Talk:Wilhelm Reich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 09:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC). Please see the discussion on the case's request page. |
 |
|
| Archive 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Cloudbuster
It may be a minor point but I'm not clear from the text - If "designed" - was it built? The photo indicates so of course but was it tested - Did it work in any real sense of the word? Rrose Selavy
[edit] Technical:
Why does on top of this discussion page the following link:
To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for ...
point to Chemistry?
--David Moerike 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Someone probably copied the chemistry template and forgot to change it to psychology. I've fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Einstein episode overstated
In my opinion the episode of the meeting between Reich and Einstein is overstated in the article. Above all, the only source we have on it is the account of Reich, given in the brochure of 1953 The Einstein Affaire, and the letters reproduced therein. No Einstein biographer was able to give additional information on it.
Therefore I'd suggest to reduce the chapter to the solid facts and add it just as a paragraph to the preceding chapter where it belongs.
The text could be as follows (with improvements of English grammar, if necessary):
- In 1940, Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and on January 13, 1941, he went to visit Einstein in Princeton. Einstein agreed to test the orgone accumulator. Reich supplied the device during their second meeting, and Einstein performed the experiment in his basement, which involved taking the temperature atop, inside, and near the device. He also stripped the device down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. Over the course of a week, in both cases, Einstein observed a rise in temperature, and confirmed Reich's finding. However, contrary to Reich who took this as experimentum crucis for the existence of a primordial cosmic energy he had called "orgone", Einstein interpreted the phenomenon simply as resulting from thermal convection currents.
This is the whole story. Reich's later speculations of an influence of Leopold Infeld on Einsteins judgment (because Infeld went to Stalinist Poland after the war) have never been verified.
If there will be no argumentative objection within the next days I'll implant this change.
--Nescio* 08:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's understated if anything. The source is the Einstein-Reich correspondence and it's a very telling episode in Reich's life. The biography you yourself recommended devotes quite a bit of space to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sharaf, as you should know, devotes not even 1 chapter out of 32, not even 5 pages out of 500, to this episode. It may be telling biographically, but not as a scientific "Einstein experiment". See Einstein's letter to Reich from 7 Feb 1941 about what really happened in his home, the only and most pertinent source. And there is no need to list the bulk of fringe science literature pertaining to it.
-
- --Nescio* 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hawkwind
Why does the article open with a "Hawkwind" redirect? There are many other more prolific artists (writers, musicians etc) who have explored WR's ideas. It seems ultimately unnecessary, irrelevant and selfish to open the Reich article in this manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.148.84.140 (talk • contribs).
- I agree. I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert War
SlimVirgin has reverted MY contributions three times to this article regarding the minor wording over 1 sentence.
As the article states, this man in the prime of his career:
In 1947, following a series of critical articles about orgone in The New Republic and Harper's, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began an investigation into his claims, and won an injunction against the interstate sale of orgone accumulators. Charged with contempt of court for violating the injunction, Reich insisted on conducting his own defense, which involved sending the judge all his books to read. He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956, several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA. [5][1] He died of heart failure in jail just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole. [7]
Can someone else review the two wordings? The lead intro is POV, considering all things. Thanks.Kiyosaki 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The lead is balanced, and you're here only because you stalked me here, not because you're familiar with the subject.
- The lead makes clear that he was a respected analyst, a controversial figure, regarded by some as having gone astray, but admired by others, then subjected to an investigation, book burning and jail. He is a complex figure and the lead reflects that complexity. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks. The lead is far from NPOV and criticism should be mentioned in the lead, especially when he later served time in prison. I think my wording is more clear and neutral.Kiyosaki 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A long standing revert war
About a year ago user:Slim Virgin started a revert war against me which is still going on.
For anyone interested this are the links of the discussions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#.22intro_restored.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#Lead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#FYI_from_a_psychology_professional
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelm_Reich&action=edit§ion=3
I'd like to see other users giving their opinions here.
--Nescio* 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate structure of the article (moved from subpage)
There are numerous errors in details of the article; they cannot be listed here. Some of them are already exposed in the talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelm_Reich&action=edit§ion=6
Still more important is the inappropriateness of the structure of the article:
- 1 Early life
- 2 His work
- 2.1 Early career in Germany
- 2.2 The bion experiments
- 2.3 T-bacilli
- 2.4 Orgone accumulators and cloudbusters
- 2.5 Orgone experiment with Einstein
- 3 Controversy
- 3.1 The Brady article and the FDA
- 3.2 Imprisonment and death
- 4 Status of his work
- 5 Reich in popular culture
- 6 Notes
- 7 Reich's work
- 8 Further reading
[edit] Proposal of a new structure of the article
I'd suggest instead a rough structure as follows:
- 1 Early Life
- 2 Career as Psychoanalyst
- 2.1 Orgastic Potency
- 2.2 Character Analysis
- 2.3 Expulsion from Psychoanalysis
- 3 From Politics to Antipolitics
- 3.1 Prophylaxis of Neuroses
- 3.2 Freudomarxism
- 3.3 Sexpol
- 3.4 Work Democracy
- 3.5 "The Children of the Future"
- 4 From Psychoanalysis to Orgonomy
- 4.1 Vegetotherapy
- 4.2 Bion Research [incl. t-bacilli]
- 4.3 The Discovery of the Orgone
- 5 Orgonomy
- 5.1 The Orgone Accumulator [incl. "Einstein Affair"]
- 5.2 Cancer Biopathy
- 5.3 Orgone Physics and conventional Physics [incl. cloud busting]
- 6 "Conspiracy" [this is the title of a documentary volume Reich issued about the actions of FDA etc. against him]
- 6.1 Articles in New Republic
- 6.2 Injunction
- 6.3 Trial, imprisonment, death
- 7 Status of Reich's work today
- 8 Reich in popular culture
- 9 Notes
- 10 Writings
- 10.1 by Reich
- 10.2 about Reich
- 11 External Links
--Nescio* 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nescio, do not remove properly referenced, relevant material. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anybody around there who cares about the Reich article ?
For several months now user:Slim Virgin carries on an edit war against me.
Its history can be studied here (links to archive):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelm_Reich&action=edit§ion=6
For some weeks it is in a mediation procedure which does not seem to arrive at a solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Wilhelm_Reich
The trouble is that I have to argue with a person who on the one hand obviously (and admittedly) has only a quite limited familiarity with the topic and on the other hand is determined to write this article alone resp. as the master author. Most of my corrections, beginning at May 30 this year, of even grave errors were answered by a revert. The quality of her replies to my queries you can see at the talk page, continued at the mediation page.
Over nearly six months there was, besides the mediator, only one person who interferred with a long statement.
Is there nobody else who has an interest in the improvement of this IMO utterly poor state of the article ?
--Nescio* 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was in the process of improving it, Nescio, but you've put a stop to that work, so we're now in mediation, where you're currently also turning down the suggestion of the mediator. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is still going on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Wilhelm_Reich
--Nescio* 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
