Talk:Orgone

See also: Talk:Orgonite

Pseudoscience

Isn't this just a load of pseudoscientific waffle with no solid evidence to back it up? I'm quite shocked at how biased the article is, and there's not even any flag to say so! Shame on you, credulous wikipedians. Gymnophoria (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As a champion of the scientific method, why don't you put forth some scientific research which refutes the information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.2.75 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a little hard to find scientific research on something as pseudo as this. Scientists have a lot better things to do with their time.--Petzl (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only real hint that this is complete balderdash is found at the very bottom of the article: its inclusion in the Category of Psuedoscience. I would think here should be some mention, in the first paragraph, that this is in no way accepted by the scientific community. Calling orgone a "hypothetical universal life force" is way too charitable; compare this to saying the Higgs boson is [or was] a "hypothetical elementary particle." One hypothesis is completely lacking in a substantial theory and methodology for testing of that theory, and one does not.--Petzl (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm an inexperienced editor, but I'd like to help. What needs to be done to bring this article up to wikipedia standards? At a glance, I feel that the lede could be rewritten: that it is debunked by the established scientific consensus is in there, but maybe greater emphasis can be placed on the current scientific perspective than it currently is? Quietmarc (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is one of the most shocking on widipedia. For something so unscientific, the word pseudoscience has been pushed from the article (it used to be in the opening paragraph) to a category tag at the end, by people trying to protect their "Orgone Generators" on ebay, along with the interests of the American College of Orgonomy. Please don't let this be a safe haven where ex scientologists can come to flog a new product. 86.147.131.172 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The first mention of "pseudoscience" is now at the end of the (quite long) first paragraph. I am going to move it to the first sentence, as that is one of the defining concepts of this article.–Jérôme (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of biased opinions being expressed here. All approaches should be expressed even those outside the opinions of a biased editor. This is an objective document and not an editorial. Who ever removed the citations of the double-blind university studies replicating the effects of Orgone did this site and its readers a disservice Normana400 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Many fields of study and scientific theories seem to be incorrectly categorized as either a legimate science or a pseudoscience based upon it's marketability by those who own or run the world's industries. If the theory and studies reinforce the mainstream narrative and can be used to boost sales of the materials controlled by these entities it is called legitimate by well know to be corrupt and fallible institutions while adversely if the studies and theories presented are a threat somehow to these institutions power and marketability ultimately meaning their sales and profits it is labeled as pseudoscience and railroaded by the entrenched power elites. The veracity of any claims by any source should be questioned and verifiable yet when the "trusted" sources most often referenced are in fact owned and controlled by the same power elite circles and have a vested interest in shutting down certain fields of study and research that could result in loss of sales of the materials in the industries they have the control in then that makes me question the integrity of these "trusted" sources and I have great difficulty in crediting trustworthiness, honesty, or honorable intent to any type of Governmental Agency or the privately owned companies that lobby to and do business with governmental agencies. It is a fallacy for fools to trust the words or to give benefit of the doubt to governmental agencies or the companies catered to and by them when history as well as current events shows time and again irrefutable proof of widespread corruption and dubious intent for the words and actions taken by them. It seems like the "trusted" resources are more often than not the very ones that are guilty of spreading misinformation and making false claims. This obviously makes it extremely difficult to verify as valid any information without doing the research and performing the experiments for oneself. The government's have shown the people all throughout history that to they cannot be trusted to control what information is available and taught as a curriculum in academia or spread as news to the masses. Not once throughout known history has this ever turned out to benefit the majority over the few at the top. I believe referring to any theory or field of study as a pseudoscience as if it is an unquestionable idiocy to pursue the subject any further should be recognized as a red flag warning that the following explanation of information is very likely to be from a controlled source that is pushing the mainstream narrative and as such are highly questionable sources with next to zero credibility when it comes to complete disclosure of truth and unbiased information. similar to the saying "don't trust anyone who says trust me" anyone whom claims to share information in an unbiased manner is very likely sharing extremely biased information in an unbiased manner. When the label on a box says "made without child labor" the first thing I think is "these guys are enslaving children somewhere" simply because the only reason one would have for having that label on a product is if they are known to be guilty of such crimes already. Just pointing out what should be obvious and my point is this. More caution should be exercised in the definitions given here. Definitively labeling something as a pseudoscience is a dangerous precedent to set when so many things initially dismissed as rubbish and false information has proven overtime to actually be legitimate and beneficial to the majority and was being blasted because it revealed the less honorable manipulations of the few in charge. To keep the definition completely unbiased and factual it ought to read more like "has been labeled a pseudoscience" by such and such at these points in time. This is stating a verifiable fact whereas definitive labels are often not. BoriginalB (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Cleaning up

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

These changes go beyond cleanup and seem a little excessive, I've reverted them for now. Artw (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Corrections in Orgone article

Hello, I am trying to edit the information about Orgone as it is characterized as pseudoscience which is not. In my Edit Statement while trying to edit the article I typed the following: According to the two books of Wilhelm Reich about the discovery of Orgone, The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy (The Discovery of the Orgone, Vol. 1) and The Cancer Biopathy (The Discovery of Orgone, Vol. 2) there are evidences included such as calculations, photos and other various results like the thermal anomaly recorded in the Orgone energy accumulator. So the references stating that Orgone is pseudoscience are false. So I would like to remove them.

