Talk:Wilhelm Reich/Archive 1

message: The Wilhelm Reich page is badly biased.
----
It seems that the really important part of his work - published early, left to the enlightened Humanity and not controlled by the extremely conservative board in charge of the rest of his work, and even some early work that was re-written later on - simply isn't here and that is as close to tragedy as one can get in cases such as this one...
Mass Psychology of Fascism, his early work on Orgasm and so on, with the original terminology unchanged - that is the crucial contribution to Humanity, opening up the social psychology field...
Pros, get on it, please... ;) :)
----
I get really disgusted when I read scientists talk about Wilhelm Reich.  I do not make my living by science, although I am familiar with the scientific method.  And I do not have an opinion on orgone energy and all of that stuff one way or the other, I've read a little bit about it, but have not done the experiments, seen if it is reproducible, read the case against it and so forth.  Being as I have not looked into it in great depth, I concede that it is possible that Reich made errors in his scientific work.  Which is not devastating - Einstein punched major holes in Isaac Newton's work, and he is still viewed with respect - going down blind alleys is not where the glory is, but it does help science as people can say "we examined this and see little worth to it, so examine the other areas first".  To reiterate, I know a lot about Reich's political side and little about his scientific side and how his scientific theories panned out when looked at by the wider scientific establishment, and I have no opinion one way or the other about these scientific theories since I know little about them.
Conceding that it is possible Reich made scientific errors - so what?  What should the punishment be?  This man was hunted by the Gestapo after writing a book castigating them.  Then he came to the United States and he was jailed by the US government and died in jail, and his work was, can you believe it, burned by the US government!  Do these scientists think Newton should have been jailed for not mentioning relativity in his laws of motion?  I find it disgusting how scientists look down their noses and mock this person who was hunted by the Gestapo, thrown in prison by the US government and died in jail, and his work burned by the US government.  And this a man who was an assistant to Freud.  What are these people advocating, anyone who is suspected of making a scientific error should be arrested by the Gestapo and sent to the death camps?
I am really disgusted by this mocking tone adopted towards Reich.  This man fought the Nazis, and was hunted by the Nazis, and he deserves respect.  I can barely believe what happened to him when he came to the US, it's one of American history's more embarassing episodes.  Saying that the scientific community has come to conclusions which are not in his scientific work and so forth is fine.  But adopting the tone of the Gestapo which hunted him is really sick. -- Lancemurdoch 08:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: "Reich designed orgone "guns" called cloudbusters to suck DOR from the sky. It has been claimed that they can be used to manipulate the weather and to create rainstorms in a process called weather engineering. According to some accounts, the government of Eritrea financed several such projects in the 1980s and 1990s in order to change the weather in the region." (article as of 2 Nov 04)
According to which accounts?  This statement seems somewhat unlikely on the face of it and definitely needs verifying.  For a start there was no "government of Eritrea" as such in the 1980s since Eritrea didn't become independent till 1993.  Also, scientific methods of producing rain (cloud seeding) had been in use since the 1940s and 50s. - Flapdragon, 2 Nov 04
I agree. I think thart this article shouldnt be categorised under science. Reich may have had a scientific education, however we pirmarily remember him for his countributions outside any standard framework of science. We chiefly associate Reich with orgone research, which was never peer reviewed nor was it conducted in any process resembling science. Salimfadhley 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "orgone guns" and "weather engineering" 

message: Clearly there are some strong opinions regarding Reich and his work.  While that's okay, these opinions (for or against) shouldn't be inserted into the article. Statements such as:
:: "His scientific discovery of 'orgone energy', 
::and various experiments with the orgone energy 
::accumulator, which have been confirmed by various 
::scientists in both the USA and Europe, even while 
::the professional 'skeptics groups' in the USA 
::have repeatedly misrepresented that evidence, 
::or tried to deny its existence."
show a strong and argumentive bias without citing sources to support this statement.  Sources from skeptics should also be presented if the skeptics are mentioned. A link to articles is required here so that this work can be verified (as reminded in every edit window). 152.163.100.8 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Opinions 

