Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Orgastic potency
[edit]- ... that orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion at the acme of the genital embrace?
Created/expanded by Gulpen (talk). Nominated by Meco (talk) at 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Long enough and new enough, but I'm afraid this is going to need radical reworking to be eligible. It's far from neutral: the citations are overwhelmingly to Reichian sources, the last sentence talks of "a track-record of smears, attacks, distortions, deliberate misrepresentations directed against Wilhelm Reich and his supporters" and is sourced to an extremely emotionally worded article (repeated references to "smears"), and the presentation would be described as "in-universe" in a fictional context; the article does not plainly state from the outset that this is a particular viewpoint, that of Reich and his followers, and needs to place the exposition in that context throughout in order to be neutral. There are many references (although it would be advisable to refer to specific pages in the pdfs, and many shorter articles are used repeatedly and this would be clearer with named references); however, in places there is extensive paraphrasing/summary with no references for long stretches; I noticed this in the "detailed description" section under "The natural sexual act" and in the individual paragraphs under "Sexual disturbances"; the treatment of the female there sometimes entirely lacks a footnote, and in all cases, the explanatory heading in small print with ref. does not serve to adequately reference the entire following paragraph. Also, in looking to see what was meant as I began to read the introduction, I immediately found unacceptably close paraphrasing. For example, the hook above reads:
that orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion at the acme of the genital embrace?
- The first sentence of the article is:
Orgastic potency is the ability to completely experience and surrender to the involuntary, pleasurable convulsions of the organism at the climax of excitation in sexual intercourse, without any inhibitions and resulting in a complete discharge of excitation.
- The Konia reference has:
Orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion of the organism and complete discharge of sexual excitation in the acme of the genital embrace.
- And a passage by Reich himself quoted in the Baker source reads:
Psychic health depends on orgastic potency, that is, on the capacity for surrender in the acme of sexual excitation in the natural sexual act.
- Again, a passage in the article reads:
About 20–30% of women attain a coital climax; 70–80% require manual clitoral stimulation.
- The source, quoted in a footnote, reads:
only 20–30% of women attain a coital climax ...Many women (70–80%) require manual clitoral stimulation.
- There needs to be a lot more summarizing and clearly marked quoting; as it is, the article falls afoul of the copyvio standards. Related to this, it's not terribly clear. Explaining "sexual economy" in terms of "energy household" doesn't clarify, because what is "household" in this context? Also, there are rather a lot of grammar problems; particularly subject-verb agreement errors, but also it's for its and comma problems. I (and others, I'm sure) would be glad to help with the grammar and English usage, but the other problems are serious and need to be cleaned up first. Basically, this needs to be rewritten as a shorter account of Reich's theory; and in my opinion it also needs a lot more mention of criticism (for example, of the attitude toward masturbation; that leaps off the screen when one reads the hook). And the hook should also be in terms of Wilhelm Reich's theory, not of generally agreed upon sexual counseling or psychiatric theory. (Again, the obvious analogue is the requirement that a hook about a work of fiction not be wholly in-universe.)
- I will watchlist this and the article and see whether I can help. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have asked the question on the article's talk page whether any discussion of censorship of Reich's work is appropriate for this article, which I don't think it is, certainly not in a section of its own. It could be mentioned, I suppose, in the context of discussing how controversial this stuff is, as an example. __meco (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I addressed some of the above criticism in the article, except for these points: Regarding the "energy household", I did not elaborate because I wanted to write a dedicated article "sex economy" (it is too comlex to explain in one or two sentences). Regarding the definitions/paraphrasing, many are direct copies from Reich's original definition, that is why it may show up the same in other sources as well.
