Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wilhelm Reich

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Discussion has stalled, no resolution appears imminent.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

If both sides could please place their argument here, we can proceed with the mediation. Thanks. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio's position

Hello, Daniel, thanks for your offer to mediate. So let's start.

First I have to mention that I write English with a dictionary. So if this or that word may sound harsh or a bit inappropriate it is normally not meant that way.

The edit war between Slim Virgin (SV) and me started about a year ago when I anonymously tried to improve on the text:

27 Dec 2005 17:00 w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Reich&oldid=32889254

SV was quick to revert my edit without explanation. This went on some time. I wrote to a kind of mediating person called Zoe, and was told that it's usual at Wikipedia that edits by anons, as extensive as mine, were deleted without checking the quality of the content. In face of such an answer I resigned from further editing.

Half a year later -- the article about Reich was still in a deplorable condition -- I decided to have a second try, this time as a registered user at 30th May 2005, 13:28.

Again SV was at the spot reverting what I had edited.

This second edit war went on until the page was protected and a mediation request filed.

You can see my arguments ad rem from the talk page:

There you can also see the kind of argumentation preferred by SV.

Of interest may also be Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#FYI_from_a_psychology_professional

A third step was taken when I, at 23 Sep, suggested that the chapter on an (alleged) "Einstein Experiment" was overstated.

Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Einstein_episode_overstated

After one week no one objected or discussed the topic, so at 31 Oct I inserted the text that was exposed on the talk page.

Now, few hours after this, SV was again at the spot and deleted, again without discussion. Only the next day she gave a pseudo reason: Instaed of a plain NO she said: not overstated but understated.

OK, that much for the history of the conflict.

The core of our conflict seems to me visible in the following pattern of exchanges:

I made a new edit for a passage (intro, Einstein episode)
SV reverts it to the old version, saying I should give the sources.
I decline to source facts which are known to everyone acquainted with Reich, and which can be found in most accounts of his life.
SV now starts excessively to source her preferred text.
After I criticized the quality of some of their sources she changed to a source I recommended (Sharaf's Reich bio)

But the problem lies not primarily in the sourcing of scattered pieces of information. You have to select carefully from that rich biography and work those facts which are relevant for a concise encyclopedic article. This is especially important in the case of Reich, who is considered - as SV is well aware of - by many people a crank, by some followers a genius, so that you find a very wide variety of material usable, better: unusable, as sources. To select here is still more difficult.

For this task you have to have a good overview and a thorough knowlegde of the primary literature, i.e. the books of Reich -- which, by the way, originally are written in German (except The Murder of Christ), translated in a sometimes considerable revised (by Reich after 1940) form.

SV confessed at an earlier time to another user anywhere on her talk page that she has little knowledge about Reich, and as late as Sep 5 she wrote on the Reich talk page, directed to me: "I've ordered a Reich biography; I forget the name, but it's the one you recommended above". In the meantime she obviously read this bio, by Myron Sharaf, used it as a source. This is OK, but, as I just pointed out, not enough for writing a good article.

--Nescio* 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until SV presents her side of the argument, I only want to make a small comment. Because you are the one changing a long-standing intro to an article, you are the one with the burden of citing your sources. It doesn't matter if anyone who is familiar with Wilhelm Reich knows these facts because the reason that many people will search for him is that they aren't familiar with him. If SV is sourcing her edits and you are not, her edits will be preferred. You claim that some of her sources are not of the best quality, but you have no sources of any better quality. I would encourage you to find sources regarding Reich rather than placing information in the article. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at the Wilhelm Reich history page, SV is very busy at present time. She seems to be quite enthusiastic about a book on Reich I recommended to her (by Myron Sharaf, for whom she immediately started a stub). Maybe SV will proceed to read Reich himself too, and will then arrive at a stage where she will be sorry for having me reprimanded (and reverted resp. deleted) again and again when I tried to correct the gravest (and nevertheless "long standing") errors of the article.

Anyway, the object to be mediated escaped, since SV wrote a completely new lead. Good for you, that you did not yet delve into the complicated matter of this conflict. --Nescio* 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is this new lead acceptable to both of you? --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that SlimVirgin now relies more upon a better source than before (Sharaf -- even if I think that in many places one could source directly to Reich). I also acknowledge that the new lead she wrote is of much better quality than that we quarrelled about. But I cannot say that this new lead is acceptable for me. I still miss the basic biographical pattern I tried to formulate in my edit of 2 Sep 13:03 [[1]], especially the caesura of 1933/34 due to a fourfold personal and professional catastrophe.