message: I have studied Reich's orgone research for over 30 years, and assembled the on-line Bibliography on Orgonomy.  I did personal research with the orgone accumulator and cloudbuster, published that work under tha auspices of universities and governments, presented this research subject at all kinds of academic forums and scholarly societies, and conclude that the hostility to Reich's orgone energy theory, and against the scientific evidence supporting it, is purely anti-scientific scientism.  The super-critics who always attack Reich's orgone energy research, I say, suffer from total bias and exhibit phoney scholarship of the worst sort.  The attacks against Reich's biophysical work is often being pushed along by people who have a vested interest to try and mis-portray Reich as having "deserved" to be imprisoned, to have his books burned, and so on.  They often are associated with the organzied "skeptic" groups, who attack all kinds of alternative medicine, and give the appearance they are "in the pockets' of the drug companies.  Or, perhaps they don't want to see any kind of alternative medical approach be successful.  it does not matter.  A genuine scienitst must personally investigate what he or she criticizes, before making the critique.  So I ask the critics of Reich's orgone research to moderate their tone until they have investigated!   I have read virtually all of Reich's original publications, including the "banned and burned" ones, and now put a good list of these publications on the web page.  Will they now just erase them? To make it easier to claim that such work "does not exist", just as they claim the orgone energy "does not exist", in spite of many good experiments? 
I have read all the published verifying experiments, from the Journal of Orgonomy, Annals of the Institute for Orgonomic Science, Pulse of the Planet, Emotion, Lebensenergie, and other journals.  I have read the various academic dissertations and theses which further support Reich. It is an excellent, and quite remarkable large body of positive supporting evidence.  There are many such published experimental accounts.  Hundreds in fact.  What do the "skeptics" have to offer in the way of published negative results on orgone experiments?   NOTHING.   None of the "skeptics" who publish bad words about Reich's biophysical work have ever undertaken even ONE experiment.  They are "armchair experts" who do no work, only criticize and censor, and then sit quietly when books are burned.  
I challenge anyone to make a citation, to the work of anyone, which presents details of any experiment giving negative results, by which to contrast and undermine the many, many published accounts with positive results.  As a practicing scientist and former university professor myself, I can make this challenge because I know the literature, and know what has and has not been done.  So I ask everyone, to stop with all the bad words about Reich's biophysical work, calling him a "quack" or claiming orgone research has "no support" or is "psuedoscience" and so on, because these hard criticisms cannot be supported scientifically.  In fact, it is the critics of Reich who behave like psuedoscientific quacks, because they do no experiments, do not read the literature, and speak without full knowledge.  No genuine scientist acts that way.  And in fact, the heavy weight of scientific evidence is on the side of Reich.  
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
http://www.jamesdemeo.org
:  Here you go: http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index.htm?/harrer/ha_001e_.htm
: Will you stop messing up this article now?  (BTW and article -supporting- any theory on wikipedia is biased by definition, this article should do nothing more than explicate)  Kev 22:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too long?  Funny, it's just a wee bit shorter than the article on the albatross...Soft helion 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Supporting Reich's Biophysics is NOT biased. 

message: I admit I know very little about this man and whilst he may not be a completely credible member of the scientific community, it seems unneccessary to use a picture of him which makes him resemble a lunatic.  If there are any pictures of him taken on a day in which he did not attempt to comb his hair with a combine harvester, I move that they be posted instead.  Wencer 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Picture? 

message: I've been asked elsewhere why I reverted to the old intro. There were a few reasons: first, it seemed unnecessary to include details like his joining a psychoanalytic society. Second, calling him one of the most innovative etc is POV if not attributed. Third, it's not clear what's meant by "the basic anthropological view of man" and it's being "covered" by his political activism. Fourth, I don't know what cold exclusion is as opposed to hot. Fifth, did he realize he was in danger on precisely Jan 30, 1933? Sixth, the detail about character analysis is meaningless to most people and therefore inappropriate for the intro. Seventh, "illnesses due to disturbed" etc: sounds like we're endorsing that view, and anyway it's odd English. That's not all but these are some of my reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to intro 

message: Since it is backed up by reproducable experiments it cannot be considered as pseudoscience. I'll therefore better remove that category. Der Eberswalder 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in what reputable science journal can we find the results of these supposedly reproducible experiments?  Haven't the claims actually been repeatedly falsified (no detectable health benefits, etc.)?  Where is the peer review?  Where are the functional devices based on these claims?  The theory is decades old and we see no progress towards practical application.  That seems to fit the definition of pseudoscience to me.  Please provide some information about the reproducible experiments you are referring to.  --71.242.104.138 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pseudoscience 

message: What exactly is the objection to the link removed in the edit with this cryptic summary? Surely what matters is the content of the source linked to. What's the URL got to do with it? Flapdragon 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rm disguised whale.to link" 

message: Dear Dr Wilhelm Reich, wherever or whatever you are now, please listen to my words: during early 1980s (when i first read about your theories on Larousse Encyclopedia) I tried to discover more about your studies, and after less than a decade, though I was just a University student in Maths and Physics, I got familiar with Psychology and Medicine; this background helped me to understand your works, I studied on my own some of your books and some other scientists' books relevant to your theories. Thank you: I've been able to win the pain in my life and gain a (sort of deistic) faith in the Universe and in the Humankind. Thank you: now I can understand the whole matter behind the "secrets" of Science that Governments want to hide. Thank you: I look almost 20 years younger now, and it seems that I deserve to be offered an opportunity for a new life. skysurfer 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THANK YOU !!! 

message: I could not figure out the reason why there was such a link, and no mention is in the article. Deleted. --Giocov 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelson-Morley experiment? 

message: Hello Slim Virgin,
I just wanted to write about the fact that WR was educated out of religion tradition.
That mean free of religious education.
I think that information bring some enlightment to that singular character.
That knowledge is displayed page 905, on "Dictionnaire de la psychanalyse" by Elisabeth Roudinesco, and Michel Plon.
She is historien, docteur ès lettres, directeur de recherche à l'université de Paris-VII, vice-presidente de la Societe internationale d'histoire de la psychiatrie et de la psychanalyse, psychanalyste.
He is directeur de recherche au CNRS (Centre National de Recherche Scientifique), membre du Centre de recherche universitaire psychanalyse et pratiques sociales de la Santé, psychanalyste.
It is probably not very well written, english is not my native tongue, I am french.
So long ;)Yalla 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Yalla, I have no problem adding that he was an atheist if that's what you want and if you think it's relevant, but we'd probably need more details of what is said exactly in the Roudinesco/Plon work. Just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they're necessarily religious, and your edit implied that usually it did. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Technical: 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.84.140 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkwind 

message: 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Wilhelm_Reich#Question_on_state_of_mediation
I'd like to see other users giving their opinions here.
--Nescio* 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A long standing revert war 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nescio, do not remove properly referenced, relevant material. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of a new structure of the article 

message: There are numerous errors in detail in the article; they cannot be listed here. Some of them are already exposed in the talk page. Still more important is the inappropriate structure of the article. See talk page for a proposal for a new structure.
--Nescio* 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anybody around there who cares about the Reich article ? 