I have read both books and they are cosistant, full of evidences and proofs that Orgone exists. Also I have read the Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich and wanted to mention in the Edit Statement that there are many citations in Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine accepting and supporting the Orgone, but I could not type the last ones as there is a character letter limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focton (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Seven reliable wp:secondary sources say that it is pseudoscientific. For obvious reasons, any Reich source is completely irrelevant, and, by the way, merely a wp:primary source. Furthermore, if, from that source or from any source, you deduce that it should be called scientific because there are calculations, photos and whatever, then you are doing wp:original research and wp:synthesis — a big no-no on wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you do not understand that the seven sources are completely false in case you haven't checked them. And it is completely insulting to the scientist , who found such a scientific treasure ... Reich except that he took high resolution photographs of bions, had metered the thermal anomaly with geiger counter in accumulator and done experiments with plants and on cancer with 100% success, and discovered possibly the aether under certain circumstances while experimenting on bacteria... and after reading 3 books and official journals of orgonomy institute etc, just niah ... Focton (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC) ==

Hello @Focton:, Content on Wikipedia is based on what secondary sources tells about a subject as DVdm explained above. What we personally think about those sources is unfortunately not relevant. --McSly (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but it doesn't make sense and not the same is happening for example on Einstein theories, there "you" use the first sources because it's the Einstein... and it's not about what we think about the secondary sources the point should be if they are false or true, which in this certain case they are false ... I've searched a lot about Orgone, it was my degree work for university... anyway Focton (talk • 18:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you get a degree? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Focton: It is very simple: there is science, and there is pseudoscience. Wikipedia was designed with bias in favour of the former. If the mainstream scientific view labels something as pseudoscience, then Wikipedia will label it as such. By design. Please take your time to absorb and understand this design in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies: see, for instance, wp:FRINGE and wp:DUE. - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that most discussions on this page were and are concerned with the question whether orgone is pseudoscientific. May I just try to clarify the discussion for future edits? I think four things need to be distinguished:

1. whether 'orgone' is a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.

2. whether 'orgone' is regarded by the scientific community as a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.

3. whether 'orgone', if it is a scientific concept, has been proven or disproven experimentally.

4. whether such experiments are published in what wikipedia considers 'reliable sources'.

Now, the first point has nothing to do with the question whether orgone 'exists' or 'does not exist'. Neither is it concerned with the question whether orgone has been proven or disproven. The question is whether the concept orgone allows for falsification, conforming to the scientific method. For example. Henry Bergson's idea of an elan vital (life energy) was a philosophical idea, not a scientific concept. As far as I know, he did not claim to know experiments that could proof or disprove his theory. In the case of Wilhelm Reich and Orgone energy, the story is different. Numerous experiments are discussed by Reich and have been repeated by others in relation to the orgone energy accumulator (including by Einstein for Christ's sake!), such as: a temperature differences, bodily temperature differences, electroscopic discharge rate, growth rate of seedlings, reducing cancer symptoms including limiting and reversing of tumor growth, blue glowing of vacuum tubes, blue glowing of charged red blood cells, etc. etc. As such, experiments appear to exist that are 'claimed' by Reich to proof the existence of orgone energy. If Reich indeed had formulated a coherent theory, and if such experimental outcomes would contrast with what is possible according to prevailing theory, then you could say orgone is a scientific concept. Just to add here: Einstein repeated Reich's temperature experiment, observed the same anomalous temperature difference, however, he resorted to an alternative theory to explain this difference discarding the necessity for the existence of a new energy (but he refused to redo the experiment in which he would apply control procedures suggested by Reich that could rule out the possibility his own explanation was false, which frustrated Reich enormously - all this as a side note).

Now, the second point concerns the question of whether other, independent sources agree that orgone is a scientific concept, or think of it as pseudoscientific. This need not bear any relation to the 'truth' of the matter, which is especially concerning as there is loads of false and weak information on Reich and his work, presented by others as 'fact'. Many of the sources cited claiming orgone as pseudoscience are not scientific sources at all. They are mostly popular literature, relate to psychoanalytic sources (not in the slightest relevant to matters of science) and at best popular science. This is problematic, but if these are the best sources available, pseudoscientific it is.

Now, the third point is again different. Many experiments have been carried out by Reich and others. However, regarding the fourth point, no experiments appear to have been published in independently peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most reliable source on this topic appears to be a Master's student thesis from Germany replicating the thermal bodily effects of an orgone energy accumulator. Of course, this is by far not enough of a source to 'prove' that orgone in general is a really existing energy. It could form a small piece of a puzzle, but would require many other experiments and independent reproduction of such experiments to say anything definitively. Also, orgone is claimed to have many other strange properties, as illustrated with above list of experiments, which other properties would also need to be investigated to say anything about orgone in general. Thus, even if orgone is a scientifically falsifiable concept and not pseudoscientific, the fact remains that there are no reliable sources that proof the existence of orgone energy.

