Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wilhelm Reich

message: If both sides could please place their argument here, we can proceed with the mediation.  Thanks.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs</sup> 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm not sure why you're both having trouble editing this page, but you can comment on my talk page if that works better.  I'll copy and paste everything here.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's something on it that is slowing things down. Section edits work okay, however. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems editing this page

message: A book like Sharaf's comprehensive Reich biography provides you with plenty of material, many details and episodes from Reich's life which are doubtless very interesting, even helpful to understand better his strange career. So you are tempted to picture Reich's life in epic breadth, so much the more, as you are able to source all this. But especially here you have to restrain your proneness to narrate broadly and select carefully in order to produce a balanced and concise article within the given frame. Again, intelligent sourcing is required.
--Nescio* 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidance of producing an epic narrative 

message: Slim Virgin, you may have seen that I changed a sentence saying that Freud discovered Reich's activities at an sexology seminar, allegedly organized by Reich. A source, published after Sharaf, gives ample evidence that realiy was quite different: this seminar was founded and organized by Otto Fenichel. Reich attended it and there he became acquainted with the work of Freud... 
I added the source, but I think it is not necessary, not even advisable, to leave it for ever -- even if someone may "challenge"  this historical fact. The same applies to my deletion of the word "unprecedented" (which was BTW not sourced). Fenichel was 22 when he became member of the Viennese Psychoanalytic Society. Both young men, as important their professional work was, were never members of anything like Freud's "inner circle".
--Nescio* 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining a sourcing I recently did 

message: I noticed that both of you did a tremendous ammount of editing today of Wilhelm Reich.  I think that if you both continue to work together understanding that you are both trying to create an excelent article, you will succeed.  I hope to see an article evolve that all parties are happy with.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Editing 

message: I cannot accept Slim Virgin's proposal of writing separately two articles, for the following reasons:
* We already tried out a similar procedure with the lead and Einstein sections – it did not work.
* I already invested a lot of time for this article – with little avail. I won't write the whole article, because the predictable result will be that Slim Virgin deals with it as she did before with most of my contributions (see the numerous reverts, beginning at 30 May, and the reluctance to bring forward reasonable arguments on the talk page).
* I don't believe that a third person, who gets his or her knowledge on the topic from the two articles alone, will be able to "merge the best of each of our efforts" with a good result.
For the best of the article appears to me a proceeding as follows:
We agree for the time being on the scheme I proposed here (because it's nearly canonical for any account on Reich)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Proposal_of_a_new_structure_of_the_article
Slim Virgin writes the chapters as she proceeds with her study of Sharaf's Reich biography. 
My job would be to comment, name additional sources, correct if necessary, and amend new research results Sharaf, writing around 1980, didn't know.
--Nescio* 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't my proposal that we each write a draft; it was the mediator's. I take issue with your claim that you've invested a lot of time in this article; you've added almost nothing, but have mostly deleted material I've added or reverted to an intro that was POV and sometimes hard to understand. The two-versions suggestion is fair and is the only thing that will work, as far as I can see. Anyway, it would be interesting to see what you would actually come up with. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: Daniel, the problems with Nescio removing material s/he doesn't like continue. She has even removed a post of mine from the talk page, with an edit summary I don't understand, but which I think means she couldn't see the point of it.   (The point of it was to explain to other editors why I had removed the DOR disambiguation link from the Reich article.) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to agree to that. I'm waiting to hear whether Nescio agrees too. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Daniel doesn't need to have background knowledge of the subject matter. He's a good editor who understands our content policies. He'll look at both versions and will judge the writing, the sources and how they're used, and the relevance of the material, and then he'll merge the best parts. It'll be a lot of work for him and it's very good of him to suggest it. I think we should accept and put the dispute behind us. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as your proposal, I am reluctant to accept it because it seems to give you the final word.  I think that it would be best if a neutral third party produced the final draft of the article.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nescio, part of what it is to be a good editor on Wikipedia is to be able to work with unfamiliar material. In fact, it's sometimes editors who aren't immersed in a subject who produce the most encyclopedic work, because they have less investment in it. Our aim is to produce a well-sourced NPOV article for readers who are not familiar with Reich, and Daniel is offering to be that first reader; that puts him in a good position to judge which parts of the two versions would be most helpful to the general reader. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By all means continue your own rewrite with the new structure in your draft. I'll do the same. That's the proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems continue