- The choice to use "DYK ... that orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion at the acme of the genital embrace?" was a bit unfortunate because the article starts with a different definition. However, this definition does occur in the article and was chosen because it was shorter. An alternative would be: "DYK ALT1: ... that orgastic potency is the ability to completely experience and surrender to the involuntary, pleasurable convulsions at the climax in sexual intercourse?"--Gulpen (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are still two big problems, unfortunately. One is that, despite the need for accuracy and regardless of what article writers have done, we must not re-use other people's wording without putting it in quotation marks. It's not safe to re-use a word here and a word there, or to mix and match between Reich's wording and the wording of an article about Reich. It has to be either a quotation, a summary, or (perhaps not possible in this case because it would be too obviously close to the original) a paraphrase in our own words. With respect to Reich's definition and the definition in at least one article on it, both the article and the hook violate this rule, which is serious legal business, and thus I suspect that the article contains many other such violations. Also, both the hook and the article need to make clear that this is Reich's theory or viewpoint. This goes to adequate coverage of the topic, neutrality, and also the specially strict rules on medical topics. (Also, and not unrelatedly, it needs to be clear. That use of "household" simply isn't, even though it might be so in another language and may even be traditional in Reichian scholarship.) I think the solution is to drastically shorten the article, so that everything is a summary that isn't an outright quote - and to present it from the very beginning as Reich's theory. I feel bad about this, since a lot of work has been put in, and I agree with you that it's an interesting and worthwhile topic to have covered in the encyclopedia and to have highlighted at DYK, but it just isn't mainstream enough in psychological scholarship to be presented as if it's a widely held position. Would it be terribly rude if I rewrote it myself and suggested an alternate hook, so that it could then be given the red bendy arrow asking for a fresh DYK review? The previous version could always be restored from the history, or more or less massive tweakage of my version could happen (for one thing I have never studied psychology) - or of course you could just stick the red bendy arrow on this template now and see what someone else thinks at this point. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I follow your argument up until the point where you say "thus I suspect that the article contains many other such violations." I wrote basically the whole article and can guarantee that this is not a systematic phenomenon. I am well-aware of the rules plagiarism and have put serious effort throughout the article to prevent any form of it. There are to this only little exceptions
- There are still two big problems, unfortunately. One is that, despite the need for accuracy and regardless of what article writers have done, we must not re-use other people's wording without putting it in quotation marks. It's not safe to re-use a word here and a word there, or to mix and match between Reich's wording and the wording of an article about Reich. It has to be either a quotation, a summary, or (perhaps not possible in this case because it would be too obviously close to the original) a paraphrase in our own words. With respect to Reich's definition and the definition in at least one article on it, both the article and the hook violate this rule, which is serious legal business, and thus I suspect that the article contains many other such violations. Also, both the hook and the article need to make clear that this is Reich's theory or viewpoint. This goes to adequate coverage of the topic, neutrality, and also the specially strict rules on medical topics. (Also, and not unrelatedly, it needs to be clear. That use of "household" simply isn't, even though it might be so in another language and may even be traditional in Reichian scholarship.) I think the solution is to drastically shorten the article, so that everything is a summary that isn't an outright quote - and to present it from the very beginning as Reich's theory. I feel bad about this, since a lot of work has been put in, and I agree with you that it's an interesting and worthwhile topic to have covered in the encyclopedia and to have highlighted at DYK, but it just isn't mainstream enough in psychological scholarship to be presented as if it's a widely held position. Would it be terribly rude if I rewrote it myself and suggested an alternate hook, so that it could then be given the red bendy arrow asking for a fresh DYK review? The previous version could always be restored from the history, or more or less massive tweakage of my version could happen (for one thing I have never studied psychology) - or of course you could just stick the red bendy arrow on this template now and see what someone else thinks at this point. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have asked the question on the article's talk page whether any discussion of censorship of Reich's work is appropriate for this article, which I don't think it is, certainly not in a section of its own. It could be mentioned, I suppose, in the context of discussing how controversial this stuff is, as an example. __meco (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1. The first sentence, where, drawing on many different definitions, I attempted to combine all aspects of orgastic potency into one major definition. Please note, though, that I quoted three full definitions of Reich in the article. Also note that different aspects are emphasised in different definitions, and that taking any single one of them (e.g. for use in the introduction) results in not covering all aspects. At any rate, that is my view.;
- 2. Two small portions where I copied small sections from other wiki's (I indicated in the 'source' what part);
- 3. Very very very minor exceptions which are very unfortunate because I may have overlooked or forgotten them. One such example is the sentence you spotted about the female orgasm statistics, but I had a reason to take this almost literally. I found the reference on the orgasm page (start par. 3 there), but the way it was paraphrased there was so confusing that I did not understand the relation to the sentence in the original source. Because I am not an expert on this topic, I decided put it down as it was. A mistake.
- 4. Possibly, where I took stuff from a summary of Raknes' article, for which I got permission from the 'summariser'. I say possibly, because though I initially copied material, I did, in the end, summarise everything; I simply may have overlooked something.