My general recommendation would, thus, be to try to nuance the statement that orgone is definitively pseudoscientific (because most sources are not very reliable for that purpose), on condition that the fact is added that no reliable proof of its reality exists. I think that solution could resolve the different views discussed above. This would, however, require the existince of another, preferably more reliable source that would counter the narrative that orgone is a pseudoscientific concept. And I think I found one, one that concerns the original experiment in which Reich claimed to have discovered Orgone (published by Harvard University Press):

"Refuting allegations of “pseudoscience” that have long dogged Reich’s research, James Strick argues that Reich’s lab experiments in the mid-1930s represented the cutting edge of light microscopy and time-lapse micro-cinematography and deserve to be taken seriously as legitimate scientific contributions. . . . Strick presents a detailed account of the bion experiments, tracing how Reich eventually concluded he had discovered an unknown type of biological radiation he called “orgone". The bion experiments were foundational to Reich’s theory of cancer and later investigations of orgone energy. Reich’s experimental findings and interpretations were considered discredited, but not because of shoddy lab technique, as has often been claimed. Scientific opposition to Reich’s experiments, Strick contends, grew out of resistance to his unorthodox sexual theories and his Marxist political leanings." https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674736092 2001:1C02:2807:E600:B8BA:143B:D449:F346 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Added Strick source of scientific though hypothetical (i.e. unproven) concept; removed double Kenneth Isaacs reference; note . Note that the Elsevier/Roeckelein source neither clarifies whether the concept is pseudoscientific or disproven; Wrobel does not even say anything about Orgone, merely having a book title that contains 'pseudo-science'.

To clarify my opinion on the current sources used to state that orgone is pseudoscientific:

[1] Kenneth S. Isaacs. This is the same reference as source no. 4. This one should be deleted.

[2] Firstly, the Bauer reference is incomplete. It does not clarify from which book or article it comes. With some searching I found the original source, which is very interesting. http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/34584/1/0%202018%20orgone%20accumulator.pdf Turns out, the sources Kenneth Isaacs, Henry Bauer and Roeckelein all come from a student paper - architecture students working on some wood sculpture. I take it nobody has actually tried to read the original sources or verify them. I did now. Regarding this Bauer reference: he seems to be a scientist (Chemist), published using a university press (Illinois), and on the topic relevant to the question (pseudoscience or not - at least, that is what I found out, because no book title was mentioned in the reference thus far). However, from the passage cited, we cannot conclude whether he regards orgone as a pseudoscientific concept or scientific but debunked. The difference is significant, as discussed above. The Bauer source states that orgone is not "believable". This is no clarification of whteher orgone is pseudoscientific concept or scientific but simply disproven (or rather, the unscientific implication that one need not even attempt to disprove it because it cannot be true). Someone will have to read the book and clarify the context of the cited reference, or this source has to be used in a slightly other way. I think it would still be fair to use this as a general source to state that orgone is regarded as pseudoscientific, but this is no proof. A better source is really needed.

[3] Though Roeckelein appears to write exactly what we need to hear, s/he is a terrible source. S/he is a psychologist, and writes aggregately on a wide range of topics, writes in a not for wikipedia acceptable tertiary source (Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories) without any underlying references or sources, with him nor the book topic even having relevance to the biological, radiological, physics aspect of orgone energy, nor the question of pseudoscience. This source has to be removed on too many grounds.

[4] Isaacs is not a scientist, however, the topic of the publications is relevant, the source appears peer-reviewed and the cited sentence can definitely be interpreted as regarding orgone theory as pseudoscience. For lack of a better source, this is an acceptable source.

[5] This is the same Roeckelein source as above, and has to be removed.

[6] This Butts reference is an interesting source and could have been relevant, but is not. It is an article of "Essays on the philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum", which turns out to contain an attempt to "philosophically" discuss how one could differentiate science from pseudoscience. In this whole book, the only referene to Orgone or Reich is found on page 163, section "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in which an old method for distinguishing science from pseudoscience is discussed, and discarded. What remains as proof that orgone is pseudoscientific? Our intuition!!!!! (so much for science). To cite the passage: "In an article appearing in an earlier Festschrift honoring Adolf Grünbaum (Laudan 1983), Larry Laudan argued persuasively that the attempt to distinguish science from pseudoscience by employment of one or another of the proposed demarcation criteria is now dead. What he had specifically in mind is that demarcation criteria employing verificationist and falsificationist theories of meaning have failed to accomplish the required goal. However, he obviously retained confidence in what he called 'our intuitive distinction between the scientific and the non-scientific' (ibid., 124) and admitted that some future successful attempt to mark the difference could not be ruled out. The intuition referred to provides a rich catalog of pseudosciences, "flat Earthers, biblical creationists, proponents of laetrile or orgone boxes, Uri Geller devotees, Bermuda Triangulators, circle squarers, Lysenkoists, charioteers of the gods, perpetuum mobile builders, Big Foot searchers, Loch Nessians, faith healers, polywater dabblers, Rosicrucians, the-world-is-about-to-enders,primal screamers, water diviners, magicians, and astrologers" (ibid., 121). Also, another piece of evidence is added "evidently" (i.e. without any arguments or sources or proofs), it is stated "Evidently, these assorted pseudosciences make "crank claim[]s which make ascertainably false assertions". No source is listed even remotely that substantiates this claim for orgone - nor is that passage intended to make judgement on the pseudoscientific nature of orgone. The passage cites an older philosophical paper in which an old theory on pseudoscience is discarded, while asking for a new solution, because 'obviously there is a difference' (for all of the two dozen things listed above). This is not a source and will have to be deleted.