But I see that the lead - and the article as well - presently is a work in intense progress (mainly by SV). So I think it's better for me to wait until SV will have come to a (provisional) end with editing, and then - if I'll feel it still necessary - make criticisms and new edits.

--Nescio* 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may take some time (weeks) for the article to settle down, as I'm hoping to go through it and rewrite key sections. I was never very happy with it, and now that I'm reading this biography, it seems like a good time to try improving it.

I think our disagreement with the lead boils down to you wanting it to be chronological, but a lead needn't be chronological, and in fact shouldn't be. It should focus on the key issues regardless of the order in which they happened. I'm also not sure the timing of his break with the psychoanalytic establishment matters for the lead. It wasn't a sudden thing anyway. There was a gradual disillusionment of the establishment toward him, which got worse and worse as he got older. The point for the lead is surely: some loved him, some thought he was mad, details to follow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems editing this page

I'm not sure why you're both having trouble editing this page, but you can comment on my talk page if that works better. I'll copy and paste everything here. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something on it that is slowing things down. Section edits work okay, however. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's position

First, I want to say that I don't doubt Nescio's good faith in this matter. I think she and I both want to see a good Reich article. Our differences are ones of emphasis, which sources should be used, and how to interpret Wikipedia policies.

My main concern with Nescio is that she removes sourced material simply because she doesn't like either the material or the source. My perception of Nescio is that she's an admirer of Reich's and doesn't want to see overly critical material of him in the article.

Here are some examples, but there are many more:

Here she removes a list of references about Reich's relationship with Einstein, which was an important part of his life. [2]

Here she removes that Reich called his discovery of a new form of energy "orgone," because she doesn't like the source, even though she knows the information is correct. [3] All she needed to do was change the source, or ask me to change it.

Here she removes that Reich's first marriage was unhappy because he couldn't control his interest in other women, even though his incessant interest in other women and his many affairs is one of the best-known aspects of his life. [4]

Here she removes that Reich was attacked by the Nazis as a womanizer. [5]

So my request is that Nescio stop removing sourced material, or material that is poorly sourced in her view, but that she knows is correct. If she feels the source is not good enough, she can replace it; or if she feels the text is worded wrongly, she can fix it or ask me to fix it, but the material shouldn't simply be removed without trying to re-source or improve it in the first instance.

The lead

Nescio has reverted many times to her version of the lead, which led to a problem of writing quality (that is not intended as a criticism: Nescio's first language isn't English) and a lack of sources for her claims.

Here she changes the lead to say that Reich's book Character Analysis is still a major textbook, but provided no source after many times of being asked for one. The sentence also made no sense: "His book, Character Analysis (1933), is still a major psychoanalytical text, even if Reich was excluded from all psychoanalytic organisations in 1934." But his expulsion from organizations in 1934 has nothing to do with his book being a major textbook now.

The first sentence had problematic writing: "Wilhelm Reich ... was an Austrian psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author, later a headstrong natural scientist (orgone research)." [6] Some of her other versions were similarly problematic: "Wilhelm Reich ... was an Austrian ... psychoanalyst of the circle around Sigmund Freud in Vienna, and author, later a natural scientist far from mainstream (orgone research)." [7]

Here she wants to add to the lead that the articles in Harper's magazine about Reich that triggered an investigation by the U.S. government into the type of therapy he was offering were "politically motivated," but she offered no source for the "politically motivated" claim. [8] Even with a source, it's probably not appropriate to make this claim in the lead section, and elsewhere we would have to say "X argued that the magazine articles were politically motivated because ..." and not just state it as a fact.

There are many other examples, but I'm hoping the above is enough. Basically, the problem again is one of sourcing. The English Wikipedia is based on WP:V and WP:NOR. Reliable sources must be provided for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

Nescio has very helpfully suggested that I read a biography about Reich by Myron Sharaf. I've started reading this, and it's a wonderful biography. Thank you, Nescio, for recommending it. I've already started using it to try to improve the article. It could be that, now we agree on a source, the problems will disappear. I'm still a little confused about some of Nescio's editing e.g. removal of the Einstein sources, because Sharaf agrees that the Einstein affair was an important event in Nescio's life. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have given quite detailed the reasons for my edits and changes at the talk page Wilhelm Reich, now archived at [9], [10]

Since I've to take more effort than you to write an English text I won't go and repeat my arguments here.