- Although I am really happy if someone else would take a serious look at the article and try to help improve it, I would find it a serious waste (and unnecessary) to just summarise everything. In that case I would prefer more targeted criticism and improvements - including regarding structural changes. Regarding this, I think the most pressing issue is the medical aspect and status of the theories. I made a first attempt, but your help is welcome.Regarding 'energy household', I have to stress again that it is a very difficult concept to explain. You may look at a VERY ROUGH pre-draft draft (with loads of direct quotes) in my sandbox to get some idea of the aspects involved. In case you want to try to clarify 'energy household' I can recommend the above-mentioned essay by Raknes, and/or to look at this section (the principal basis for the 'energy household' theory). Finally, the reason I did not inclue page numbers in some references was because I did not have access to material showing the original page numbers. E.g. regarding the Baker article, I tried to cite paragraphs, but I didn't know how to count from halfway the article onwards. Should I add ".pdf page numbers" (clearly indicated) in references to the Baker article? And e.g. the Raknes article, I wasn't sure weather the headings used in the (above-mentioned) summary correspond to headings in the original, published article. I will ask that now, but if they don't it would be weird to mention the summary headings in the references.--Gulpen (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see. The thing is, there can't be any overly close paraphrasing. When in doubt, summarize. (It's quite a long article; I don't think it's in danger of seeming skimpy, except on the non-Reichian evaluations.) An encyclopedia article doesn't need to go into every detail, and you say you intend to write a separate article on Reich's concept of "sexual economy", so a full explanation of that can go there. Yes, I would cite the page numbers in the pdfs; you're citing them from the pdf versions. (I put "pdf p.".) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- It will take me some time to include the page no., but I'll work on that. In the meantime I removed the masturbation section, because it is actually not 100% relevant to the article. It is very hard to find proper criticism on 'orgastic potency' by the way, but I am doing some more research now. Regarding the first sentence, I understand close paraphrasing is problematic, but my view is that it is not plagiarism because it 1) attributes the source, 2) is paraphrased, 3) in an original way combines different definitions and 4) the original definitions themselves are rightly quoted and attributed, and their development (hence, necessity for combining them in an original way) is explained.--Gulpen (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see. The thing is, there can't be any overly close paraphrasing. When in doubt, summarize. (It's quite a long article; I don't think it's in danger of seeming skimpy, except on the non-Reichian evaluations.) An encyclopedia article doesn't need to go into every detail, and you say you intend to write a separate article on Reich's concept of "sexual economy", so a full explanation of that can go there. Yes, I would cite the page numbers in the pdfs; you're citing them from the pdf versions. (I put "pdf p.".) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Changes have been made to the article, and I think it's time for a fresh look, but I think it would be better from someone with a background in psych or human sexuality. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- This article seems interesting. I read through the discussion. I believe after cleaning up the article's quotations and changing the hook, it is good to go. I mean come on! The best hook for this kind of article is the definition of the topic? I would like to propose two:
- ATL1... that orgastic impotency provides the energy source of neuroses?
- ALT2... that orgastic potency implies the ability to express love in a sexual activity?
- Any comments? Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Considering that the theory and the term itself is outside the purview of mainstream science, that would impact how the blurb is to be worded. Something along the line of "...that orgastic potency is defined as..." would be better, I think. __meco (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, cool. I am new to DYK so I was giving this a shot. Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this is a very thorny DYK nomination that most people are having difficulties dealing with, I think it would be best if someone who is new to DYK and still uncomfortable with certain aspects of reviewing should not be attempting to take this one on, as laudable as the intention is. I realize it has been sitting for an excessive period of time; perhaps this will be the goad to get someone to look at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, cool. I am new to DYK so I was giving this a shot. Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Considering that the theory and the term itself is outside the purview of mainstream science, that would impact how the blurb is to be worded. Something along the line of "...that orgastic potency is defined as..." would be better, I think. __meco (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I propose we close this (sorry Meco...). If it cannot be passed until after a drastic rewrite, and if the original authors are not willing to do so (please tell me if I parsed the commentary correctly), then this won't be truly a DYK written by the original author(s) once it's finished, if ever. The comments here and on the talk page indicate that a hook along the lines of "Orgastic potency is what Wilhelm Reich proposed as..." isn't acceptable either--maybe as a hook, but not as a seduction into a valid article, since the article in its current state is not considered valid. I made a tweak to the opening sentence that clarifies the perhaps dubious status of the theory, but we can't have a valid hook to an invalid article. BlueMoonset, perhaps it's time to close this with, again, my apologies to Meco, whose work on Wikipedia I value. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- My take on the current impasse would be to allow it to linger, with the DYK nomination also on hold until a would-be resolution. Although I can understand some DYK assessers aching to have this out of the queue, there is nothing really problematic about it simply retaining its status as a candidate with unresolved issues. Even though we're in a protracted situation, nothing dictates this cannot be cleared up. Also, with regards to the general opposition to the subject presented by one editor, it would be simply inappropriate to accept that as the final verdict rendering the article impassable. __meco (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in the midst of a radical rewrite. As I said on the article talkpage, I'll need until some time today (hopefully no longer, but I can't work on it at work, which is where I am right now!) I have no doubt that there will then be a flurry of further edits, but I hope that when the dust settles we'll have a fair and neutral representation of the topic that will be acceptable to DYK. The editor who at first considered it simply unacceptable has even offered to help :-) So hold on a little longer, please :-) And then perhaps you'll review it, Drmies '-) (As to credit; if the rewrite doesn't wind up being totally rejected, I'll add myself to the credits here; but Gulpen and Meco identified the topic, tracked down the sources, and did the heavy spade-work of writing it up. I see no reason why they shouldn't get a DYK credit if this can be got over the hurdles; the issue is whether I'm going to deserve one or just catalyse the final version '-).) --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Meco, Yngvadottir, that's fine with me. Meco, I'm not trying to be a hard-ass, though it has been said that I am one in DYK matters. Good luck on the rewrite. I would suggest you address the matter on the talk page as well, and if it is really only one editor who has a problem, and there's a consensus that there is no problem, then that would be very helpful. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have something for me to look at. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been 72 days since this article was first expanded, and nearly 9 since the most recent edit. DYK is for "Wikipedia's newest content", and this has been dragging on for a very long time. Given the very long list of things that still need to be done to the article, if I'm reading Yngvadottir's comments on the article talk page correctly, and no one seeming to be interested in doing them, I don't understand why this is remaining open indefinitely. Compared to other articles that have recently been closed with far fewer issues than this one seems to have, I'd like to see a commitment by someone to address those identified issues, with significant progress to be seen by the end of this month. Absent such a commitment within 48 hours, a run of two and a half months really should come to an end. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm most certainly committed to contribute my part to improve the article. I've been lacking any time during the past month, but I will have much time starting September. Though BlueMoonset is right to conclude there is still a list with to-do's, I believe that the truly pressing problems were already addressed earlier and, in fact, that Yngvadottir major rewrite may have lowered the accuracy of the article to some extent. I understand details have to be omitted when summarising, but this is a very complex topic and summarising can very quickly result in partiality and wrong emphasis.--Gulpen (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping my rewrite would demonstrate the notability of the topic and lead to changes in response. In particular, that Bali Ultimate, who spoke up on the talk page, would come back and assist. Alternatively, if Gulpen has time now to go back and fix anything I made inaccurate, I could propose a new ALT and we could ask Drmies to review it as is? Ideally it would have more on more mainstream and later psychologists' characterizations added, but in a non-ideal world, I consider it can stand a re-review now. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can only commend the earnest efforts to work constructively towards giving this article its day in the sun, even though I don't find myself being able to contribute to this work for the time being. I would like, though, to caution those who still keep one foot on the brake pedal not to lose sight of the fact that this is a new article, and we're not pushing for Good Article nomination. __meco (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can only second what Meco said. Yngvadottir, my statement that your "rewrite may have lowered the accuracy" was not to criticise you rewriting the article, but merely to emphasise my opinion that the issues impeding DYK nomination were already addressed before your edit. I have no reason to doubt you made many improvements - I think you have - and am looking forward to working together on further improvements, though I will not immediately have time now.--Gulpen (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can only commend the earnest efforts to work constructively towards giving this article its day in the sun, even though I don't find myself being able to contribute to this work for the time being. I would like, though, to caution those who still keep one foot on the brake pedal not to lose sight of the fact that this is a new article, and we're not pushing for Good Article nomination. __meco (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping my rewrite would demonstrate the notability of the topic and lead to changes in response. In particular, that Bali Ultimate, who spoke up on the talk page, would come back and assist. Alternatively, if Gulpen has time now to go back and fix anything I made inaccurate, I could propose a new ALT and we could ask Drmies to review it as is? Ideally it would have more on more mainstream and later psychologists' characterizations added, but in a non-ideal world, I consider it can stand a re-review now. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is 2.5 months old. If it's this unstable and can't be agreed upon in that time, it shouldn't be a DYK article. PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)