message: Twice I've added in a request for citation for the declarative sentence: "Frank Zappa was also influenced by Reich's work." Twice it has been reverted. May I inquire what is the basis for this reversion? If a citation is not forthcoming, then this is OR and should be removed. Thoughts? Therefore 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why revert a request for citation for the Frank Zappa reference? 

message: This article contains no picture of the subject. A Google Image Search revealed a lot of photographs 
of Reich. But I am not able to understand which is copyrighted & which is not. Can anyone help? TathD 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has added one, and also uploaded it to the Commons, where it says it's a free image. I'm wondering how we know this, given that the tag says the author is unknown. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded it from a web site that publishes all its material under GFDL. There are URLs on the image page documenting this. __meco 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you know that they own the copyright? They can't release something they don't own, or that wasn't released elsewhere. Some of these websites don't check their material very carefully, or at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured this to be their problem. Of course if we investigate this we may find that they make a claim which is untrue. I'm not sure that we need to do this. This is, by the way, a photograph that seems to be rather widely diseminated. __meco 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's our problem. We don't have to investigate every claim, but we do need reason to believe an image has been released, and we currently have none. The website doesn't even say explicitly that this image is free. It has already been removed from this article as a fair-use that is easily replaceable. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote to the Reich musuem a few weeks ago asking for an image, but they didn't respond. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Wilhelm Reich 

message: In the end of this "re-enactment" video there is a mention that Reich stated in his will that his unpublished papers were to be unsealed in 2007, 50 years after his death.  Does anyone else have any information about this?  When it has or will happen and the like?  Thank you.
Youtube link to video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8L3tKddZFic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.141.165 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reich papers to be unsealed in 2007? 

message: I originally entered the following on April 16:
:Theologian Robert S. Corrington also emphasizes Reich's unusual thinking power in his 2003 Reich biography. He had an almost unparallelled ability to synthesize knowledge from vastly diverging fields "simultaneously maintaining several seemingly incompatible conceptual horizons in one expanding categorial and phenomenological space, while also making continual reconstruction and reconfigurations that correspond to an expanding phenomenal data field."Corrington, Robert S., Wilhelm Reich: Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2003, p. 98. Corrington asserts that while Freud at best could work out one or two categorial horizons simultaneously, "Reich [...] could hold a number of horizons in his mind while reshaping each one under the creative pressure of the others, [...]producing a rich skein from the game stragies of (1) transformed psychoanalysis, (2) cultural anthropology, (3) economics, (4) bioenergetics, (5) psychopathology, (6) sociology, and (7) ethics."ibid. p. 106
This was severely trimmed to the point, I feel, that the significant elements got lost in the process. Perhaps this segment is too long for it to be in the introduction, however, I'd like a version of this that is closer to my original one than the current bland mention to appear somewhere in the article. __meco 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrington stuff should be better presented 

message: 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
Reich used the cloudbuster to conduct dozens of experiments involving what he called “Cosmic Orgone Engineering (C.O.R.E.).” One of the most notable occurred in 1953. During a long drought that threatened the Maine blueberry crop, several farmers offered to pay Reich if he could bring rain to the parched region. The weather bureau had forecast no rain for several days when Reich began his cloudbusting operations. Ten hours later, a light rain began to fall. Over the next few days, close to two inches fell. The blueberry crop was saved, and in local newspaper articles the farmers credited Reich.
http://www.wilhelmreichmuseum.org/biography.html  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.233.181.193 (talk) 02:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
I think throwing dynamite in the air would've worked just as well, and has just as much scientific evidence as a Cloudbuster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.26.57 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Reich, nor the CORE teams that reported on cloudbusting after Reich's death, published comprehensive records of their success rates with cloudbusting.  Instead, nearly all successes were reported, but almost none of the failures were reported.  Without knowing the success rate of cloudbusting vs. the rate at which such weather changes occur on their own (without cloudbusting), it is impossible to determine whether a cloudbuster works or not.  --Rogermw (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloudbuster 

message: It seems strange that there is no reference in the article about the existence of The Wilhelm Reich Foundation and The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust and its trustee Mary Boyd Higgins.--Orlando F 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it. :-) Sincerely. -- Yalla 09:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to The Wilhelm Reich Foundation 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: Wilhelm Reich was into crowd psychology as you can see in the bibliography of the article. The Mass Psychology of Fascism was one of his most important works. --mms (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That book has nothing to do with crowd psychology. __meco (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed in the bibliography of the article crowd psychology. See yourself! This topic has bothered Reich in other works, too. For example Listen, Little Man! (1948) and The Murder of Christ (1953). --mms (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowd psychology 

message: The article claims that "a double-blind, controlled study of the psychological and physical effects of the orgone accumulator was carried out by Stefan Müschenich and Rainer Gebauer at the University of Marburg and appeared to validate some of Reich's claims", and gives references to a paper in German. Are there any German-speaking editors who can comment on the status of the journal in which it was published or, better still, have access to the paper? I ask because one quite often sees papers being cited to support pseudoscientific claims when, on examination, the papers have little or no relevance to the claims being made. LeContexte (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German studies 

message: If I try to edit the page (I'm not adding any link) I get this message 
"cannot be saved as it contains a link to a site which is on the spam blacklist -lulu".  I can't personally find the link to lulu- can someone spot it and remove it? special, random, Merkinsmum 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed.  It's definitely not on the page.  I'll ask an admin to fix it.  --Karuna8 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, it's fixed. --Karuna8 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam somewhere? 