As to the importance of the Einstein Affair - and especially of the fringe and pseudo science literature about it - I've answered you at another place that Sharaf - as you know - does not even devote 1 chapter (of 32), not even 5 pages (of 500) to it. Why should it have 1 chapter (of 10) in this wiki article ? -- Of course, I agree that the encounter with Einstein was an important event in Reich's life, because he had totally illusory hopes about Einstein as an appreciative listener who may open the door for Reich to the scientific community - hopes that were totally disappointed by Einstein's response. Nevertheless, it's sufficient to write about it what I suggested at the talk page [11]

The literature about it should be deleted, even the serious Einstein biographies, because they all have no more to offer than what was published in 1953 as The Einstein Affair.

--Nescio* 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On sourcing

As I said on SlimVirgins talk page in my opinion - formed in many years of interest in Reich and what was written on him both in English and German - the problem is not to find a source for this or that assertion. You can always find one fitting your gusto. The problem is to select from the large variety of sources in a way that the article comes as close to WP:NPOV as possible.

In the present stage - after the many changes SV did during the last days - Sharaf appears to be the main source, and this may look like a biased view. After all, I still assert that it is not necessary to give a source for facts which can be read up in any account of Reich and are not controversial among people acquainted with Reich. Compare the article on Freud in regard of the number of notes to source biographical facts. I can imagine that SV will arrive at this view after she'll have studied Sharaf thoroughly.

--Nescio* 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, this is where we differ fundamentally. Just because something is common knowledge to people who know about Reich doesn't mean it needn't be sourced. Anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. So when you added that Character Analysis is still a major textbook and I challenged that, you had to supply a source or have it removed. That's a very important part of our content policies, and if the Freud article doesn't do it, it ought to. I agree that finding the best sources is important, but we must cite them inline as we go along, so that everyone (whether they know about Reich or not) can see why we're saying what we're saying. After all, we're not writing this for people who know about Reich, but for people who don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ridiculous to source every bit of information you bring in. Would you start with the dates of birth and death ? Your first sourced assertion is that Reich was a member of Freud's "inner circle". Even if your source is quite serious, you should question it. Go into the history of psychoanalysis. If there was something that can be called an "inner circle", its members were the older analysts like Paul Federn etc., but not youngsters like Reich or Otto Fenichel, 40 years less than Freud. Therefore I changed this to "circle around Freud" which is nearer to truth. Reich himself only claimed that he had easy access to Freud (mainly because he lived in Vienna).

I'm sure I'd find a source where someone says that CA is still a major textbook. What then ? Were it worth to be used ? You cannot avoid to select, and in the case of Reich - genius or madman ? - this is especially difficult. You can easily find many textbooks on psychology, even on psychoanalysis, wherein Reich is not even mentioned. So what can we do about this state of affairs ? Describe what I just said ? Leave it out ? For me the textbook matter is not a major point. I think the "truth" lies anywhere between. Officially Reich is rarely mentioned, inofficially at least CA is a book still read and used by many students which can be seen from the sale numbers, new editions in many languages.

If you delve deeper into the matter it becomes quite intricate. You can compare the reviews of Reich's books by his peers before 1934 (when Freud kicked him out without any open argumentation) and after, which of course are mostly published in German journals. Very telling. Best for you is to consult Sharaf. But... after Sharaf had finished his book (1983) there came to daylight some important documents on this whole affair around the expulsion of Reich from IPA. Really a thrilling story. For an account in English:

Bernd Nitzschke: Psychoanalysis during National Socialism; Present-Day Consequences of a Historical Controversy in the "Case" of Wilhelm Reich. In: Psychoanalytic Review, vol. 86, no. 3 (June 1999), pp. 349-366 and
Zvi Lothane: The Deal with the Devil to "Save" Psychoanalysis in Nazi Germany. In: The Psychohistory Review, vol. 27, nr. 3 (Spring 1999), pp. 101-121

This is much more important and relevant literature on that controversial figure of Reich than that bulk of speculations of para-scientific energy freaks recommended as "further reading" in the present version of the article.

Anyway, if you came to esteem Sharaf's book I'd like to remember you to my second recommendation, the concise and nevertheless relatively long article on Reich by the Austrian-American philosophical scholar Paul Edwards in the 1968 edition of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (MacMillan).

