Talk:Orgastic potency

Now let's promote this new article at DYK

Let's find an eloquent blurb for this article and nominate it for a show at WP:DYK! __meco (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great idea!! I would be very happy if you could do the procedure, etc., but I will gladly help with the text. How about: Did You Know:

• ... that the vast majority of people suffer from orgastic impotence? It's catchy for sure!
• ... that orgastic potency is the ability to completely experience and surrender to the involuntary, pleasurable convulsions at the climax in sexual intercourse? That may be an easier candidate..--Gulpen (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first one is viable because mainstream science and medicine in particular would contest that there even is such a thing as orgastic potency. There would need to be some qualifier for attribution. The second is much too long. There's a 150 character (spaces included) limit on lenght. __meco (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one was a joke rather :). But I checked and the second one is exactly 150 characters (excluding "... that").

It is also possible to use Reich's later terminology, although that may be a bit confusing:

*... that orgastic potency is the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion at the acme of the genital embrace? (120 char.) --Gulpen (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It has now been nominated, see Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 16. __meco (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requires sub-section on concept pleasure and sensation

Under central concepts should be added some of Reich's work on the The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety. This is now partially included in the criticism section, but should instead/also be part of the main text.--Gulpen (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

As yet I'm unhappy with the amount of criticism. I'm confident that it must be possible to find more criticism about this specific concept - I mean serious criticism, not superficial misinterpretations. Additions or suggestions here are welcome!--Gulpen (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that a realistic expectation? Hasn't mainstream science for the most part dealt with Reich by ignoring his work or cursorily dismissing it without scientifically investigating it? __meco (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not a bad question.. However, there is quite some literature on Reich and I had hoped that at least one person took a serious critical look at his theories. (Sharaf certainly wasn't all positive about things Reich in his Biography). There are also many post-Reichian followers, institutions and journals that could provide this.--Gulpen (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel increasing objection to including Wilcox work as a source: he makes too many basic factual errors in his writing - apart from it being a self-published source. I selected what I thought were the only potentially valid arguments - some of which he remains the only source for. What to do?--Gulpen (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Censorship of Reich's work"

This is the name of a section in the article. Why? I cannot understand that this is a topic that should be discussed separately in this article. __meco (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The important phrase here is "...including work related to orgastic potency." Rephrasing the section to 'Censorship' should better cover the intent (namely that the censorship relates back to the title of the article). The 'Reception' & 'Censorship' sections were intended to point out that work about orgastic potency has been affected by this banning and these campaigns. However, the rest of the paragraph in 'Censorship' may be a bit random and generic rather than specifically written about orgastic potency. I lack enough knowledge to write it much more specific. Still do you think having that section is justified?--Gulpen (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the references to DeMeo.--Gulpen (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think the snippet you left in should be removed as well. Since the concept of orgastic potency, i.e. the orgasm reflex and the function of the orgasm, is at the core of all subsequent developments of Reich's research and therapeutic interventions, this is of course what his detractors more than anything else cannot accept, although they often provide vicarious arguments for their objections to his work. Without identifying these mechanics, and I think that would be difficult given the available source material, I don't think this issue, could well be discussed in the present article. The current text discussing reception based on Elsworth Baker is fine, but I find the jump to censorship unwarranted here. __meco (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think that makes sense. It's removed now.--Gulpen (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fringe written as fact