[7] The Wrobel source is interesting. It has by far the most content actually pertaining to what Orgone is, citing a source that I sadly cannot check. However, the problem is that the book is not concerned with orgone or judging its worth. It makes a passing analogy to orgone, however, the content and judgement on matters of pseudoscience (as the title of this book reveals) is concerned with theories in the 19th century - when Reich was at most 3 years old. Only one single reference to orgone occurs in the whole book. The passage is cited here in full - read it to the end to see why someone tried to cite it, but did so disingenuously: "These spiritualist offshoots make healing through the mind or spirit a major part of their mission. Their explanation of disease as discord in man's spiritual force which dauses an ensuing imbalance in the body manifested as disease, recalls homeopathic theory. Much as homeopathy does, recent movements in psychophysiology investigate the relationship between behavioural and physicological functions. Reichian therapy includes analyzing a patient's character structure and dissolving blocks of muscular tension in order to free the flow of orgone energy - a composite of libidinal-muscular and cosmic energy - through the body.14 Even without such esoteric overtones, the healing doctrines of hydropathy and homeopathy resemble many of those that holistic medicine or nature pathology currently hold: a comprehensive treatment of the patient, physically and emotionally, and cure through natural means. Such treatments are designed less to attack the desease than to treat the patient and, as in water-cure, to make patients participate in the management of their own disease. From investigating the nature and dynamics of an ecstatic trance to spearheading the reformation of man's moral life and his institutions, from offering proof of life beyond the physical to the development of a functional psychology and neurophysicology, these pseudo-sciences engage a range of issues as broad as the legacy they left is rich. During their heyday these pseudo-sciences gave credence to the nineteenth century's compelling dream that all knowledge was unitary and could be ultimately embodied in on grand Science of Man." (Page 229 of Arthur Wrobel (1987). Pseudo-science and society in nineteenth-century America). Thus, this reference is not relevant and has to be removed.

Finally, a more interesting aspect of finding the source paper of many of the above references, is that the one who took those sources to substantiate the claim that orgone is pseudoscience, deliberately left out one other source stating the opposite! To cite: "However, Reich’s biographer James Strick argued that the dominant narrative of Reich as a pseudoscientist is incorrect and that Reich's story is "much more complex and interesting" (Strick 2015, p.3). Coincidentally, this is the same source I found above. I bought the book and will cite some of the relevant passages in a new reference.2001:1C02:2807:E600:B8BA:143B:D449:F346 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You should first learn how Wikipedia works.

• Read WP:BRD to find out that if you make an edit which is reverted, you should not revert that revert. Instead, go to the Talk page. Not additionally. Repeated behaviour like that will get you banned.
• Do not post such walls of text. Concentrate on one item after the other. Do not go on tangents, stay on topic. Boring people away is not a winning strategy.
• You need reliable sources for your claims. Do not write "Numerous experiments are discussed by Reich and have been repeated by others", cite a meta-analysis in a scientific journal that says those experiments have merit. (You won't find any, because they don't.)
• If Einstein tested orgone scientifically, he should have published his results in a scientific paper. Sitting on a chair in a box and being courteous to the crank is a thing Einstein would do, given his character, but name-dropping does not help the credibility of Reich in any way.
• Probably many more things you are doing wrong, but I will let others point those out.

Second, you should learn how science works. Scientists usually ignore cranks like Reich; almost the only ones who debunk him are skeptics, and his crankdom is very obvious. Martin Gardner's writings on Reich would be enough to see that. But indeed, we do not need the likes of Henry Bauer, whose acceptance or rejection of pseudosciences seems random. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added two more relevant sources: [1] - DVdm (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe as a first step, Hob Gadling, you should actually read what I wrote. Saying what I wrote is 'long' is no excuse. Everything was on topic. You can skip my first comment if it is too much trouble. But as you do comment on it: I have not claimed Einstain as a source or proof (you apparently cannot read), merely differentiating that that can be true without it counting as proof (what you are now repeating as if I do not know). Also, I have not claimed there are reliable secondary sources that proof the existence of orgone, in fact I stated the opposite (which you are now telling me as if I do not know...). In fact I added an additional reference to proof such sources does not exist. Furthermore, as I delved into every single source used thus far, which others who added it have not done out of apparent laziness, I identified out of those seven sources two double references and a single reference to a tertiary source, all of which have to be deleted whether you like it or not. I also added a legitimate source stating orgone is not pseudoscience, but an (unproven) scientific concept. That does NOT say or proof orgone is real, it merely states it could be proven or disproven using the scientific method (and perhaps it has been disproven, perhaps not, at any rate it has not been proven). Finally, using 'being the first to revert' as an argument to yourself 'indefinitely revert back' is a lazy argument, and also not valid, because I subsequently added changes to that original edit to address what I took as valid citicism ('regarded by some as pseudoscience' is not what those sources stated). Also, I for one actually already engaged on the Talk page, which I already suggested other editors to do too. Everything seems to be about everything except engaging with the subject.

Let's try again: where is your mysterious agument that the two double sources (Isaacs and Roeckelein) should be retained? Where is your agument that the tertiary source should be retained? Where is your agument that the book dealing with 19th century history on intuition is a valid source on a 20th century concept? Where is your agument that the new source I added is worse than the other two sources I kept?