message: I originally entered the following on April 16:
:Theologian Robert S. Corrington also emphasizes Reich's unusual thinking power in his 2003 Reich biography. He had an almost unparallelled ability to synthesize knowledge from vastly diverging fields "simultaneously maintaining several seemingly incompatible conceptual horizons in one expanding categorial and phenomenological space, while also making continual reconstruction and reconfigurations that correspond to an expanding phenomenal data field."Corrington, Robert S., Wilhelm Reich: Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2003, p. 98. Corrington asserts that while Freud at best could work out one or two categorial horizons simultaneously, "Reich [...] could hold a number of horizons in his mind while reshaping each one under the creative pressure of the others, [...]producing a rich skein from the game stragies of (1) transformed psychoanalysis, (2) cultural anthropology, (3) economics, (4) bioenergetics, (5) psychopathology, (6) sociology, and (7) ethics."ibid. p. 106
This was severely trimmed to the point, I feel, that the significant elements got lost in the process. Perhaps this segment is too long for it to be in the introduction, however, I'd like a version of this that is closer to my original one than the current bland mention to appear somewhere in the article. __meco 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Robert Corrington's overall assessment of Wilhelm Reich intellectual prowess has been removed without the consideration for the possibility of making this a communal decision. I can agree with SlimVirgin's position that the lead was too long. Her opinion that Corrington is a marginal figure with respect to being a source for this assessment of Reich is something I feel ought to be discussed, as I have previously encouraged. Robert Corrington's psychobiography is not a work to be taken lightly, in my opinion, and I would be intrigued to read the rationale of someone who would assert that. I believe the above should have its place in the article. __meco (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrington stuff should be better presented 

message: Hi, I'm a different user than the person above, but I just wanted to mention that the Gansevoort Incinerator (where Reich's books are said to have been burned) is not on East 25th Street or the Lower East Side (and, as a side note, East 25 st. is not in the Lower East Side, it's in Midtown), but there is a Gansevoort incinerator (now defunct) on Gansevoort Peninsula on the West Side of Manhattan just south of 12th street, in Greenwich Village. I didn't change it because I wasn't sure where Reich's materials were destroyed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.2.156 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas of possible improvement in article #2 

message: The image :Image:Cloudbusting.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Cloudbusting.jpg 

message: Is it correct that there was an injunction in Reich's written will that all his unpublished papers should remain locked down until 2007? I read about such being the case in a text file accompanying a downloaded version of Man's Right to Know. __meco (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injunction in Reich's will expiring in 2007 

message: The link to Roger M. Wilcox' critique of Reich's work as one of the external links seems to me to be a poor choice. Reich was one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century. We shouldn't have to rely on unknown persons' self-published opinions and/or analyses of Wilhelm Reich. I haven't read Mr. Wilcox' work, so for all I know it might be very good. I'm raising this question on principle for the sake of how we generally pick appropriate external links for Wikipedia articles. __meco (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to self-published critique 

message: "Dr. Morton Herskowitz" appears 3 times in the article.  The first is a redlink, the other two are plain text.  Better they all red links?
59.92.55.167 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Morton Herskowitz links 

message: Didn't Reich's dad shoot his mom's young lover?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.127.139 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reich's Dad Killed his Mom's Lover 

message: i uploaded the Wilhelm Reich´s signature in the infobox, but will find the way to put a better quality version... If someone can help, please, do it. Sorry any inconvenience... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Reich´s signature 