This is completely discredited stuff -- all of it. Written as if it's, well, accurate. So I've tagged it. The article should be redirected to Orgone, which deals with this insanity from the point of view of scholarship, or to the article on Reich himself.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that tag. You should either nominate the article for deletion (or merging) or be specific in your grievances. Your sweeping characterization of the entire topic is not constructive and makes no basis for improving the article. And from your post above you don't seem at all interested in improving the article, you just want to have it removed. __meco (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mysticism masquerading as fact. A really poor job of it. I'm just trying to give the poor suckers that stumble across this some warning.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what that template's for. Unless you want to address the problems as you see with this article in an appropriate manner according to WP policies and guidelines you should find some other area to occupy yourself with. __meco (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You've got my attention now. This article as currently written presents a mystical theory by a discredited researcher as if it's fact. I'm beginning to wonder if a little walled garden is springing up again. Will think on the best course of action, but it's clearly non neutral at the moment. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I offered at the Did You Know nomination to rewrite the article as a relatively brief exposition of Reich's (and Reichians') views. Unless you want to take it to AfD, Bali ultimate, I still think that's the best thing. I have no particular desire to do it myself, and the article's creators declined the offer. But I do think it's notable, and I'm still willing to do that. I'd have done it this morning to provide another base point for discussion, but have been working on an off-wiki task (and it's now past my bedtime so I am not at my most coherent). What's the feeling at this point - should I put that time in tomorrow and/or the day after? or is there anyone else who knows more about psychology who might be willing to rewrite it? Or is the general feeling here that it's unsalvageable as a topic even if presented neutrally? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the current text as unsalvageable, and it is basically a fork of "orgone energy" aka Orgone, Reich's grand theory. But if you want to take on a top to bottom rewrite, I'll help out a little, and certainly support the attempt.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. Next steps include: condensing repeated references using ref name; seeking non-Reichian scholarly mentions to improve the referencing and to make the Reception section more compelling; dealing with the citation needed template (and possibly other points in the article that need more support from references; quite possibly reinstating details I removed (such as the entire description of the ideal sex act) and/or removing further details that I left in. I did not examine the references as I wrote, but merely incorporated them into the new text, so the paraphrasing also need to be examined for overly close wording (including places where I may have inadvertently rephrased something too close to the original where the earlier article wording had avoided that). I would also like, for the sake of completeness, to have more about Reich's focus on heterosexual vaginal sex, what he said about masturbation, and modern criticisms of the heteronormativity (a word I don't often use, but if this is linked from the Main Page as it is now, there are sure to be many, many criticisms of that aspect). And anything else required by good practice on a medical topic. (I removed the prescriptions for dealing with the specific male and female sexual problems since Wikipedia does not provide therapeutic advice. There may well be more that should be either rephrased, omitted, or explained in modern terms from that point of view.) But otherwise of course - simply feel free to edit this version. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is truth in Bali ultimate's statements that Reich's 'orgasm theory' is not "fact" as defined by general scientific consensus. However, all the details and other comments made by Bali ultimate show how little s/he knows about Reich's work. Reich's orgasm theory evolved and was presented a decade before he made any inquires into what he termed orgone energy. His concept orgastic potency is based, as I indicated, on Reich's psychiatric and psychoanalytic work. As I also indicated, Reich's interpretation of 'neurosis' as caused by a stasis in libido energy is in full accordance with Sigmund Freud's own, original psychoanalytic theories. Reich simply elaborated on that. Hence, your claim to simply discredit Reich's 'orgasm theory' because of the status of his orgone work, would be the same as using the status of orgone energy to discredit Freud's theories! Only after Reich thought he discovered orgone energy did he re-interpret his 'orgasm theories' from the viewpoint of orgone energy. Still, he himself always presented his 'orgasm theory' from the original viewpoint, not the orgone variant.

I'm also not impressed by Bali ultimate's simple claim that orgone is "completely discredited stuff -- all of it," etc. etc. Yes there are several sources claiming his work is discredited. However, I, for one, after months of research have NOT found even a single academic source where Reich's work is discredited: no single reference is ever made to where such discrediting would have actually taken place! Just to be very clear on this: I'm not implying his orgone theory is valid, I'm just saying that as far as I could find it is factually incorrect to say orgone is "completely discredited stuff". Increasingly I get the impression that the academic world has almost not engaged with Reich's work, and that claims about the status of Reich's work are simply continuations of the many politically motivated "media campaigns" against his person and his work (read: in particular as fueled by the Nazis, Soviets and US govt against his The Mass Psychology of Fascism). Hence, writing on this topic is a very delicate endeavour and I'd really like to ask editors to contribute and comment on the content only if they really first familiarise themselves with Reich's work which, for example, Bali ultimate seems not have.

A few comments regarding Yngvadottir's work. I found sources for the missing "Malinowski" citation. Also, I had tried earlier to find more about Reich's views on heteronormativity, but have been unable to find an explicit discussion of this topic (though he implies it in every possible way). A description of Reich's views on masturbation are available in the archive. I would indeed like to see some of the description of the "ideal sex act" to be re-inserted, as the conceptual difference between orgastic potency and impotence - during intercourse - becomes clearest in the contrast between that experience and the experience of the sexual disturbances. Regarding the references, however, I'm quite unhappy to see you completely changing the referencing format. I thought the general rule was to conform the the first referencing system used in any given article and I clearly adopted one uniform system. Now I'm facing difficulties. For example, I made a commitment on the DYK page to include page references and though I readily admit that I have been very slow to live up to my commitment, I now feel unable, because (I believe) it is not possible to repeatedly use "ref name" with different page numbers at each instance. I invested much time in choosing the most ideal referencing system for the way in which I made use of the sources in this article.