--Nescio* 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit of information doesn't need to be sourced. What must be sourced, according to the policies, is everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If I challenge that Character Analysis is still a major textbook, you have to produce a reliable source, either a source that says it specifically, or sources that show it to be correct (e.g. by showing that it's required reading for psychology courses in certain univerities). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Freud's inner circle thing, Sharaf says he was regarded for a time as Freud's pet. That's close enough to what we mean by inner circle.

WRONG. Regardless of what Sharaf wrote (which page?) or what the WR museum page says. There was indeed a kind of Freud's inner circle - "Das geheime Komitee." It was not official and consisted of older disciples of Freud, like Ernest Jones, Max Eitingon, Sandor Ferenczi and few others. Reich was not among them. Therefore my wording is preferable to yours. -- BTW: If I were that admirer of Reich you suspect me to be, I'd be happy to have my heroe counted among those closest to the famous Freud. --Nescio* 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, my point is simply that we have to edit in accordance with the content policies of the English Wikipedia. Thank you for the further reading recommendations, by the way.

For the benefit of the mediator, I think the difficulty here is summed up by Nescio's post above: "The literature about [the Einstein affair] should be deleted, even the serious Einstein biographies, because they all have no more to offer than what was published in 1953 as The Einstein Affair." In other words, Nescio believes that the best book on the so-called Einstein affair (when Reich met Einstein and discussed Reich's work) is The Einstein Affair by Wilhelm Reich himself. Therefore, in her view, all the others should be removed from the article, and that is what she did. [12] This is a violation of NPOV, which says we must present all majority and significant-minority views.

Not the best book, but the only one usable as a source about what happened. --Nescio* 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that Nescio has particular views on Reich and feels that those views must dominate, or even that other views should be left out completely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more and more difficult for me to believe that SV meant what she said at the start here: "First, I want to say that I don't doubt Nescio's good faith in this matter."

Over several months she had acted against my edits like a master - and this with just rudimentary knowledge about the matter - and now she accuses me as having dominating aspirations. Crazy !

It's to be hoped that the mediator can afford the same amount of patience with that kind of arguing as I did.

--Nescio* 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to echo SV's assertion that anything likely to be challenged must be sourced. It seems like she removed text from the article because it did not have any documentation. Nescio, you claimed "I'm sure I'd find a source where someone says that CA is still a major textbook." Good. If you find a reliable source saying this, then put the claim in the article with the documentation. You have been slightly hypocritical by arguing that most claims do not need sourcing while at the same time criticizing SV's sources. I recomend finding sources backing up any claims that SV disputes. Likewise, to SlimVirgin, I recomend that you also present a variety of sources supporting your claims. If reliable sources are found with conflicting information, both sides of the argument can be included in the article. --????? - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to find sources for any material I add that is actually challenged or which is likely to be, and for any quotations, and I also agree to make sure those sources are varied. The only thing that will be noticed at the moment is that I'm reading the Myron Sharaf biography (widely described as the definitive biography of Reich), and so for a time, that source will seem to dominate the new material I'm adding — I'm adding anything I think would be interesting in the WP bio as I'm reading the book. However, over time, as I read more, different material and different sources will be added.

My request is that Nescio not remove material that is sourced; if she thinks the source isn't a good enough one, she should ask for a better one on talk, or supply a better one herself; and that she supply sources for any edit she makes if there's a reasonable expectation that it will be challenged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, here's my position. Both of us want to see a good Reich article. I think we agree that the current one isn't up to much. You know a great deal more about Reich than I do, and I know about Wikipedia editing and how to put together a good article. Therefore, we should pool our resources and cooperate, rather than being at odds. I'm willing to do the reading and research if you continue to point me in the right direction, and let me know when what I've written is wrong or too simplistic. The only thing I ask is that we stick closely to WP policies, cite our sources, and tell all sides of the story: no unfair criticism of Reich, but also no undue praise or attempts to minimize criticism. How about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad seeing you open for cooperation. That's what I asked for already some months ago, e.g. when I wrote:

Slim Virgin: This is not acceptable English.

Nescio*: You said so - several times. I don't oppose. Why don't you try to improve on it, as I asked you? -- Nescio* 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (But don't replace your old factual errors)

Before we resp. you proceed to rewrite the article I'd like to advise you to read with a cool head all the now archived pieces of our earlier exchange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#.22intro_restored.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich/archive1#Lead

because there you'll find some factual information pertinent to the Reich article I don't like to write down again.

I should add some remarks on our controversial topic of the appropriate use of sources.