message: It is striking that probably the most scholarly of all Reich biographies has so far not been used in the writing of this article. I attempted to introduce some salient opinion on Reich's analytic faculties in earlier edits, but these were removed by SlimVirgin. I cannot request that another editor should read up on any particular potential reference material, however, with the extensive guardianship she has offered this article, I could perhaps suggest, again, to SlimVirgin that Corrington's biography be evaluated again for its potential of being a rich and valuable source for this article. __meco (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Meco, thanks. I've ordered Corrington's book. I removed your edits before only because they were taking up a lot of words in the lead, but not adding much information, and the lead is such that every sentence has to say something substantive. That doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome Corrington's material in the body of the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the book very stimulating, and specifically Corrington's way of analyzing Reich's psychological development, its fortes and shortcomings, was quite interesting. It was higly recommended to me by Erik Grønseth before he died, and I think it would be great to have some of it reflected in the article. Unfortunately I lack sufficient momentum to make me contribute to this article much - or evaluate your efforts. Still it's great that it receives care and attention on the scale that it has lately. __meco (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been needing attention for a few years, so I decided to try to get it in shape. Length is a problem already, and this is mostly just his bio, so we may need to create more sub-articles to describe his work properly. I'm definitely looking forward to reading Corrington's bio. Thank you for recommending it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You would also want to read Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy written by my great grandfather, Ola Raknes. It has been praised for its eminently available style and Raknes was indeed famous for his ability to popularize scholarly subjects for the lay audience. Also, when it comes to describing Reich's work, we should have an article on sex economy which is the theoretical doctrine upon which both character analysis and subsequent orgonomic therapeutic modalities are based. I developed an exhaustive article for Wikipedia a couple of years ago that was deleted, however, I have maintained a copy at this location if you wish to study it. I definitely consider it required reading for gaining a thorough understanding of the psychological mindset underlying all Reichian and neo-Reichian therapies. __meco (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fascinating that you're related to Raknes. Your article is very good, and it's a pity it was deleted. As they said on the AfD, it was because you'd written about the essay, rather than about the topic, using the essay as one of your sources. Would you be willing to do a rewrite? If you're willing, I could post the article on a user page for you to work on, then perhaps others could join in with the editing, if you didn't object. I would just need to check with the deleting admin that he didn't mind, as a matter of courtesy, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and respect the reationale for its previous deletion. I have been considering doing what you propose, however, to me this. just like the present article, is subject matter which I am able to get into only when I feel an extra sense of incitement. For that reason I have not seen myself getting into a process of building a decent Sex economy article for this Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough. If you should change your mind at any point, please let me know and I'll transfer it to a user subpage for you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Corrington material deemed fit 

message: Many years ago I read somewhere that Reich said he was uncircumcised and was proud of it. So far I have not been able to track down that source to check properly. Given the fact that his parents were Germanized, assimilated Jews and that he was not given a Jewish religious upbringing (meaning: he didn't go to the yeshiva) it is quite possible that he was spared the trauma of neonatal circumcision, also. As a doctor he was an opponent of genital mutilation.—Ana Bruta (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Reich was uncircumcised? 

message: Would someone who has Passion of Youth please check the veracity of this edit? No disrespect is intended to the editor who added it, but it's a little-used account and an arguably contentious edit, so it's sensible to check it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for trusting.—Ana Bruta (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Sharaf's Fury On Earth (p. 49), it is mentioned that one of Reich's early self-analyses describes his first sexual intercourse as occurring at eleven and a half, but Sharaf does not elaborate much further, except to suggest that Reich may have taken literary liberties to push the date back.  --Dynaflow babble 05:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for trusting 2.—Ana Bruta (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Dynaflow. I've edited the text to make it consistent with Sharaf, p. 49. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharaf's book appeared in 1983, Reich's Passion of Youth in 1988. Reich wrote eleven and a half, Sharaf says this too, and, without source, Reich had told others thirteen.Thus we should not give Sharaf as a source in this place. Reich's explicit statement is sufficient.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nescio* (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source request 

message: There is two films on WR, where can i put them ?
*  Wilhelm Reich - 'Man's Right To Know' Orgone Orgonite Energy
*  Wilhelm Reich and the Orgone Energy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.92.112.46 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two films on WR 

message: Given how controversial the man was during his life, this biography is an impressive bit of work. However, I found it disappointing because I was looking for information on Reichian therapy which redirects to the biography. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, maybe that redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page leading to Bioenergetic analysis, Vegetotherapy, etc.  Thoughts?  --Dynaflow babble 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds to me like an excellent solution. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It shall be done.  --Dynaflow babble 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, Reichian therapy and the newly-created Reichian psychotherapy both now point to Reichian therapy (disambiguation).  That page has links for Wilhelm Reich himself, Bioenergetic analysis, Vegetotherapy, Body psychotherapy, and Neo-Reichian massage.  Are there any other articles hiding out that might also be useful to include?  --Dynaflow babble 03:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've been able to find.  However, I did redirect Reichian to the the disambiguation page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  impressed and disappointed 

message: I just deleted Reich's signature in the box, because it is definitely not authentic. 
You find an authentic signature e.g. in Reich's book Contact with Space, 1957, p. xxii;
or a copy of exactly this signature in the German book on Reich
Bernd A. Laska, Wilhelm Reich, Reinbek: Rowohlt 1981, 6th ed. 2008, p. 128
--Nescio* (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reich's Signature not authentic 

message: What is going on in this article? Reich's "orgone" claims are quintessential pseudoscience, but the reader receives the impression they have validity or, at best, are disputed. The article amounts to an unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory, contrary to WP:FRINGE. LeContexte (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problem 

message: Roger, this request is a little odd. Are you suggesting that perhaps he did believe the effects of his accumulators could be attributed to a placebo effect? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that thus far, I have never seen any writings of Reich where he so much as mentioned the placebo effect.  I would like to see a specific source (a page in The Cancer Biopathy, perhaps?) where Reich explicitly claimed that the effect could not have been placebo.  --Rogermw (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger's citation request 

message: The article states "study of Reich's work has been hampered by the instruction he left ... even scholars, were not able to access them until 2007". But the article tells nothing that was studied from his work for over three years thereafter nor the reference "Sharaf" is appropriate without clarification because respective Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page without one fitting context. It would be desirable to reveal here. SorkinY (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference you're referring to is the one that reads "Sharaf 1994, p. 6.".  There is no Wiki link in that reference at all, let alone a Wiki link to a disambiguation page.  There doesn't need to be one.  It's standard citation practice to use the last name of the author by itself, when referring to the same work cited in an earlier citation.  In this case, the earlier citation is to Fury on Earth by Myron Sharaf.  --Rogermw (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work opened after 2007 