I have not found the time yet to check the new text - and I have only very little time now. However, I will be able to contribute more actively in the near future. At any rate I am very happy to see other editors engaging with the article!--Gulpen (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Bali Ultimate again. I would much prefer someone other than me to add coverage of characterizations of orgastic potency from non-Reichian psychologists, both because I don't know the field and because I don't have adequate library access (including no JSTOR). From the search I was able to do, it appeared that it has been discussed more than I had expected. But on things like the heteronormativity and the dismissal of masturbation, it's not Reich's views that are needed, but those of non-Reichian scholars, in particular from recent decades. Feel free to re-change the reference format; one of the reasons I changed it was my own limited time - using templated references adds hours to my working on a long article - and to make it more evident how many sources were being used. If you now have page numbers to add, that will result in breaking up some of those repetitions of the same reference; and since I can't see the academic articles that need to be added, someone else is going to have to add them anyway. I hope my rewrite clarified that the topic is notable and made it easier to get a grasp of its outlines (including its relation to Freud's work and to teh later development of orgone theory). I'm sorry if I introduced inaccuracies; feel free to revert some of my rephrasings, but I do not think the lengthy characterization of the sex act is worth including. Highlights in the context of making points (or of criticism), maybe; but WP is not a how-to guide and the article does not need to be lengthy; readers can consult the sources for the details. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no non-Reichian psychologists interested in this rather kooky non-thing. The failure to achieve a tautologically defined "full" orgasm is not, in fact, a cause of neuroses. The "vital energy" stuff (a non-measurable thing since it is non-existent) is particularly fun. I don't care about reference formatting and have no expertise in that area. Gulpen is an advocate for this fringe belief, so is unhappy with a rewrite that improved this article (which is still problematic).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are non-Reichian psychologists interested in his work. I just yesterday came across and read Pietikäinen's 2007 Alchemists of human nature, for example. Whether libido/"vital energy" is a real energy or should be used merely figuratively here is a discussion which belongs to the orgone article rather than here, because, as I explained above, the non-validity of orgone energy need not invalidate the concept orgastic potency. But the fact remains that Freud himself proposed 'aktualneurosen' as neuroses caused by 'actually' frustrated libido, which he originally defined as a physical energy. To give you another relevant quote of Sigmund Freud: "The uninitiated can hardly believe how rarely normal potency is to be found in the men, and how often frigidity in the women, among those married couples living under the sway of our civilised sexual morality" ("Civilised sexual morality and modern nervousness" in Collected Papers Vol.2: p 69.). Also, please refrain from calling me "an advocate for this fringe belief"; I am merely doing as critical as possible research on Wilhelm Reich's work. If you too are sincerely interested in the 'facts' about orgone, then I cordially invite you to send me the references (e.g. on my talk page) on which you base your conclusion that either orgastic potency or orgone is experimentally falsified, so I too can learn about that.--Gulpen (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pietikainen? bzztt... try again. Pietikainen is a historian (not a psychologist) who has written about Reich as part of a failed, utopian movement in American life in the early 20th century. Here's an abstract from another of Pietikainen's articles on Reich: "While pointing out that Reich's orgonomic theories have no scientific merit, this article argues for the relevancy of his ideas for understanding the nature of utopianism in dynamic psychology." Let me reiterate, there are no non-Reichian psychologists who take any of his ramblings seriously, and certainly not this obscure one. You are here to do advocacy. "experimentally falsified?" I wonder if you know how science is done. The very definition of a theory is that it can be falsified. "Orgastic potency" can't be falsified, because it posits a thing ("vital energy") that can not be measured. It is not science at all. You are here to advocated a discredited set of beliefs. No matter. There are many like you at this website. For the sake of anyone who wanders along, I'll quote a psychiatrist who lectures at Johns Hopkins from this [1].

"Recently, I came across The Function of the Orgasm by Reich (1973), at a yard sale. For only twenty-five cents, who could resist it? It is one of many books by this charismatic and controversial man. Up to that point, I had never read anything by him, and I thought that his bizarre movement had faded away. I was sorely mistaken. A semi-autobiographical work, first published in 1940, the book describes the development of Reich’s career and his thinking over the previous twenty years, from Vienna to his early years in the U.S. He was a psychoanalyst who was recognized for his work on character analysis, but he quickly became impatient with merely verbal therapy. His book describes a departure from psychoanalytic technique in the form of a hands-on “character-analytic vegetotherapy.” Reich’s advocacy of such beliefs and practices led to increasing conflict with his analytic colleagues, and he was expelled from the International Psychoanalytic Association in 1934. He had been expelled from the German communist party a year earlier.

