Talk:Orgone

message: Isn't this just a load of pseudoscientific waffle with no solid evidence to back it up? I'm quite shocked at how biased the article is, and there's not even any flag to say so! Shame on you, credulous wikipedians. Gymnophoria (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a champion of the scientific method, why don't you put forth some scientific research which refutes the information in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.2.75 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little hard to find scientific research on something as pseudo as this.  Scientists have a lot better things to do with their time.--Petzl (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree. The only real hint that this is complete balderdash is found at the very bottom of the article: its inclusion in the Category of Psuedoscience.  I would think here should be some mention, in the first paragraph, that this is in no way accepted by the scientific community.  Calling orgone a "hypothetical universal life force" is way too charitable; compare this to saying the Higgs boson is [or was] a "hypothetical elementary particle."  One hypothesis is completely lacking in a substantial theory and methodology for testing of that theory, and one does not.--Petzl (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an inexperienced editor, but I'd like to help. What needs to be done to bring this article up to wikipedia standards? At a glance, I feel that the lede could be rewritten: that it is debunked by the established scientific consensus is in there, but maybe greater emphasis can be placed on the current scientific perspective than it currently is? Quietmarc (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok, sorry I messed the description at the end of the first paragraph as pseudoscience, but there's a whole lot of dubious stuff in here, spoken as if it were some kind of science. 86.147.131.172 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Also references 28,29, and 30 are either so obscure to be impossible to check, or are "The Orgone Accumulator Handbook," Natural Energy, 1989. This is being used to back up the claim that "Some psychotherapists and psychologists practicing various kinds of Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology have continued to use Reich's proposed emotional-release methods and character-analysis ideas". The idea that anyone can practice these fields using Orgone Energy is laughable given that it is pseudoscience.86.147.131.172 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Don't be daft. As you have been informed at your talk page, what you added was synthesis from rubbish sources, and I removed it. You need to read wikipedia editing policy regarding reliable sources WP:RS and probably a great deal more. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I initially deleted this on NOTFORUM grounds, but then noticed that there is an actual suggestion for improving the article at the bottom. But my attempt to read the rest failed because it was too boring and conspiracy-theorizing. Can you please try to give a valid and short reason based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV? Something like "everybody who disagrees with what I say is either an idiot or paid by THEM" does not cut it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: This page needs some work to make it clear there is no basis or purpose for the topic beyond idle amusement, and as such I removed a large portion of the rather bloated lede which had no purpose. A significant portion of it was rather heavily laden with excessive documentation which frankly only served to obfuscate the ability of someone to edit the article. I also discarded the section of it regarding the FDA legal issues as that was a blatant attempt at martyrdom right from the get-go. That particular story can be placed in the history section of the article.98.30.32.217 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These changes go beyond cleanup and seem a little excessive, I've reverted them for now. Artw (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This is an article that follows the sources and not your blog. Is "was an imagined" in the lede a proper summary of what the sources are represented as saying? Your opinion about the subject itself is of no more account than mine is. The sources and the article combine to place the subject in the proper frame for a reader who is not as dense as you seem to think they are. And apparently other editors are dense too if you are the only one not "obfuscated". Also, let me get this straight, you want to remove a section because you don't like the behaviour of the subject? Debouch (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up