message: Peter Reich, Wilhelm Reich's son, in his "Book of Dreams," wrote about the "Corps of Cosmic Engineers," a group Reich started that would go out and do battle with UFO's (which Reich called 'Ea's,' or, 'Energy Alphas') using Cloudbusters. He thought UFO's used Orgone energy to power their ships. Wilhelm Reich wrote that he believed that UFO's had been observing him since 1951, and he wrote about dozens of battles with them using his cloudbuster in Arizona in 1955. Reich wrote extensively about this in his book "Contact With Space." 
How come none of this is mentioned in this article? 
--PurityOfEssence (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corps of Cosmic Engineers 

message: Chemical analysis about the death of Wilhelm Reich by FBI. Read it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34413175/w-reich-fbi-http-fortunadrago-xoom-it-main
Results of examination: presence of Formaldehyde (a colourless, odourless and flavourless poison)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ste92k (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know how valid this is?--Gulpen (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: This article doesn't use citation templates, and I'd appreciate if that could be respected, per WP:CITEVAR. Using templates in an article of this size would eventually slow down load time. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: Hi BR, I'm going to remove the comment you added here. It serves no purpose for other editors, and it's acting almost as a badge of shame for that source, though the host and the source material are separate issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible comment 

message: Minor style issue, but we're meant to ask on talk pages before changing these things. I'd like to start writing the date formats as day-month-year, because it means fewer commas. If anyone objects, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by all means, feel free.--Gulpen (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats 

message: It seems this article was written in American English, with mdy dates. How did it get switched over to its current state? --John (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the dates after checking above that no one minded, and the spelling wasn't consistent so I plumped for the one I'm most comfortable with. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the conversation about dates; where was the spelling discussed? --John (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR issues 

message: Just noting here about this edit, where I added the semi-protection tag, that it was a slip of the hand. I had the article open in edit mode, when I dropped something into the keyboard, and in digging it out I must have hit one of the protection tags in the toolbox at the side of the edit window. I only noticed it when I made the next edit. I didn't actually protect the page. Apologies for any confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection tag 

message: The above exchange (and similar exchanges at the orgastic potency article) might be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of WP. WP is a tertiary source, and our articles summarize the best secondary source material on any given topic. We can use primary sources to fill in the gaps, to clarify, and to correct the secondary material where it's clearly wrong. But overall we are answering the question: "What do independent secondary sources say about Wilhelm Reich?" Not -- "what did Reich say about himself," or "was he right?", or "what do his followers say?" We might add bits and pieces that answer those questions, but only as dessert, never as the main course. Even though we know the secondary sources are often relying on Reich's words, we still want to summarize how they viewed the material, because we want Wikipedia to remain at arm's length from it.
David Boadella isn't a scientist and he seems to be a Reichian, so his book isn't an independent secondary source for the points in question. I don't object to it being used for anything uncontentious, but for something as contentious as Reich's views about the origins of life being confirmed, we would need a high-quality, entirely independent, and appropriate secondary source with lots of in-text attribution. See WP:REDFLAG. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is it the purpose of Wikipedia to in every possible (minor) way misrepresent or unduly discredit Wilhelm Reich's work. Yet that is the trend thus far.--Gulpen (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of Wikipedia

message: I thought it might be a nice idea to include in the margin some of Reich's quotes in the course of the article. A quote I found that would nicely complement the sex-pol section:
"Sex politics must therefore proceed from the question: Why is human love life suppressed?" (Reich, W. 1986 [1936] The Sexual Revolution, New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux: "Preface to the Second Edition (1936)", xxiii).--Gulpen (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: SlimVirgin, can you please stop removing my insertion of Daniels' count of Reich's books and articles? He is a professor of psychology and published about Reich before (see Being and Caring: A Psychology for Living). Certainly for such uncontentious material this passes WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not citing a blog but academic lecture notes.--Gulpen (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniels 

message: Just noting that I've restored the previous works section, because the one that recently replaced it seemed less clear, it wasn't obvious how "major works" were being defined, and the formatting was inconsistent (e.g. dates with and without brackets and in different positions). SlimVirgin (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works 

message: Hi Geschichte, I've restored this link -- Theodor Thjøtta. Can you say what the issue with it is? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I use interlanguage links all the time; see Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Purpose. It would be better to have info on him than a red link, either a stub here or the interlanguage link. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *You've reverted again.  I've never encountered anyone objecting to these before. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, after I wrote the above, I saw you had created an article about him here. Thanks for doing that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Norwegian WP 