Although Reich’s strange theories have no scientific validity, Reich himself should interest psychiatrists and psychologists as a case study. Reich claimed that “orgone” treatment could cure mankind of social, political, medical, and psychological ills. He claimed that it was the solution to everything from totalitarianism and war to psychoneurosis and cancer. He also called it orgasmotherapy, because he believed that frequent genital orgasms are a goal of treatment and the key to good health. It is said that he caught syphilis while practicing what he preached, but this claim is unproven. Reich claimed that the function of the orgasm is to discharge energy particles called orgones, thus maintaining a balance of vital forces. According to Reich, this approach led to dramatic therapeutic results. From there, he went on to develop his orgone theory.

...According to Reich (1973), “biological energy is atmospheric (cosmic) orgone energy” (p. 381). Orgone energy is found throughout the universe and flows from the sun to the earth. The earth’s atmosphere is charged with orgone energy, and clouds, thunderstorms, northern lights, and other atmospheric disturbances are due to imbalances in atmospheric levels of it. Microscopic, blue vesicles, which Reich called “bions,” are charged with orgone energy and are essential to living cells. Reich (1973) even claimed to have seen them under the microscope. Although bions are “developed from inorganic matter, they propagate like bacteria” (p. 383). Orgone energy seems to be the basis of life, but can be toxic in excess, according to Reich. As with atmospheric disturbances, human mental and physical disturbances are due to imbalances in orgone levels. A healthy balance of orgone energy is achieved by absorbing orgones from the atmosphere and discharging them through frequent genital orgasms. Character armor is one of the causes of orgone imbalance. Besides mental illness, orgone imbalance leads to such things as sexual impotence, dictatorship, war, and cancer

... Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas. There is an increasing degree of overlapping and blending of orgone therapy with New Age and other therapies that manipulate the patient’s “biofields,” such as Therapeutic Touch and Reiki. “Biofield” is a pseudoscientific term often used synonymously with “orgone energy.”

... To avoid further trouble with the FDA, disclaimers are used, but the message still emerges that the boxes possess therapeutic value for a wide variety of physical and emotional problems. One can also buy Orgone Accumulators to treat diseases of pets or to help one’s garden grow. Purchasers are warned to avoid orgone overdose. The label reads: “Warning, misuse of the Orgone Accumulator may lead to symptoms of orgone overdose. Leave the accumulator and call the Doctor immediately.” I suppose this warning tells us that even placebo reactions can be toxic."

This is not science.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of these mentions are evidence that the the topic is notable. The critiques need to be in the article, in the words of historians and writers about psychology, rather than of you and me. Please add both of these. I didn't rewrite it so it could be my version, but as a starting point; what it most needs now is non-Reichian evaluations. Both of these count, and I did see some in articles when I searched on Google Scholar - but I can only see the abstracts, so I didn't add any. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

none of the outside views on "Orgastic potency" address it outside the context of the rest of his discredited and metaphysical grand theory. Gulpen appears to be a true believer. [2]. Science weeps.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Bali ultimate drop the rhetoric and simply address the issues of the article as they pertain to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. As for the opinions of a "psychiatrist who lectures at Johns Hopkins," but whom otherwise seems in no particular standing to present a scholarly critique of Reich's work, the subject of the present article in particular, Gerald D. Klee himself diminishes his own authority as anything other than a cavalier debunker as he promulgates several urban legends about Reich, apparently for no better reason than to spice up his superficial critique. For instance, anyone with more than a casual acquaintance with Reich's theories will simply roll their eyes at Klee's awful misapprehension of Reich's orgasm theory of which he paraphrases "that the function of the orgasm is to discharge energy particles called orgones, thus maintaining a balance of vital forces." __meco (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Look. There are no, none, non-Reichian psychologists or doctors who believe that human orgasms have something to do with magical "bione" particles (magical because they do not exist) or who study "Orgastic potency," which is fancy way of referring to his belief that a special kind of (also not measurable) orgasm is central to human physical and psychological health. Accredited institutions do not teach this stuff, and that needs to be the lens through which all of Reich's beliefs are discused. And "Scientism?" Good lord. It is not an ideology to demand people grapple with the observable natural world as it is, and to keep metaphysics out of rational inquiry.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I can sympathize with it being cathartic to be able to vent your frustrations at the folly, as you see it, of people like Reich and those who find credence in his work and theories, I will again request that you begin focusing on the problems as you see them, of this article, with respect to Wikipedia's guidelines. You are currently verging on a WP:NOTAFORUM infringement. __meco (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a fringe set of beliefs completely discredited by mainstream scientists. All of the writing on this stuff (as "science") is done in the Reichian walled garden, completely outside the modern academy. It's wikipedia policy to present things from a scientific point of view. I understand you may be unhappy with that. So it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 13:54, August 30, 2012‎ (UTC)