Avoidance of source fetishism

I strongly disapprove to what you and Daniel asserted, "that anything likely to be challenged must be sourced." Not anything. Especially in Wikipedia you have always to reckon with people who challenge anything, for what reasons ever. That was my experience, e.g. with the English Reich article. You cannot give in to such flippant demands and hurry to present sources for each bit of information, because someone wants you to. Sourcing is of course important, but you have to do it - for the sake of a readable text - by careful consideration and not to a (real or anticipated) challenge by someone obviously void of factual knowledge. If you did, the notes will become longer than the body text. Intelligent sourcing is required.

The number of references is not always a guarantee for correctness, as an example from our article shows: "It was this work [with orgone], in particular, that cemented the rift between Reich and the psychiatric establishment. [3] [6] [1] " Triple sourced -- nevertheless dubious. The rift was quite precisely in August 1934, when Freud in a shabby conspirative manner and without any explanation kicked Reich out of the IPA, and Reich's colleagues kept silent.

Avoidance of producing an epic narrative

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

--Nescio* 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining a sourcing I recently did

Slim Virgin, you may have seen that I changed a sentence saying that Freud discovered Reich's activities at an sexology seminar, allegedly organized by Reich. A source, published after Sharaf, gives ample evidence that realiy was quite different: this seminar was founded and organized by Otto Fenichel. Reich attended it and there he became acquainted with the work of Freud...

I added the source, but I think it is not necessary, not even advisable, to leave it for ever -- even if someone may "challenge" this historical fact. The same applies to my deletion of the word "unprecedented" (which was BTW not sourced). Fenichel was 22 when he became member of the Viennese Psychoanalytic Society. Both young men, as important their professional work was, were never members of anything like Freud's "inner circle".

--Nescio* 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Editing

I noticed that both of you did a tremendous ammount of editing today of Wilhelm Reich. I think that if you both continue to work together understanding that you are both trying to create an excelent article, you will succeed. I hope to see an article evolve that all parties are happy with. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on state of mediation

It seems like both of you have fairly well resolved some of your problems. Is it fair to say that mediation is likely completed and additional discussion can take place on Talk:Wilhelm Reich? --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I have some concerns because Nescio is above repeating the posts s/he made to Talk:Wilhelm Reich while the reverting was going on, as though he was right all along.

I did not repeat the posts, I just referred to them and their argumentative contents which I'm NOT willing to repeat after Slim Virgin has ignored them. --Nescio* 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He objects to the idea that anything challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced. But that is policy; that is, it is mandatory. Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of WP's three core content policies, says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed (my emphasis). [13]

Would you mind impressing that upon Nescio again just to make sure it's understood and accepted? Otherwise, I fear this situation will continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Nescio, whether or not you agree with Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing, it is policy. It is not your place nor my place to ignore it. You may not see a reason to document your sources in your writing, but you must understand why it is necessary. Because Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia, sourcing is of the utmost importance. If challengable material were not sourced on Wikipedia, there would be no way for a reader to know whether a claim were true. This is why sourcing is required. It isn't to burden the writer. It isn't to clutter up articles. It is to verify the accurateness of what is written. The purpose of the Wilhelm Reich article is to provide information for people so that they can learn about this person. The article doesn't serve any purpose if nobody can use it because they don't know whether it is accurate. It would be good if you read all of WP:V but you should certainly at least read WP:V#Verifiability and WP:V#Burden of evidence. These two sections will explain SV's and my assertions that sourcing is mandatory for any claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel. It's particularly important with an article about someone as contentious as Reich that the material in it be nailed down, because he's someone who provokes strong feelings in supporters and opponents. So long as the sourcing issue is clearly understood, I'm happy to agree that the mediation can be wrapped up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the newest history of the Reich article, and I'm sorry to see that Slim Virgin reverted again without any explanation my edits, sourced or otherwise justified (she and Sharaf don't know Fenichels role; Vienna is not in Germany).

This continuation of her earlier style of behaviour contradicts and nullifies her latest nice words about cooperation and pooling together our resources, and resists all good will for mediation.

Re sourcing: I have really no problem to give a serious source for each piece I add. But you already have nearly 50 notes to the article, and as it is still in progress soon there will be more than 100. I object to that craze, so much the more, as sourcing is not in itself a guarantee for correctness of the information, and in many places you can also find a source saying the opposite (Reich the genius, Reich the madman). So the repeated reminding me to WP:V#Verifiability looks like treating me as a bit dull-witted. Or don't YOU understand what I tried to explain above?

