream perspective. And I know that's going to be difficult because the mainstream perspective on Reich's theories can be summed up very succinctly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I doubt that anyone here regards Reich's claims and thinking more dismissively than I do, but I have bad feelings about entirely removing articles dealing with them. Firstly, if we can present a balanced view of his material, that will act as material antidotal to cheap attempts to promote his rubbish dishonestly (not many factors are more favourable to quack claims than difficulty in locating debunking material). Secondly the theories certainly are historically notable in that they made major waves in their time and periodically since. It is not for us to remove notable material, whether we love it or loathe it. Just make sure that readers can know the enemy say I. It is no job of ours to suppress Reich's stuff, but we do have some responsibility to erect signage saying "if you buy this, you get what you asked for!" JonRichfield (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing references to Reich as self-published sources

There have been som accusations that most of the sources used for this article are inadmissible as self-published sources. In the last several hours I have also seen Gulpen remove text from the article that is referenced to Reich himself using that explanation. I believe this may be unwarranted. I recommend Gulpen use WP:RSN to ensure the quality (and thus applicability) of the Reich sources rather than offhand accepting claims of inapplicability forwarded by any user on the present talk page. __meco (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I intended to replace them with the idea that the objection concerns whether those are WP:Third-party_sources.--Gulpen (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm not understanding something here, because another senior editor also told me it was ok to use Reich's own work for descriptive purposes. Could you please explain?--Gulpen (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a reduced online presence for the time being. Please ask at the noticeboard which I gave the link to above. __meco (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I overlooked your suggestion there. Will do.--Gulpen (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked some questions here.--Gulpen (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Source request

The lead says "The concept was met with both acclaim and opposition in the psychoanalytic movement." Could we have a source for the acclaim, please? I've just read Sharaf (1994, p. 86, second paragraph) saying it was met with ridicule both inside and outside psychoanalysis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That reflects - should reflect, rather - what is written in the sections Reception/Legacy.

It is very important here to differentiate between different objections and appraisals at different times and for different reasons. For example, when Reich first presented his idea about genitality at the 1923 congress it was openly criticised and ridiculed - but this was because Reich could not explain why neurotic males were sexually potent (read erective and ejaculative potency - in the classical sense). He himself admitted his inability to properly explain this. With his 1927 book published there were different public reactions to this work, as you can see under the Reception and Legacy sections. What is not yet incorporated in this article is what happened after 1927/8/9 - it was then that Reich was increasingly publicly opposed, and ridiculed in particular for his orgasm theory. This in combination with his marxist and anti-fascist work resulted in him being slowly pushed out of Psychoanalytic Association through public opposition, questioning his sanity, etc.--Gulpen (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The legacy section doesn't give any examples of acclaim within psychoanalysis. Your only source there is Boadella claiming that other analysts used Reich's idea without crediting him, but even Boadella doesn't give examples of anyone saying a lack of orgastic potency was the cause of all neurosis and the attainment of it the cure. Also, Boadella shouldn't be used a source for the views of anyone other than Reichians. You need academic or psychoanalytic sources for the views of psychoanalysts (or historians of psychoanalysis or notable biographers).

Boadella's point that "[n]o serious refutation of Reich's conclusions has ever been published" ought to be removed. No serious anything about Reich's conclusions has ever been published -- not because they can't be refuted but because they aren't taken seriously. Sharaf's point about it being met with ridicule should be included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, I think you need to go through the article and replace Boadella with academic/psychoanalytic sources, and use Boadella only for the views of Reichians. Too much of the article relies on his interpretation of other people's views, and on other primary sources in general. The article has to rely on secondary sources, academics, historians, psychoanalysts, using in-text attribution for anything contentious.

Elizabeth Danto, for example, has written about Reich in her Freud's Free Clinics: Psychoanalysis & Social Justice, 1918-1938, Columbia University Press, 2007. She makes the point (I'm writing from memory) that the incidence of impotence fell when Reich stopped working at the outpatient clinic, because he had been defining it so idiosyncratically. These are the kinds of views the article needs to be based on -- independent secondary sources, and wherever possible academic sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