Dear Bali ultimate, Reich most certainly designed and conducted several experiments to test several hypothesis about the existence and nature of a possible sexual energy (read: not orgone) - and its relation to the orgasm. You can find some information in the first chapter of this book available online: The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety. Regarding Reich's expulsion, you might want to read-up on the reason for that. Your other comments are about orgone energy which, again, I pointed out twice now, is only of relatively minor relevance to the concept orgastic potency and the discussion of which should really take place on the Talk:Orgone page. If it is true that "none of the outside views on 'Orgastic potency' address it outside the context of the rest of his discredited and metaphysical grand theory," then it shows that these sources have not understood a yota about Reich's work, as it is as simple as the difference between the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Finally, yes, I have built an Orgone (hence, irrelevant here) Accumulator - is that a crime? Your accusation that building such a device makes me a "true believer" shows you are biased against rather than that you approach this in a scientific manner. How can one possibly test some of Reich's claims without one? I, at any rate, prefer to see proof with my own eyes. But the whole of this is irrelevant, because I can state here that I have not yet tested any of Reich's experiments.--Gulpen (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify the 20s, 30s, 40s remark: orgastic potency was based on the idea of a sexual energy or instinct in the body, a theme that covers Reich's work up until the 'Bioelectrical Investigations'. Only later, when he thought he was observing radiation around "Bions" did he postulate "orgone radiation", and only again later, after different experiments, "orgone energy" as a universal energy. Those two fields of research, bodily "energy" and universal energy, can be valid or invalid independent of each other. Hence, please, stop bringing orgone in the discussion here.--Gulpen (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

However, that does not imply that orgastic potency is "fact". Bali ultimate may still have some point if rephrased as: "theory written as fact". My initial aim, however, was to present the concept, the theory of orgastic potency as accurately as possible, and I myself already indicated that sufficient criticism of the concept is lacking. You are cordially invited to join that discussion and recommend some articles critically dealing with orgastic potency, or add it to the text yourself.--Gulpen (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that his crazy, unsupported theories, got progressively crazier and more elaborate as he aged.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I just came across a 2010 PhD study verifying Reich's bio-electric experiments. There is a very very short English summary at the end. Perhaps this is of some interest to Mr. Scientist (just joking).--Gulpen (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Yngvadottir, regarding "quite possibly reinstating details I removed (such as the entire description of the ideal sex act)," I now inserted a different summary, which I think should really be left in the article, because it is so important for grasping the meaning of orgastic im/potence in contrast with concepts like "in/ability to have orgasm" or even "clitoral/vaginal orgasm". I made several other edits and have one big further improvement on my list (Boadella has a very useful section discussing the reception of orgastic potency). Afterwards I'll clean-up the references mess now created. I want to please note though that I think you did a pretty good job at summarising. I was very hesitant at first sight because you omitted so much from the lead, but I found on further reading that you re-inserted that elsewhere. By the way, there is probably still quite some (or I am creating now) opportunity for further summarising. You are more than welcome to give that a shot whenever you feel like it. I'll stay around to check for details.--Gulpen (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Premature DYK rejection