message: Several months ago I committed myself to improving the quality of the Wilhelm Reich page but I've been appalled to see how the quality of this page has significantly deterioated since then. It has reached such a low point now that I feel no longer any joy in a challenge to fix this page. One of the main contributing problems is the way in which Cristopher Turner's Adventures in the Orgasmatron has been used as one of the main sources giving this page its framework, content and taste. If Integrity is the absolutely most important attribute of a scholar, then Turner cannot be considered a scholarPlease let me give a few examples.
The following is a quote regarding one of many errors in Turner's book, as identified by Philip Bennett, who published, among others, The persecution of Dr. Wilhelm Reich by the government of the United State and Wilhelm Reich's Early Writings on Work Democracy:
As some of you know, the Wikipedia entry on Reich has been “updated” and what was previously pretty decent is now a travesty, thanks in part to Turner’s book, which is sited as a legitimate source. From the entry on Reich:
“The book [1927 Funktion] won him professional recognition, including from Freud, who in 1927 arranged for his appointment to the executive committee of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. The appointment was made over the objection of Paul Federn (1871–1950), who had been Reich's second analyst in 1922, and who declared him schizophrenic and a psychopath who slept with all his female patients. Reich found the society dull and wrote that he behaved "like a shark in a pond of carps."[35]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
When you look at footnote 35, you find:
“Sharaf 1994, pp. 67–71; for the quote, p. 73; for his appointment to the executive, p. 84. For Federn's view of Reich, see Turner 2011, p. 167.”
The footnote would lead one to believe that in Turner’s book we will find the source of the claims about schizophrenia, psychopathology, sleeping with all patients, etc.
Turner, p. 167:
The only reference to Federn on this page is the remark that “Federn also later maintained he had detected “incipient schizophrenia” during his analysis of Reich.” Nothing about Reich being a psychopath who slept with all his patients, etc.
And now the kicker: Turner’s source for this claim?  Sharaf, p. 194.  There is nothing on page 194 about schizophrenia; the phrase “incipient schizophrenia” does not occur. Sharaf does note Rado’s attacks on Reich’s reputation and Rado’s diagnosis of Reich as having gone into psychosis–nothing new here. But as for Federn, all Sharaf says is that “Prior to the 1930s, some analysts, especially Federn, had called Reich a ‘psychopath’.”  Sharaf gives no source for this.
So from an unsourced comment of Sharaf’s comes a fabricated distortion by Turner which turns into the source for an even more fabricated charge against Reich on what for many is their main source of information about just about anything, Wikipedia!
Another example from Bennett:
I’m fresh back from the Archives where, among other things, I was trying to determine how many books by Reich were sold in the States while he was still alive: i.e., the books published by the Orgone Institute Press and its other iterations like, Core Pilot Press, etc.  I think I now have the raw data and will write up my summary before long. 
When I mentioned this to a colleague in Berlin he said that Turner discussed book sales on p. 248 of his book.  Turner:
By 1947 the Orgone Institute Press was selling four to five hundred books a week, allowing Reich to boast that “‘everyone’ in New York is talking about my work” and that his writings were selling “like warm bread.”12 
The citation for this passage, endnote 12, reads:
Beverley A. Placzek...[full citation], Reich to Neill, 178.  Four of Reich’s books had been translated and updated to include his latest discoveries, and four issues of the International  Journal of Orgonomy had been published (p. 473).  
Every time I look carefully at Turner’s text I find further examples of his incredible sloppiness or willful misrepresentations.
Of course, the journal’s name was not the International Journal of Orgonomy but rather the International Journal of Sex-Economy and Orgone Research. (Elsewhere in his book Turner correctly cites the journal.)  But what about Reich’s claim that the Press was selling four to five hundred books a week?  From Reich’s letter to Neill: “Our literature here still sells like warm bread.  About 4-500 copies a month.”                                                
First: literature, not books–i.e., journals and books.
Second: a month, not a week.
Third: nowhere in this letter does Reich say that “‘everyone’ in New York is talking about my work.”  This phrase does not occur in any letter to A. S. Neill. Rather, it is from a journal entry dated 19 November 1946: “I have been told that ‘everyone’ in New York is talking about my work” (American Odyssey, p. 355). He is not boasting to Neill but recording privately, to himself, in his journal, what someone has told him.
Finally, the letter to Neill cited by Turner was written in 1946, not 1947. 
I have read through about two dozen such factual inaccuracies - rather, distortions observed by Bennett in Turner's book, some of which are really sad and unworthy of even a High School essay. If one is interested in seeing this list I advice him/her to contact Bennett directly. Apart from this I received lists from two other scholars. Moreover, I myself also encountered developed serious objections to Turner's book.
I have noted elsewhere my believe that even though Turner supposedly studied Reich's work for some seven years, he did not grasp one iota of the basics of Reich's theories. This is apparent from the way that Turner includes two major factual inaccuracies regarding the basics of Reich's work: orgastic potency and cancer biopathy. The first concerns, I quote Turner, "Reich considered his orgone energy accumulator an almost magical device that could improve its users' 'orgastic potency'" and, secondly, "He clamed that it [orgone energy accumulator] could charge up the body with the life force . . . that in concentrated form could not only help dissolve repressions but also treat cancer . . ." (Turner [2011] Adventures in the Orgasmatron, from Introduction).
Both these allegations are factually false. Reich did not claim the orgone energy accumulator could provide orgastic potency, and Reich did not claim the orgone energy accumulator could cure cancer. The invalidity and motivation of these inaccurate portrayals of Reich's work have been readily addressed by other scholars (See: Wolf [1948] Emotional Plague Versus Orgone Biophysics: The 1947 Campaign; Baker [1972-3] An Analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Scientific Evidence Against Wilhelm Reich; Blasband [1972] An Analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Scientific Evidence Against Wilhelm Reich; Boadella [1985] WR: The Evolution of His Work; Greenfield [1974] Wilhelm Reich Vs. The USA; Sharaf [1983] Fury on Earth; Corrington [2003] WR: Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist, p. 237-8;). Did Turner never read any of these sources?
But perhaps more importantly, did Turner never read Reich's work himself? Because apart from that it is impossible to support this portrayal of Reich's work with direct quotes, it is even possible to find passages where Reich directly opposes this interpretation. As I included on the Orgastic potency page:
"Reich maintained the opposite: "The orgone accumulator, as has been clearly stated in the relevant publications (The Cancer Biopathy, etc.), cannot provide orgastic potency."(Reich, W. [1950, April] Orgone Energy Bulletin 2(2), quoted in November 2011 Update From The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust and The Wilhelm Reich Museum) Likewise, in The Orgone Energy Accumulator, its Scientific and Medical Use, Reich wrote: ”Neuroses cannot be cured with physical orgone energy." (quoted in Gardner, Martin [1957] Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Courier Dover Publications: 256.)"
And regarding cancer, if Turner would have bothered to read even the preface to The Cancer Biopathy he would have encountered the following:
"I do not publish this book without serious concern, mainly that many readers of our literature will now assume that a cure for cancer has been found. This it not at all the case." (Reich, W. The Cancer Biopathy, xxv [from the original preface].)
Why is this so important? Well the vast majority of Reich's life work is summarised in (the scientific autobiography) The Discovery of the Orgone, and the titles of the two volumes of this work accurately reflect the significance of these two topics in the totality of Reich's life work. Vol. 1 is called The Function of the Orgasm and Vol. 2 The Cancer Biopathy. If you do not understand the concept orgastic potency, you basically missed the whole point of the first volume and, thus, out of necessity misunderstand all Reich's related developments that have the concept orgastic potency at their core (i.e. Character Analysis, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Sexual Revolution, Invasion of Compulsary Sex-Morality, Work Democracy and the Emotional Plague). If you do not understand the concept of cancer biopathy, you out of necessity misunderstand Reich's theory of orgone energy and his work after 1940. With such fundamental errors about the basics of Reich's work Turner is unlikely to have been able to judge the validity of anything anyone (including himself) ever claimed about Reich's work.
Those doing sincere research into Reich's work have been disgusted with the many basic errors present in Turner's book. This is not to deny that Turner also did some good and new research for which he may be congratulated. Only we are now at a stage that overall Turner's work must be considered as lacking "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCES).
As a kind of closing statement, I hope therefore to encourage whoever will work on this page in the future to remove all references to Turner's book where it concerns Reich's life or work, with the only exception being where Turner writes about the social and cultural impact after Reich's death, thus drawing a clear line between the facts of Reich's life and work, and what has become part of popular culture, what Turner's work deals with.
It is on the measure of integrity that sources such as Boadella's or Corrington's are superior to Turner's work.
;Reichians
Moreover, several times on these talk pages related to Reich's work, the word "Reichian" has been used to imply that a source is not reliable, such as in the case of Boadella. However, languange is power, and I increasingly get the impression that this word is used in an inappropriate fashion.
What does being a 'reichian' mean? If someone studies Reich's work for 20 years, does that make him/her a Reichian and, therefore, an unreliable source regarding Reich's life and work (orgonomy)? If so, it would inversely mean that Richard Dawkins, having studied biology for, say, 50 years, is not a reliable source regarding biology? Please, wikipedians, use this word with great care. Rather, don't use it at all, for it is meaningless (Following this logic, one could go as far as argue that non-Reichians cannot be considered reliable sources.)--Gulpen (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources, Turner 