By the way, I've added a few refs using manual citations. Please feel free to convert them to the style you've been using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No. You make no sense whatsoever, show hypocricy and make several biased conclusions. I state you have to look at the Reception and Legacy sections, yet you ignore the Reception section. Then within the Legacy section there are a handful psaysts that enthousiastically adopted Reich's concept, which you interpret as meaning?? Moreover you lecture me about using Boadella, that he cannot be considered a reliable source, yet you readily use Turner's book for Reich's work which is absolutely hypocritic. You want me to show respect for your advice, then first go and correct all the sexually-obsessed distortions that you added to the Wilhelm Reich page by using Turner. Perhaps you should first read Rubin's Wilhelm Reich and Anna Freud, and Bennett's The persecution of Dr. Wilhelm Reich by the government of the United States, and Greenfield's Wilhelm Reich vs. the USA, and then Boadella, and compare that with the way Turner twist every single detail related to Reich's work. His is a work that should be used under "In popular culture" and perhaps about Reich's social influence. But using Turner for Reich's work and then telling me I cannot use Boadella because Boadella is a Reichian is pure hypocricy. I have not seen Boadella make even one hundreth of the factual distortions Turner has. Turner has portrayed Reich the way that would give him high selling rates: as a sexually obsessed irrational being. Yet, it is Turner himself who is the one who is incapable of seeing anything but sex and seduction and perversion in Reich! And NO it is not true that nothing about Reich's work was taken serious. This is just another unmerrited generalisation, conflating Reich's early with his later work. Did you even read what was written on this page? How about the high acclaim for his Character Analysis, the Mass Psychology of Fascism, or the warm welcome his work at first received under the communist party? The problem was not him not being taken serious, the problem was too many taking Reich serious, so communists were afraid Reich's Sex-Politics became too influential, etc. etc. Moreover, there were two serious attempt to criticise Reich's concept OP, but like everyone else in the Psa, and like Turner, they couldnt differentiate OP from either ejeculative potency or frequency of orgasm... That is just sad. And you want to include Turner as one of Reich's biographers, while he couldn't understand anything? If you want Wikipedia to be a platform of lies instead of facts, then by all means continue using Turner the way you have, but I think Wikipedia demands a higher standard. I may sound a bit over the top here, but I am have seen you introduce many such examples on the WR page. Gulpen (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that my response could have been more on-topic and constructive. Anyway, I had actualy overlooked you including Turner in this article already! So lets use this as an on-topic example of the way in which Turner's distortion of Reich's work has already found its way into this article as well. You inserted: "Reich described it as 'the real emotional experience of the loss of your ego, of your whole spiritual self,' and believed it was essential for the capacity to love." Yes Reich may have stated something along these lines (I will need to read the full-text to see whether Turner took that out of context). But, at any rate, we know that Reich carefully explained and developed the concept orgastic potency over dozens of academic books and articles, yet Turner manages to find and quote the single description Reich made of this concept in an informal setting, and subsequently presents and summarises orgastic potency as "the loss . . . of your whole spiritual self" - a complete joke!! This represents Reich exactly the way that Turner wants to see Reich: as some type of new-age guru who combined spirituality (some sort of religion) with (having a lot of) sex. You may find it interesting to learn that Reich strongly opposed all forms of mystical-religious (as well as mechanistic) thinking. Why don't we quote one of Reich's careful definitions of orgastic potency in the lead instead of when he was having a sherry or two?--Gulpen (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems

There are several places where the article seems not to make sense even on its own terms. For example: "Central to Reichian character analysis is the concept of "character resistance" or "character defence", by which a person's character—what the patient did rather than what he or she said—was seen as his or her primary defence mechanism. Character attributes include posture, expression, and way of speaking."

• Character = what you do, not what you say
• Character attributes include "way of speaking"

In addition, speaking is, of course, part of what someone does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

what you say (the words) does not equal way of speaking (how you say it). That this difference is meant should be clear from the context. What else doesn't make sense? Gulpen (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I would write "manner of speaking," or "manner of speech," and remove "what the patient did rather than what he or she said." It reads as though character is not about speech.

A lot of the rest of the article has similar issues. I think it would make sense to start replacing Boadella with independent secondary sources (augmented by Reich or other primary sources where appropriate), and cut down some of the details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Further research

This is just to note that there is a great chapter "The Function of the Orgasm" (among other passages) in Robert S. Corrington's 2003 book Wilhelm Reich: Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist which would be a useful resource for anyone interested in making further improvements to this article.

Moreover, I also want to note that I found a decent source comparing orgastic potency to more conventional sexology: Sean Haldane, PhD (1977) Human pulsation, doctoral dissertation. Among others, it includes a chapter: "(8) Orgasm. Reich's theory is discussed in relation to current research into sexuality, and problems of definition are explored. It is proposed that orgasm is potentially the fullest observable human pulsation. The orgastic convulsion is described through a wide range of observable phenomena and the concept is introduced, based on Ferenczi's psychoanalytic theory of regression and on the sensory chronology proposed earlier, of sensory regression during coitus. Orgasm as a pulsation is discussed in terms of sexual dysfunction as defined by modern sexologists and by Reich." However, it is written in 1977 (somewhat outdated), and is not publicly accessible (though it has this reference: Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Jan 01, 2003; Vol. 64, No. 3-B, p. 0.). However, a revised version of this chapter (8) on the orgasm, I have learned, will appear in a new book to be published by Haldane in 2013. Perhaps that will proof to be a useful resource as well.--Gulpen (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)