User:David Eppstein has intervened in our DYK-promotion effort and boldly closed the discussion with the edit summary "Boldly closing the discussion. Any further attempt at revisions now is so far past the deadline as to make the DYK deadline rules meaningless." Although I concede Eppstein's argument that a decision on this nomination is painfully lingering, I have protested his intervention at his user talk page. There are two main grounds for my appeal, and consequent request for a mandate here, at the article's talk page, to reopen the DYK nomination (as the {{DYK top}} instructions provide for). The first reason is our ongoing, constructive process of improving the article to the required standard, despite one user's filibustering activity of raising a wall of text absent any actionable suggestions for improvement. The second, more significant reason I want to present is the early intervention and sustained enterprise by User:Yngvadottir, a veteran of DYK affairs (as it would seem by my cursory assessment), in making the requisite changes needed in order to pass the article for DYK. And it follows from this that Eppstein, who has not been part of the process relating to the present article, ought to have either consulted with Yngvadottir or simply left the matter in her capable hands (not necessarily for a decision on the nomination in which she has invested herself considerably, but rather for a would-be signal from her that the process had come to an intractable impasse). Bottom line: With meco, Gulpen and Yngvadottir actively engaging in constructive efforts to surmount any remaining obstacles towards passing the article for DYK, the exceedingly long time it has admittedly taken to get us this far ought not impulse an arbitrary abortion of this process. I therefore move that we should reopen to DYK nomination and finish the article's preparation. __meco (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see it make it to Did you know, yes :-) For one thing, we don't have many psychology or sexology-related DYKs. However, the fact the community made me an admin gives me no special managerial standing. I imagine someone could equally boldly reopen the nomination, but more than one person has said it's taken too long; and Drmies is also an admin, and PumpkinSky has been around DYK a lot longer than I have and is a former admin. I thought of putting in what I could find in the way of non-Reichian scholarly comments to meet the end-of-August deadline Drmies suggested, but as I have said, I have neither the knowledge of the field nor the library/database access to make it a good idea for me to add that material. GoogleScholar tells me there is some, and gives me minute quotes that I then cannot see in situ, and that's not good enough. The best person to add that dimension to the article is Gulpen - who has said they are too busy right now. If you could do that, Meco, or if someone else were able to do so (including Bali Ultimate) then I would propose a really simple hook like "... that according to Wilhelm Reich, lack of orgastic potency led to neuroses?" I'm more than willing to copyedit and to help make any further cuts/structural changes required, and I can help find us another reviewer, but do you and Gulpen want to - and are you able to - put in the time and effort, including keeping the article brief and accurately reflecting what are likely very dismissive outside views, to justify sticking our necks out and reopening this for someone to pass a new judgment on? The psychology wikiproject is very inactive and it appears this is not going to find expert help from them, so it falls to you two as nominator and co-writers. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm fully committed and will have more time very soon. Does anyone have access to these psychoanalytic journals?--Gulpen (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about one of these?

Alt 1: "...that in the teachings of controversial psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, orgastic potency, defined as the capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union, is a measure of health?"

Alt 2: "...that in Reichian therapy, orgastic potency, defined as the capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union between male and female, is a measure of an individual's health?"

Alt 3: "...that orgastic potency, in the teachings of controversial psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, is a measure of the individual's capacity to fully surrender to and experience orgasm in the sexual union?"

__meco (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'd take Alt 1. --Gulpen (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've been asked to weigh in again here and to consider offering support. Unfortunately at this point I think it has to be moral support only. Gulpen didn't have time to rewrite the article earlier - this happens on Wikipedia - and is still working on it. That pretty much fits with the assessment made by more than one editor at the DYK nomination that it had just taken too long. Again, that happens on Wikipedia; it's a volunteer project, and sometimes one just can't move fast enough to meet DYK expectations. If you want to petition to the editor who closed it, and/or raise the issue at Wikipedia talk: Did you know, the article needs to be ready, and the leaner it is, the better, and the briefer the new suggested hook is, the better, IMO. Instead I'm seeing expansion and a return to long hooks. From the point of view of the slim chance of persuading people it's DYK-ready, those are not helpful; in terms of making a more informative article, they might be, although there is always the danger that others have raised here, of seeming to advocate for the approach. I tried to tighten it up and get it over the DYK hurdles by making it a barebones summary; I'm glad to see Gulpen now realizes I didn't throw out so much as he/she had originally thought; but the article ran out of time, I'm afraid. And still isn't re-edited to Gulpen's satisfaction. So my feeling is, it's a pity, but in this case there just wasn't time between off-wiki commitments and DYK's mission of showcasing new work. I won't counsel against trying one or both avenues to getting the nomination reconsidered, but I think realistically the time for doing that has passed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Meco, just noting that Bali is correct about these edits. They fall under our definition of original research because they combine sources to give an impression that the authors did not intend to give. That is, the authors you're using to discuss premature ejaculation were not discussing, and did not intend to support, Reich's ideas.

It's sometimes legitimate to add these asides to inform readers of background, but it should only be done when it's not contentious, and when there's no risk of misleading the reader. But in this article, the addition of mainstream scholarly sources who were not discussing Reich might tend to mislead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted Bali before reading your post. I quite disagree with your assessment of the effect of having this information, sourced to medical authoritative references, appear the way Gulpen added them to the article. Yes, very stupid readers are going to see a peer-reviewed (I'm assuming) journal among the article's references and think that must mean this topic has mainstream support. For all that are not exceedingly blunted it remains however very apparent that this information, insidence (or is it prevalence) of various forms of sexual dysfunction, does not opaquely conflate with the subsequent discussions which in both cases begin with "According to Reich". I find it absolutely intolerable that contextually relevant mainstram statistics should be attempted purged from an article because its topic is a non-mainstream therapy or theory. Also, I believe as you refer to original research you do in fact mean original synthesis, which I also cannot concede being the case in this matter. I'm more than willing to hear your elaboration on your previous post and response to what I have just written. __meco (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "Slim Virgin." What you find intolerable as you seek to push pseudoscience is neither here nor there.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Meco, the edits were a variant of SYN in that they combined sources (American Urological Association in 2004 and Reich pre-1957) that were discussing different issues within different contexts:

About 21% of men experience ejaculation within two minutes. According to Reich, ejaculation soon after penetration prevents sufficient concentration of excitation in the penis and therefore renders complete discharge of the excitation impossible.

