Talk:Orgone: Difference between revisions

This article was nominated for deletion on February 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

General sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merging Cloudbuster into Orgone

It has been suggested that the article Cloudbuster‎ be merged into the article Orgone, based on suggestions in the recent AfD discussion [1] Artw (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC) (For the moment please consider me neutral on this Artw (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

• I support a merger. --Sloane (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose a merger and support keeping the pages separate. Some of the sources I gave in the AFD discussion include articles written specifically about cloudbusters, but only mention Orgone briefly. Ex: [2], [3], [4]. I also find (smaller) mention of the cloudbuster in articles not mentioning orgone: [5]. This scholarly article: [6] mentions the cloudbuster in the context of weather manipulation and (at least according to google) does not contain the term "orgone". More importantly, there is more than enough material to write a fairly extensive page on cloudbusters that is adequatley sourced. Cazort (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose a merger at this point. This is clearly not the way it should be done. The outcome of the deletion discussion was keep, and that subsequent merger discussions should be held on the talk page of Cloudbuster. Not unilaterally merged and then force the discussion on Orgone Energy. I strongly suggest that this is undone immediately and that policy/protocol is followed. Unomi (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  The problem as we saw in the rough redirect is that what little information there is will be lost. The AfD discussion pointed to efforts at adding more information to the Cloudbuster article, this will be impossible as arguments such as 'why so much space on a subsection' etc. will be ventured. I honestly do not see any good reason not to leave it as a separate article, none. We are wasting time with merging and fighting mergers, go do some research and ADD information. This wanton desire for 'crisp prose' will end with nothing but ashes. Unomi (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I want to suggest that this discussion is considered open until we have response from the people involved in the AfD, yesterday. Unomi (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • We are having the discussion right now, and no merge will take place until the discussion is concluded. Any user trying to force through the merge before then is acting improperly and should be reverted. Artw (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge for my reasons in the AfD - Cloudbusters are entirely an aspect of the topic of Orgone, which topic is not so long as to require a subarticle. Also, thank you Shunpiker for notifying people of this discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The theory of cloudbusters depends on the topic of orgone, but the sources I gave above demonstrate that many people are interested in the concept of a cloudbuster primarily because they are a (failed) attempt at weather manipulation--for these articles the fact that they are connected to the idea of orgone is only incidental. I suggest at least scanning the sources I linked to because I believe they very strongly support keeping these pages separate. Cazort (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge Clearly these concepts are closely-related enough, and have little enough coverage, to be dealt with on the same page. II | (t - c) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge why have two separate articles on the same fictional thing ("Cloubusters" are a clear subset of all things "orgone").Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please address the points I made above before repeating an argument that I believe to have refuted. Cazort (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• not sure. Vaguely support merge. It's clearly part of the same topic. Sticky Parkin 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Just found this RFC. OPPOSE a merge, as it seems apparent that those feeling such are confusing "Cloubuster" the device using orgon energy, with other cloudbusting devices... or even with cloud seeding devices. "Cloudbuster" in an unique device with an unique history. Article merits furthe research and expansion. A merge dimninshes wiki and the information would be minimalized if placed within some context in some other article. Its a peperless encyclopdia. And the article has met inclusion requirements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• oppose merge (mildly): cloudbusting was a side-effect of Reich's orgone theory. Orgone was primarily (in Reich's mind) a factor in medical treatments. Cloudbusting is mostly notable because of Reich's use of it in his personal and political life, so if cloudbuster is going to get merged anywhere, it should be into main article on Reich, not into Orgone. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Cloudbuster" and related "technologies" show slight signs of effectiveness in trial, whereas the reason for this, whatever it may be, is highly unlikely to be called "orgone". Contrariwise, the concept of orgone has a limited significance in therapy (like "libido") irrespectively of whether it is a cosmic weather-influencing force. Redheylin (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose plenty can be written about cloudbuster that would just clutter this article, WP is not paper no need to merge. And thanks Redheylin for the "slight signs of effectiveness" your views on these matters are always amusing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No way to fit all that information over here, and it is perfectly valid in its own article. Dream Focus 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment please note that User:Sloane just attempted a merge without waiting for consensus. Given the action of him and user:verbal I’m wondering if we need to ask for the article to be protected in it’s unmerged state until the end of the merge discussion. You’d think that users with any degree of experience would understand the value of following due process on this, but it appears that may not be the case. Artw (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Also note that claims that the AfD linked above shows a consensus for merging are false. Artw (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Eh, I'll keep an eye on it as well. Due process on wikipedia, as I've discovered to my chagrin, is an entirely subjective concept. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've raised this at WP:ANI, here. Artw (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Orgone and cloudbuster are related, but Cloudbuster can be a rather valuable article by itself; just as Orgone is sufficiently different to demand an article unto itself. --^StormRider 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is more to orgone energy theory than cloudbusting, and combining the two is, in my view, almost a violation of WP:NPOV by minimizing it into one article ("since orgone is pseudoscience, there is no sense in wasting multiple articles on it"). While I am not saying whether I espouse the theories of Wilhelm Reich or not, I do think that some people do, and as such, the article deserves its space.Eauhomme (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)'

• Strongly Oppose Merge. There is more to orgone energy theory than cloudbusting, and combining the two is wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without regards for either articles current status there have been many changes and a prior AfD and merge attempt which have supported both articles be maintained separately for now. It seems editors are making good faith attempts at improving at least this article and it would be nice to actually support them in doing so. I invite admins to pay attention to the workings here and caution all that Wikipedia is still not a battleground and those who are looking for such do need to look elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. Cloudbuster is short and has few references. (Whether it's pseudoscience or not is irrelevant; the point is how notable it is.) If more references (and of good quality) are provided, consider this comment to be "neutral". Although I weakly support merging, I oppose these actions by Verbal: [7] [8]. Boldly redirecting a page once is often a reasonable action; I've done so myself on other pages (example); and it may or may not have been a reasonable action in this particular case (I'm not criticizing Verbal's first redirect); but when the redirect is reverted, I think it's best to follow WP:BRD, place merge tags and wait for discussion (as has now been done here) rather than repeatedly redirecting. I realize that in the editor's opinion the AfD showed consensus for a merge; however, that is not apparently the opinion of the AfD closer nor of a number of others including myself. Repeatedly redirecting tends to be disruptive because it impedes article development and generates instability about the form of both articles; it's best to wait until after a discussion such as this, with merge tags and with both articles visible as articles during the discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)