At least DVdm put in some effort and found additional sources. The Peter Truran is a good source stating orgone is pseudoscience and I say should be retained (though it only seems to cite Gardner on this, so it would be better to use that source directly to get a more accurate qualification). The Michael D. Gordin source is not a good source in my opinion, as it mentions Reich and orgone only in passing to analyse Velikovsky in a historical context. It uses no further sources or references to substantiate this claim. The other sources are better, so I would recommend using the other three sources. This would give three good sources to classify orgone as pseudoscience, one good source to classifying it as an (unproven) scientific concept, and another source to back-up that there is no evidence or proof of its existence. Maybe do not try to write away sources you do not like exist? 2001:1C02:2807:E600:A5B7:8894:28A1:9D55 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

First you need to get wp:CONSENSUS here on the talk page. You don't have that. I have reverted your edit and put an edit warring warning on one of your IP talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you maybe start, then, by raising objections? I maintain that my proposal is the only attempt to incorporate all the different reliable sources available. You are again reverting to including double sources, inadmissable sources, unreliable sources and removing reliable sources. 2001:1C02:2807:E600:D934:DD8C:EA5E:8B0 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Up to now, your proposal has been rejected by three others. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I reject this proposal too, so that makes four. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Guys/ladies, this is not a democracy. I'm asking for your arguments. Clarify why the sources I added have to be removed, and why the sources I removed have to be added again. 2001:1C02:2807:E600:ED18:53:8755:A94E (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Aha ... You've misunderstood WP:BRD ... You have it exactly backwards. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Firstly, @DVdm, it is misleading to claim there 'first' needs to be concensus on Talk before I can make changes. The prime method to reach consensus on wikipedia (as per WP:BRD) is by making continually refined edits, preferably in attempts to bridge differences, as I have tried every time. I, at least, have never reverted back without making further improvements (the prime characteristic of edit warring of which two people here can be accused, including you, but ironically I have been given a 'warning' on this point?). Secondly, @Roxy, the meaning of the word concensus is finding a solution that can work for *ALL* involved, thus, including for me. You cannot get away with saying, as you do, 'well three of us think this, so we do not need to engage with you on substance'. Again, as per WP:BRD, the second method to get to concensus is through Talk. But, that requires you actually engage on substance.. Else it is not much of a talk now is it? 2001:1C02:2807:E600:ED18:53:8755:A94E (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note from policy wp:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." (emphasis mine). - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"This is getting ridiculous." Indeed, but not for the reasons offered. What we have here is rank pseudoscientists imagining that wikilawyering will somehow get them somewhere. Take a tip from an old soldier; it won't, it never does. Yours is a lost cause here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can someone please start to comment on substance? Maybe start with the question why the six out of the current nine sources I argued to have removed (on various grounds) should not be removed? Not a single person has provided a single argument yet. *That* is ridiculous. That does not entail changing the text, it means retaining the three reliable sources and removing the others. Nothing more. The question of Strick is for now being discussed in the below RfC section, so we can skip the more contentious point for now. (And also, I made this account as my IP address kept changing. I claim the contributions by the IP addresses in this section). Brightest Knight (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Brightest Knight: Your main post is exceptionally long, so for most of us "Too Long; Didn't Read" (TL;DR)  rules and we will respond only to its general thrust which, here as elsewhere, strongly protests against the verdict of pseudoscience. Might I suggest that if you are content with merely raising the presentational quality of the article and really believe that some passage is an inappropriate reflection of a cited source, then make that case without bias. Take it one point at a time. If others are agreeable, the cite can be removed or edited, the passage perhaps altered, but (in my experience here) any watering-down of the pseudoscience verdict will not be tolerated. Or, for a minor criticism, there are various templates you can tag a cite or a passage with, such as Template:clarify; a variety are listed in Template:More citations needed/doc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I argue to sidestep the pseudoscience discussion here and you ignore this? So, you did not even read the post you are responding to, so why do you even bother responding? Also, you suggest I should continue making edits while someone else spams me with warnings and attacks me for editing further if there is not *first* achieved concensus here. How do you respond to that?

Again, nobody has bothered to provide a SINGLE argument why six out of the nine sources now used are not terrible and have to be removed. So I'll consider that to be the consensus position achieved now, retaining three of those. (In fact someone seconded my argument to remove another one of these, but I won't bother). If you disagree on any of these, you can look up the arguments above and engage here on SUBSTANCE. Else, please just don't comment. Brightest Knight (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with your cleanup, I contemplated public Thanks until I read your crusty personal nonsense above. I have no knowledge of the warnings you have received; undoing an edit and asking the editor to obtain consensus is just WP:BRD the way it should be; warnings usually only follow after bad behaviour surrounding that, such as warring, rudeness, or PoV-pushing. I think I am done here now anyway, I am taking this page off my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No support for altering or removing sources in RFC below, yet deciding to "consider that to be the consensus position achieved now" to—again—justify this, will get you blocked for wp:disruptive editing/wp:edit warring. Final warning on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The duplicate refs should be combined not deleted. See WP:PARITY for the reasons why I don't support your proposed removal of the others - attacking the authors' credentials isn't going to work here. VQuakr (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating how everyone relishes in the undoing of my last contribution, yet nobody, still, has put forward a single argument why it was unfounded. Call it merging if you want, I removed the least detailed double reference. What remains is a semantic difference. Call in WP:PARITY if you want, even if the text is unchanged and no other sources are submitted - it has no relevance relating to my final contribution. Undoing (and supporting the undoing) of my last contribution is the display of pure irrationality. Shame on you for forming a single front on this. Hoped some people would have the decency here to defend objectivity over personal bias. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the cons/pros ratio regarding your edit(s) by the contributors here, reflects the cons/pros ratio regarding the scientific value of this article's subject by the scientific community. That might be frustrating, but it really is fully compatible with the founding principles of Wikipedia. Don't take it personal. - DVdm (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You are saying it is compatible with the founding princples of Wikipedia to retain tertiary sources? Retain double references? Retain references dealing with a 19th century topic on a 20th century article? Retain references that do not comment on what they are used for? Etc. Fascinating.. If you care about those principles, show it. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience

Is the Strick source a reliable enough source (relative to the other sources used) to slightly nuance the pseudoscientific qualification of orgone (in favor of 'unproven scientific concept')? See this proposed edit and the related discussion in the section immediately above. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Brightest Knight:, I assume that you, with a newly created user account, are the same editor as the single purpose IP 2001:1C02:2807:E600:* with these contributions, so thanks for having signed up for a user name. Are you by any chance also the same person who briefly appeared at Orgone and Talk:Orgone and other Reich related topics as user Focton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?- DVdm (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@DVdm:Yes I made this account for that purpose, because apparently my IP-address kept changing. I claim all the comments made by the ip-address in the above Talk section "Corrections in Orgone article". I do not recognize any Focton or other accounts or edits.Brightest Knight (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, my first comment there was mostly to explain to Focton (and similar minded people) why what he wanted was not possible. Yes in elaborate terms, but leading up to some kind of possible compromise position. Brightest Knight (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The Strick source is an attempt to contextualize the contemporary criticism of Reich. It neither asks nor answers the question of whether orgone is a pseudoscientific context. Indeed, most in STS find the demarcation problem to be quaint and refuse to engage with it. Fair enough. However, that higher critique has no bearing as to questions of substance which, for example, would let us ask such things as "can you measure orgone?" The answer is, "no". That there continue to be those who claim otherwise is why the idea is marked as "pseudoscience". jps (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස:I Think you are mistaken on the content of the Strick book. To be claer, the book does not (claim to) proof that orgone exists. However, it minutely analyses the historical development of the pseusodscience narrative in the media and in other publications regarding Reich's biology work and contrasts that narrative to Reich's historical laboratory work and engagement with other scientists (in Norway, France, Netherlands) who attempted to replicate his experiments and see if they could reproduce his observations. Most could reproduce some results and observations, sometimes proposing alternative interpretations than Reich's "orgone radiation" interpretation, and sometimes not being able to observe this "orgone radiation", etc. etc.. Strick also shows that others have replicated some experiments more recently (again, not published in reliable sources, and not intended here as 'proof') with again varying results and observations and interpretations. My point being that Reich's claimed original observation of orgone radiation in certain microbal vesicles allowed for experimental verification/invalidation, according to Strick. Which he reinforces by making the point that most narratives about Reich's biology work being pseudoscience developed from even before Reich even published his results (as Reich was attacked already for his interest in human sexuality). If, furthermore, the narrative in most current sources that Reich's biology work is pseudoscience is a continuation of that false narrative - rather than an actual investigation into the matter - then those contemporary narratives have to be contextualised by this new insight.