The synthesis gave the impression that 21 percent of men suffer from a lack of orgastic potency -- that Reich's ideas apply to that 21 percent. If you want to include research about premature ejaculation, you would need a reliable source that refers to it within a discussion of Reich – a source that combines the material the way you want to combine it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Having ruminated upon this for a couple of hours I can soften my categorical opposition somewhat. I remember having read a guideline which did use an example similar to the present case (can't find it now though), however, the significant difference would seem to be that with this article, the alleged synthesis is not used to give added authority to the other information. That I believe is the key issue. I have two questions for you. The first, if the Reich sources contained reference to statistics on prevalence of these conditions, say from 1935, that referenced official, undeniably RS sources, would it then be ok to have it included? The second question, if, rather than using a scientific journal, the statistics was referenced from e.g. an article in Time magazine, would that have lessened your objections, since this obviously wouldn't have the previously discussed effect of "spicing" the prose with tangential (contextural) information referenced to high-authority sources? __meco (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the second question first, no, it would make no difference whether it was a news item or an academic source. The issue is that a Wikipedian is making the link between the subject matter of source 1 (21 per cent of men suffer from X) and the subject matter of source 2 (Reich's theory of orgastic potency). No reliable source has been presented that makes the same link. That makes it original research.

As to your first question, yes, if Reich or any other source discusses those conditions while discussing orgastic potency, you can include it. You just have to be careful to make sure it's not misleading, i.e. be careful not to reproduce old science or bad science without signalling that in the text. It can be tricky to do that without engaging in OR again, which is why articles like this need some careful writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents here. A) please note that reliable statistics of anything related to orgasms and sexuality basically did not exist when Reich wrote most of this material (ie. before Kinsey and Masters&Johnson). At that time, therapists that paid attention to sexuality, like Reich, probably had a better idea of the prevalence and absence of such phenomenon in society than anyone else. (Also, lets not forget Reich delved through many case files.) B) even nowadays there is no consensus on a definition of e.g. premature ejaculation, but the standard definition used is 'ejaculation under 2 minutes'. Thus, C) the challenge is what to do when Reich writes, say, 'premature ejaculation, very common among men, ..', where "premature ejaculation" = the definition, and "very common" = the statistic. The point is here simply to clarify what "very common" would roughly mean. Even clarifying that it is "under 2 minutes" in a standard definition is of value here.

Also please note that the interest of that whole section is primarily to understand that Reich defined potency very different from the mainstream view, with major consequences for what would be considered sexual health on the level of society. Here the 'size' of the statistic could become important - and in this I can somewhat understand Bali ultimate's point - because it explains why Reich's criticism of society would still be of contemporary relevance, i.e. even after the sexual revolution...Though I'm not sure whether this adds to or subtracts from the validity of this theory.--Gulpen (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Minor issues

1. Why is the information about heterosexual marriage being the all-encompassing context for this teaching in the lede? And without any further discussion it would even tend to baffle the reader.
2. When listing the different names Reich used for the energy he believed he had identified (in the section Background and theory), the word "life" (in parenthesis) appears following the word orgone. Surely, "life" and "orgone" were never synonyms, not even for Reich? He did use the separate term "life energy" I believe, so why not list this independently? __meco (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first: not only is it factually wrong in a strict sense ("marriage" was surely NOT part of orgastic potency, though this could be replaced by something like "union"), it is also very misleading to focus on the actual intercourse, because orgastic potency first and foremost is a measure of a psychological capability ("is having the ability to..."). I have therefore removed it for now. Regarding the second: the order I have in my mind is now: libido, bioelectric, biophysical = orgone = life. However, I am not very familiar with Reich's later work, so feel free to make changes as you see fit. But the main reason for including ("life") behind orgone is simply to very shortly explain what it means to a new reader.--Gulpen (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

3. Another item in the lead I'm having trouble with is the implication that orgastic impotence, in orgone theory, leads to physical illness. Did Reich relate the two directly in this way? For sure that is not written anywhere in the article. I think it is more important to explain impotence is used as an indicator of the health of the whole personality, both in psyche and soma. I changed it to reflect these views.