Anyway, the present state of the article, oversourced as it is already now, is a mess, and someone should stop Slim Virgin's obstructionism against corrections of even small errors.

Daniel, yesterday I also was in good hope that there is no more mediation necessary. Today I see that mediation efforts have to be continued.

--Nescio* 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of Daniel, Nescio has posted this on the talk page. [14] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for notes, there will definitely be over 100. Again, Nescio seems unaware of policy or best practise on en-WP. Extensive inline citation is necessary when the issue or person is controversial. Nescio seems to have problems with two issues: (1) we are writing this article for people who know nothing about Wilhelm Reich; (2) Nescio is not allowed to write the article on the basis of his personal opinions no matter how accurate they are; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The current practice of Slim Virgin, which will arrive at more than hundred notes, two third of them from the same source (Sharaf), is completely inappropriate, much more so, if it is, as I pointed out several times, no guarantee for a good article, even if Sharaf is a serious source in my opinion too (though, he could only include in his book what was known before 1983).

--Nescio* 09:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, as a matter of interest, one of the issues you reverted over many times was your wish to add (without a source) that Character Analysis is still a major psychoanalytical textbook. Can you first of all say what you mean by this i.e. still a major textbook where and for whom? Secondly, can you produce a source of any kind to back you up, because the standard view of Reich seems to be either that his contributions to psychoanalysis have been ignored, or that they've been incorporated into current theory and practise but are largely not acknowledged as his. So please say in which institutions Character Analysis is still used as a major textbook. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin, as long as you continue to ignore what I try to discuss here, and instead keep reverting my edits without explanation and repeating here mechanically well known rules of how a Wikipedia article should be written, as long I should not answer your questions.

In the case above your order is even based on an imputation. The sentence "Character Analysis ... is still used today as a textbook for analytically-oriented classes in medical schools" was, as you should know, in the article before I started to correct it at 30 May this year, and it remained in it until today. I'm not the author, and I'd correct it. But I started to work on this deplorable "long standing" article at its intro. What happened then is well known.

--Nescio* 09:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you added it first or not, you wanted to place it in the lead and kept reverting to it. So can you say what your source was, or can you offer one now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be appropriate, if YOU tell me (and Daniel and other readers) first the base of your assertion ? --Nescio* 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of which assertion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of your assertion that I wanted to write that "Character Analysis is still a major psychoanalytical textbook" or to place the sentence "Character Analysis ... is still used today as a textbook for analytically-oriented classes in medical schools" in the lead ?

You are a real difficult partner: generally you deleted my edits without or with varying comments: poor English, not sourced. Then, recently, you swept away a sourced edit. And now you want me to source a statement I never made.

I wonder, when you will be ready for a productive cooperation.

--Nescio* 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the games. Here is one example of the many, many times you tried to insert in the lead that Character Analysis is still major psychoanalytic text. I asked you then, and I'm asking you now, what is your source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you regard text as identical with textbook. In another edit I therefore called it a milestone which may fit better. BTW: Why did you not remove the "long standing" sentence "Character Analysis ... is still used today as a textbook for analytically-oriented classes in medical schools" ? (which is much more misleading resp. wrong)

Reich's book is still regarded a major psa. text in the same sense as, say, Freud's Traumdeutung is still a major psa. text.-- We need not discuss here the status of Reich and even Freud in academic psychology.

Don't say, you did not understand what I meant. You did not ask me before, neither for an explanation nor for a source. As you now order me to search for a source for "textbook Character Analysis" you are the one who should stop games, especially as you continued your practice to delete my edits, sourced or not sourced.