Now, the years afterwards, Reich made more claims about this "orgone" which do not necessarily have bearing on this original laboratory work. The Strick source makes no investigation of these later claims, experiments, narratives, etc. The only thing that is made clear is that the pseudoscientific narrative started during Reich's laboratory work (the first natural scientific work undertaken by Reich - though he was originally trained as a biologist) and lasted throughout the remainder of his life. I don't think many people took his work serious after that. It was "already clear" that it was pseudoscience, starting with his laboratory work - unless of course that narrative has to be questioned. As there are no reliable sources similar to Strick's investigating Reich's later orgone work, I think it is fair to keep having the pseudoscientific label as the primary one. But that does not justify ignoring any other labels if there is evidence to suppor this. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The point here, however, is that this is an article on orgone. It is not an article on Reich. The orgone idea, for better or worse, lives on in a pseudoscientific fashion. That this may or may not be the direct descendent of the rhetoric that Strick is most interested in probably needs to be dealt with elsewhere. For example, this may be relevant to the page on Reich! jps (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: This is too simple. Reich's biology work is where he claimed to have discovered orgone (radiation). It is thé prime experiment. So it is relevant here. Strick presents the case this prime experiment appears not to be pseudoscientific and that you could reproduce it if you want. This very strongly counters the narrative that all of Reich's natural scientific work is pseudoscience and you should not even try. This is by far the best available source, best researched, most on-topic on the matter of the pseudoscience etiqquete of orgone. I know the pseudoscience ettiqette *cannot* be removed by this. All I'm arguing for is inclusion of this source in the manner that would be appropriate. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reich did not discover radiation of any sort. Go ahead and try to show any measurement of it. You cannot. Strick is unable to provide us with any evidence to the contrary because, crucially, he is not a scientist. jps (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Recall that Linus Pauling was a Nobel laureate who later promoted alternative vitamin therapies which failed to prevent him from dying of cancer. His work on the atom and chemistry was not pseudoscience, his work on megavitamin therapies was. Neither affects the status of the other. Whatever the status of Reich's lab skills (and I am no judge of that), his idea of orgone was pseudoscientific bunk. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: This is too simple a conflation. Reich's lab skills are essential to the question of whether orgone is pseudoscience, as his laboratory work is where he originally claimed to have discovered orgone (i.e. he thought he observed minute vesicles that exhibited what he thought was a new type of radiation, not conforming to other types of radiation, and termed this orgone radiation). If this laboratory work is not pseudoscience, particularly the experiments which he claimed resulted in making this radiation observable, then it may very well mean that orgone is (at least partiall) a scientific concept (i.e. verifiable/falsifiable). It may still very well be the case that Reich was mistaken in his conclusions, theory, experimental procedures, etc. But If it conforms to scientific experimentation practices, that makes the case for it not being pseudoscience. The Strick book shows this. To give juste one example: the French National Acadamy of Sciences almost published his laboratory observations after someone verified them, but the co-editor wanted to leave out Reich's theoretical framework on biological energy, which resulted in Reich retracting his article. I don't think any other scientists ever encounter struggles when trying to publish, joking here. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, how is this Linus Pauling megavitamin concept pseudoscience if they did trials and proved it doesn't work ("Results from most clinical trials suggest that modest vitamin C supplementation alone or with other nutrients offers no benefit in the prevention of cancer")? Isn't that the very definition of, in this case, "disproven science"? I can list hundreds of old scientific theories that at one point were held to be scientific consensus truth, but were later disproven and will now seem absolutely ridiculous. Does that make the whole history of science pseudoscience? That doesn't make any sense to me. When are you allowed to call something "disproven science" rather than "pseudoscience"? Brightest Knight (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that even after solid evidence was provided that the megavitamin concept was falsified, Pauling continued to promote the idea and moved the goalposts so much that the entire endeavor became unfalsifiable. When studies showed that the outcomes were not there that Pauling claimed, he argued that this was because the regimens needed to be strictly adhered to according to a certain directive that only he could monitor. Generally, if the outcome wasn't good it wasn't because megavitamin therapy didn't work -- it was because the patient was non-compliant, the therapy wasn't given in the right way, or the vitamins were "wrong", etc. This is the hallmark of a pseudoscientific argument and after Pauling's death the arguments continued. That's why it's pseudoscience. Pseudoscience sometimes starts out as an idea that seems superficially amenable to falsification. What often occurs is that falsification is not accepted -- is never accepted -- and then the idea shimmies over to the "unfalsifiable" while maintaining the veneer of following the protocol. That's a very common form of pseudoscience. jps (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Pauling himself provides an alternative -- the "triple helix DNA" model that he proposed in 1953. He admitted it was wrong after Watson and Crick. Today there really isn't anyone arguing that it is a viable model meaning that it's not functioning as a pseudoscientific argument. It's simply falsified. Now, it may have been falsified from the moment Pauling published the PNAS article, but if you search the literature you will find no one arguing that Pauling's model is pseudoscientific. In contrast, we have plenty of sources that identify megavitamin therapy and orgone as pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: So, there is a fine line between science and pseudoscience, especially when the (possible) science is contentious and not disproven. As far as I know, no reliable sources exist that have reproduced any of Reich's experiments. Yes, there are very many sources stating orgone is pseudoscience, but they are hardly reliable (though nobody seems to care, see above discussion). As far as I have been able to ascertain, the two most reliable sources are Gardner and Isaacs, the former being a not very well argued investigation (and popular science) and the second being peer-reviewed but not a real investigation (written by a psychoanalyst on the topic of psychoanalysis, with only a side reference to orgone). Strick is by far the most reliable and relevant source on the question of orgone being pseudoscience or not. Shouldn't we at least somewhat follow what the sources say, including Strick (who concludes no strong case has been made for calling Reich's biology experiments - incl. initial the orgone experiment - pseudoscience)? Brightest Knight (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reichian nosense has been disproven in the sense that it is Not even wrong. Strick has fallen flat on his face -- believing that there was magic microscopy that showed that life is somehow driven by the vitalistic conceits he wishes we still entertained. But no one but the Reich devotees like himself agree with this baloney. jps (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Brightest Knight You are quite wrong; lab skills are irrelevant. It is the interpretative idea that is regarded as bunk. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: It has to be both of course. The experimental set-up should be solid and the intepretative framework has to be scientific. Point being that the Strick source argues that no solid case had or has been made why Reich's experimental biology work is pseudoscience. How is that not relevant? Brightest Knight (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Orgone is pseudoscience, not merely an "unproven scientific concept". How is this particular source supposed to address that? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I'm asking you very honestly, based on what source do you state orgone is pseudoscience? The particular Strick source, as far as I can tell, is by far the most reliable source on this topic (though on a limited part of it, as I explained above). This is the only one written by a scientist, holding a PhD in microbiology (rather than a psychoanalyst or just historian), held teaching positions on the history of science, wrote many books on this topic in microbiology (on spontaneous generation debates e.g.), and published a very detailed book dealing *specificially* with the question of the pseudoscientific narrative in contrast to the historical evidence (and some more recent evidence). This book is also published by a reliable publisher (Harvard), is the first book to have had access to new historical material (as Reich's Archives in the Countway Library of Medicine at Harvard was only recently unlocked after having been sealed for 50 years), as well as using a dozen of other archives from all over the world and substantiating his work with some 100 pages of footnotes... Most other sources deal with Reich/orgone no more than one paragraph with maybe one source to back up the claim. Tell me, why is the Strick source not, or less reliable than the others? Brightest Knight (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Brightest Knight (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: I am not sure Strick holds a PhD in microbiolgy. He appears to be trained in microbiology and later history of science and holds a PhD. Brightest Knight (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• May I direct the other commentators to this book-presentation by James Strick I just discovered, especially for those who do not have access to his book. Ending with the conclusion from 40:45 (I'll try to look up the corresponding text in the book) and the q&a at 47:20. Apparently, this PLOS one article replicated several of Reich's experiments, but were not allowed to mention Reich's name in order to get published, but they retained the name Reich gave to them: 'Bions' as well as some of Reich's theory. Brightest Knight (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That article is about nanoparticles. It is unrelated to the subject of this article. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Strick has gone straight off the deep end along with the group who is claiming that nanoparticles are Reich's bions(!) PLOS-ONE, first of all, is known to be problematic as a megajournal, but god bless whatever editor told them to remove the most blatant Reichian nonsense there. I suppose they then went on to Scientific Reports because you can publish anything there. So, in fact, that article is by a group of Reich devotees! [2]. Moreover, the video in quetion shows that Strick is an acolyte of Reich's and this presentation is happening amongst Reich devotees. Strick is clearly upset that vitalism was so thoroughly dismissed in the 1930s and 1940s, but it is clear to me that his book was not evaluated carefully by an editor who knew how to keep an STS argument from being mired in the muck of nonsense. Pretty unfortunate, actually. jps (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: How is Strick giving a book presentation (i.e. years after it has been published) to probably the only people interested in it ("reich devotees" - a bit derogatory by the way) disqualify the book as a source? Would you, please, be so scientific and objective as to actually get the book and read it yourself? I'd be very happy to wait until after you familiarise yourself with the book. Brightest Knight (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the other reference, by the way. I do not see why you would qualify them as Reich devotees - when they offer an alternative explanation to Reich's theory (though they, ehhr, repeated some of his experiments). Brightest Knight (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reichian nonsense is still nonsense. That there are people who think his beliefs about orgone and bions are correct is neither here nor there, but they are not WP:MAINSTREAM no matter how you slice it. jps (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not remotely close to the sort of stellar sourcing that would be required to soften the description of subject. See WP:REDFLAG. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Do you think it fair to invoke WP:REDFLAG when we are not discussing whteher orgone is "proven or disproven" but merely whether it is pseudoscience or an (unproven/disproven) scientific concept? I am not even arguing the pseudoscience label should be removed, simply supplemented.