To return to the 'heterosexual marriage' - rather "sexual union between male and female", or as Reich put it the "genital embrace" part: it could be of relevance in the lead in the context of Reich's view that the contact-ability of person was part of orgastic potency. The importance of this was clear from the 'detailed description' of orgastic potency, but that was removed. I changed it now, though I'm still hesitating very much because of the reasons I gave earlier.--Gulpen (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to vital energy

In the third paragraph of the second section, Background and theory, the term vital energy is used. If one links to this and follows the link it becomes apparent why this is an unfortunate term to use in connection with Reich. If the referenced source, Ellsworth Baker, indeed uses this term within the framework of Reich's theories, so be it, however, I suggest this is not a preferred term among followers of Reich. Instead I will suggest we replace it with "energy housekeeping" which is used by Raknes in his essay on sex economy (currently cited as footnote #12). Also "energy metabolism" is a synonymous term which I think is used in Reich's theories, although I don't have a reference for it. __meco (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think energy housekeeping or household is preferred here, because metabolism is again easily confused with a different concept.--Gulpen (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation request, but for what?

In this edit on September 4, Bali ultimate adds an inline citation request for the phrase "His last published definition of orgastic potency (original date unclear, published in 1961)". It is unclear to me, however, what exactly needs to be referenced according to the user. I would like to point out that the phrase continues past the inline tag and the sentence as a whole does have a footnote reference. __meco (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is merited, because the 1961 quoted definition of orgastic potency comes from a glossary in front of the posthumous published Selected Writings. It is not listed there where Reich himself first/last wrote this definition. I haven't come across it yet.--Gulpen (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you make that caveat explicit, there should be no need for an additional reference request. __meco (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The orgasm reflex

The orgasm reflex in my opinion merits an article of its own, unless it can be incorporated in the existing orgasm article. It certainly needs to be detailed in its four distinct stages and with it the characteristic flowchart which can be found in Reich's literature. In the context of the present article I find it specifically lacking without a distinct explanation and discussion of the orgasm reflex, as it relates to the free flow or stasis of the energy that is ideally released fully during the orgasm. And as part of discussing the orgasm reflex, the function of the orgasm should be explicitly and as lucidly as possible explained and defined. Any thoughts? __meco (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it probably merits a separate article. But I'm not quite clear about whether you want it to be part of this article or not. Also, could you please specify which flowchart you are referring to? (I presume it is in The Function of the Orgasm?) By the way, I just came across this article: having images similar to figures 14a, 14b and 15 there would be very useful to explain the orgasm reflex. I would have liked to include several of Reich's flowcharts on orgastic potency too, but direct copying to Commons is not allowed. Do you think that it is worth the effort to create graphs 'inspired by' Reich's? It seems almost impossible to make them any different from his.--Gulpen (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, simply copying charts made by Reich (the one I'm thinking of surely was in The Function of the Orgasm) will not be allowed until 70 years after his death, however, the charts should be easily duplicated. As for the images you suggest, I do not like them. I find them confusing. __meco (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And I do want it included in this article. Other central Reichian concepts that similarly I believe warrant their separate articles, but pending that should be considered for inclusion in the present article are "character structure" (i.e. genital vs. neurotic) and "muscular armoring". The latter is currently parenthetically defined as "chronic muscular contraction," however I believe that is much too cursory to imbue the minimum level of understanding a reader should have in order to grasp its encompassing ramifications in the context of Reichian theory. __meco (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they warrant their separate articles too - same applies to the sociology section. In fact, I was thinking that it may be better to split "the orgasm theory" and "orgastic potency" into different articles, at any rate that theory and the latter concept could be differentiated between a bit more clearly in the present article.--Gulpen (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate what I mean by extracting "the orgasm theory" from this article, please take a look at this: the human sexual response cycle. Perhaps that could be used as a model article for (the most important part of) the article "orgastic potency".--Gulpen (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know about that cycle, and Reich isn't even mentioned in that article depsite the obvious analogy to his model! That's an omission. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have not known about the human sexual response cycle? It's covered in various reliable sources and is often mentioned regarding sexual arousal/orgasm. There is no "obvious analogy to [Reich's] model" when it comes to the human sexual response cycle. Do read up on it; it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed. Further, it is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). It is not a theory or anything of the sort. All of that is why Reich is not mentioned in that article. Nor should he be, per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, except for in the See also section where Gulpen listed this article. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and "orgasm reflex" does not merit its own article; it is a fringe theory, for goodness sakes, even less significant than "orgastic potency." It should not be treated as fact, or as otherwise having as much weight as scientific consensus. It should only be mentioned in reference to Reich. In this article. You both really do need to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. I'm going to ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to comment on some of this. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)