message: Though I have spent months preparing a renewed bibliography of Reich's work (See: Talk:Bibliography and User:Gulpen/Bib) and humbly submitted a somewhat final version last November, it has been reverted without any reason just a month later.
SlimVirgin reverted back to this old version before, giving as reasons that formatting was inconsistent and that it was unclear how major works was defined. Even if the formatting was inconsistent and it was unclear how major works was defined, SlimVirgin reverts back to a version where matters are worse in both apects. The old selection of works  is completely random. Why do twelve early articles make up a quarter of the total works section? Why is Die Entdeckung des Orgons Erster Teil: Die Funktion des Orgasmus listed as a 1942 publication in German while, though the manuscript was finished in 1940 in German, it was first published in English in 1942? Etc. etc.
I fixed all of this with my new submission and adopted a uniform and format I.e.:
(Original publication year) Original title [translation]
*English title (First English publication year)
Moreover, I provided full information regarding original publication years, publishers, revised titles, later publication years on User:Gulpen/Bib, and have noted this in the Talk:Bibliography discussion page. Yet, instead of using all this information to make further improvements, SlimVirgin again reverts the whole section back to the old version (By the way, this reminds me of similar behaviour displayed regarding Daniels).
Let me clarify the selection criteria. Of all secondary literature that I have read about Reich, there is one book only that deals with the totality of Reich's work and does so in a more than satisfactory manner: David Boadella's (1985) Wilhelm Reich: The Evolution of His Work. At the end of his book (p. 384-387, Boadella includes a selection of about 30 works that are most important to the evolution of Reich's thinking and experimental research and this list has been used by me in return. By now I'm completely fed up with working on this bibliography and I hope someone else has the decency of putting all my efforts to use. I have shortly pasted all my work on the bibliography here, so that it doesn't get lost.--Gulpen (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography/Work