--Nescio* 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, both of you need to always remember WP:AGF. I don't want this to turn into a brawl, because then there would be no chance of a solution. Now that that's out of the way, Nescio, I think you're missing the point. I think that this whole problem can be resolved if you simply agree to provide sources for your claims. There is nothing wrong with having over 100 citations, even if a large number or even a majority come from one source. In any event, it is certainly better than not having any sources at all. Clearly some of the changes that you want to make for the article are being contested here, and SV is providing documentations for her edits. If you would do the same, the article would be inherently factual because all edits would be sourced.
Also, please both of you note that this article is supposed to be NPOV. This means that both of you can and should contribute to the article. The fact that one of you edits it should not mean that the other cannot. I think first you should make edits that you both agree upon. If you wish, I can create a page where you can discuss specific edits. After the edits that you agree upon have been finished, you can use that page to discuss some of the edits that you do not agree on. If you agree to discuss every edit that you plan make before doing it, everything will be agreeable to everyone. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, it wouldn't be possible to discuss every edit in advance. You've seen how long this has taken; how many times a simple source request has to be repeated. Then there's the issue of the English; I often don't understand exactly what Nescio is trying to say, and yet I'm expected somehow to copy edit it. I was hoping to slowly work on this over the next few weeks and get it up to featured article status, but that won't be possible if every edit has to be discussed in advance with Nescio. I'd sooner abandon the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that discussing edits in advance would be much more productive then simply reverting over and over again. With discussion, a concensus can be reached about what should be said. The way it's going now, nothing will ever be accomplished. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Daniel, discussing debatable points before editing is of course the best way to proceed. But if you take the trouble and check in detail the numerous reverts Slim Virgin did during the last months and the entries of the talk page you'll see why this did not work here. I experienced the behaviour of Slim Virgin – beginning at end 2005 when I was an anon, continued at 30 May 2006 – in most cases as chicanery or bullying. She often reverted immediately my edit without explanation, never using the ^{[citation needed]} tag; she refused to improve my English and insisted formally that I source basic facts which no one would ever challenge. Moreover, she behaved as if the article were her property.

The strange paradox of the whole thing was the reversal of roles. While I tried to correct errors based on a thorough knowledge of Reich's life and work she stubbornly kept reverting to the old faulty texts. I have no explanation for this uncooperative behaviour, unusual among wikipedians.

Now, some weeks ago, Slim Virgin announced reading of a book about Reich which I had recommended. She seems to believe that this is good enough to become instantly an expert. Now more than ever she acts as my impatient superior, deleting as usual my edits without comment, even when well sourced. –– Yes, recently she admitted that she knows much less than I about the topic and proposed that we pool our capacities – my knowledge on Reich, her ability to write a good English article -, but the next day she denied by deed what she had pledged by word. So, what is to be expected, if I continue to try to correct at least the gravest faults and the inappropriate structure of this article which is in a "long standing" (at least one year) deplorable state? That Slim Virgin, as announced, will abandon the article ? Do you know a better solution ?

--Nescio* 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest

Nescio continues to removed properly cited, relevant material without explanation, despite writing above that "discussing debatable points before editing is of course the best way to proceed." [15] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the diff that you provided, it seems to me like Nescio was simply making the article more concise with that edit. Nothing of much significance was deleted. This looks like a fairly standard edit, common on all articles. Also, I noticed that you reverted this edit immediately afterward. If you are going to hold Nescio to "discussing debatable points before editing is of course the best way to proceed," you must follow it also. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separable points, Daniel. First, I thought we were supposed to discuss all edits in advance from now, and that particularly applies to removing sourced material. Nescio agreed to that, and then immediately went back on it.

Secondly, I can see why some of the material could be removed in the interests of conciseness, but most of it not e.g. removing that Reich had a sexual experience with the family maid when very young (clearly important given he became a psychoanalyst); thinking that his mother and lover might kill him; describing how his joy of life was shattered forever by his mother's affair; his skin condition that embarrassed him for the rest of his life; that he was sent to a gymnasium away from the home after his tutor (his mother's lover) was sent away; that Freud left a strong impression on him and that Freud allowed Reich to start seeing analytic patients as early as late 1919, which is an important point.

These would be important in any bio, but in the bio of a man with as complex a personality as Reich, these life details are especially important. My aim was to get this to FA status, and FAs require a lot of this kind of background detail on the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean when you say that some of the material should not be deleted from this article, although I would disagree with your assertion that "most" of the removed content cannot be removed in the name of conciseness. I would recomend that instead of reverting a change like this, you simply re-add the two or so important sections out of the approximately 7 sections that were deleted. By reverting, you re-add a lot of extra clutter that was removed from the article. Of course, I am no expert on Reich and I cannot pretend to know exactly what aspects of his life are important; however, it seems fairly clear that this article doesn't really nead to contain the information about who owned a farm before Reich's father took control of it. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can easily see that's not only unimportant but detrimental here to tell hearsay details, e.g. that Reich's mother used a household cleaner for suicide, and even that this cleaner was a cheap product, and so on. From the above of 20 Nov 18:14 it is clear that Slim Virgin didn't even check what details I deleted for the sake of conciseness and of seriousness. She simply reverted, leaving just an authoritarian hint on the talk page. -- Slim Virgin's numerous reverts over the last months were exactly of that type, that she quickly re-installed not only clutter like this but also clear errors. Why did she act this way ? I'd like to know.