As per the stellar sourcing, please note that the current sources used are very poor sources. The best are popular science works and peer-reviewed articles on psychoanalysis (not on natural science). The best source on this question of the pseudoscience narrative is the Strick source, the only source written by a science historian with deep knowledge in this field, trained in microbiology (relevant to Reich's primary experiment on orgone), with 100 pages of footnotes and published by Harvard. Why is that not a good enough source for this minor nuance? Brightest Knight (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed, softening the wording on this as pseudoscience would require far stronger sourcing.

See WP:PARITY. I do not agree that what your are proposing is a "minor nuance." VQuakr (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Brightest Knight, while I am happy you created an account, I have serious doubts about where you came from (even before the above-signaled IP). That you are not a new user is blatantly obvious I think to everyone here, and yet they are responding here to the content of your questions, in a well-mannered way. That is the kind of community we are trying to foster here; I hope your future actions here will strike that same chord. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'll take that as a (first) compliment! As you are asking, I have not contributed to Wikipedia for many years and have no old accounts in use. I had not intended to make any contributions now, which is why I started out with an IP-address. One thing leads to another, etc. I hope so likewise. Brightest Knight (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. The book is not an academic work and the author has a Ph.D in history, not in any science. While that's often ok, I think our fringe guidelines require much better sourcing for anything intended to counter/dilute the mainstream view of a subject. That Reich noticed artifacts or whatever under the microscope and hypothesized they were a new form of radiation technically followed (part of) the scientific method and the idea was falsifiable...but then even after struggling to sell orgone as a scientific concept due to its requisite physical assumptions, and after other groups had failed to replicate his results, and after falsifiable alternative explanations had been proffered, Reich continued to promote the orgone hypothesis. This framework therefore resists and rejects the constant updating required for actual scientific hypotheses, a hallmark characteristic of pseudoscience. Orgone was once falsifiable — but can a concept really still be considered falsifiable if it always just ignores the results of its literal falsification tests? JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Proof that Orgone and Bions are not pseudoscience.

Hello again, I put here links to 4 videos with description which are provided by The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy.
In these videos there are reproduced experiments of Wilhelm Reich's ones demonstrated proving the existence of orgone energy, bions and blood disintegration.

- http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/biophysical-research/orgone-energy-field-meter-video/
- http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/bions/
- http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/experiment-xx/
- http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/reich-blood-test-blood-disintegration/

"In The Discovery of the Orgone, Volume Two: The Cancer" there are dozens of photos provided.

Also providing "Mister Tachyon S01E06: Does Orgone Energy Exist?" episode video and transcript.

- https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uluya
- https://forum.orgones.co.uk/t/mister-tachyon-does-orgone-energy-exist/4551 (also read the analysis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focton (talk • contribs) 08:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages, again.

None of these sources qualify as reliable for Wikipedia. See wp:Reliable sources and wp:FRINGE. This was explained to you before. - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, as the videos of The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy(which are an excellent proof about the subject bt) cannot be considered as reliable sources according to Reliable sources policy because they are not published or broadcasted by a company, but Strick's work and the original books of Reich(there is a lot of photograph material as proofs) can be considered as reliable according to the Reliable sources policy because as the following ones are mentioned in it:
"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

Strick's work is published by "Harvard University Press" and Reich's original works by "Farrar, Straus and Giroux", which according to the Reliable sources policy is ok.


Also it is mentioned the following criteria in Definition of Published:
"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

So the VICE video source should be considered a legit source.
--Focton (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy is not an independent source per WP:IS, nothing here evidences scientific "proof," which is why it's still considered pseudoscience. Acousmana (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh my! I've been having almost the exact same exchange with someone who thinks that they should be able to use non-reliable sources to prove remote viewing. I think we editors would make it more clear, obviously people aren't understanding how to know what is RS and what is not. We keep just fighting the same battles over and over again. Sgerbic (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • A simple English version of wp:FRINGE I think is in order. Sgerbic (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)