Once again, Nescio DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the content policies. You can't delete something from a good source because YOU think it's hearsay. It is extremely important to his life story that his mother died after drinking a cheap household cleaner, because she died slowly and in agony, and he watched, blaming himself for it. If a good source says it happened, we say it happened. Period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I explained to her that there was, indeed, an "inner circle" of Freud (and gave some names), but Reich did not belong to it, she reverted.
When I told her that Vienna is not situated in Germany, and thus Reich's early career was mainly in Austria, she reverted.
When I showed that there was nothing what can be called seriously "The Einstein experiment" (a label) and put straight the inflated chapter on it, she reverted, and so on, and so on (who takes the trouble to examine all that talk stuff ?).

Slim Virgin knew always better, even at a time when she knew Reich just from hearsay (30 Dec 2005).

Some weeks ago she started reading a book about Reich (which I had recommended - she didn't even know of the existence of this standard biography, by Sharaf), and now, much more than ever, she insists to know better -- notwithstanding that at one point she proposed that we pool together our capacities: my knowledge of Reich's life and work, and her knowledge of the English language.

--Nescio* 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pool resources, it's not just my English you can use, but my knowledge of how to write a good WP article. My aim was to get this article to featured article status. I've written four FAs already, and I've watched the FA process many times, so I have a fairly good idea of what's required. Background color is definitely required, and a lot of it if it's available; this is especially important for a psychoanalyst for obvious reasons. Instead of removing material wholesale with no explanation, why not say on talk what you think is irrelevant and why? You said above that you agreed all edits should be discussed in advance, then your first edit after agreeing was to remove a lot of material without discussion. That makes no sense to me.

The question is: would you like to see this article become a featured article or not? I can try to get it there, but I can't do it with this situation going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin, you again try to turn the tables on me. In vain, as anyone can see on these pages. While I patiently and repeatedly explained to you basic things about Reich, you continued to ignore them, to revert my edits rigorously, and to refuse to react on my arguments with arguments, in many cases. - Your reproach that I had removed recently "material wholesale with no explanation" is unfair. I left the remark "slimming", and moreover the deletions were self-explanatory, as Daniel understood well. There was left enough of background color. If you continued with this prolix style you'd end up with a book, not an encyclopedic article.

At one point you wanted to teach me what a good lead should look like. Then you suppressed the most momentous event in Reich's career which I had at several times inserted to the lead: his fourfold crisis around 1933/34 (exile, expulsion from IPV and KPD, divorce with loss of children). You think, this is right ?

Now you tell me that you are an experienced writer of wiki FAs. Maybe. But those articles surely dealt with topics you are an expert on, or well acquainted with. But why did you seize just this present article, as you were quite blank about Reich ? Why do you insist to play the master expert here, after you just have read one book about Reich, or perhaps only half of it ?

If you really are interested in a good article on Reich, even a FA, you should immediately stop your presumptuous behaviour. Then we can try to proceed in a constructive way.

--Nescio* 13:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel saw the point of one of the removals, as did I. The rest I did not see the point of and your edit summary "slimming" doesn't explain. The lead doesn't need to contain Reich's "fourhold crisis," and it is your POV that this was crucial; others believe he was as disturbed before it as he was afterwards, and indeed that it was because he was disturbed that he had the crisis in the first place.

It's not at all a matter of Reich's alleged "disturbance", when Hitler exiled him, when Freud kicked him off without a word, when the Communists turned against him as the author of Mass Psychology of Fascism. Didn't you read Sharaf by the pertinent chapter ? --Nescio* 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what's required of FAs whether I'm familiar with the topic or not. There are certain set requirements that all articles are expected to follow.

Here's a suggestion. Copy the article into your user space; edit it for a few days; and show us how your version would be different. Then we can see clearly whether it would be an improvement, and if it is, the new text can be inserted instead of the current article. As things stand, with you mostly removing material, it's impossible to know what kind of article you would create, so creating a draft, even a very partial one, would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a good suggestion on one condition. Both of you stop accusing the other of pushing POV and acting in bad faith. If we can see where good-faith edits might require some changing, it can be done. However, constant accusations will only hurt this process. Also, I think that you, SV, should do the same thing. Once you have both completed your articles, I will do my best to merge the two articles together. Let's see where that leads us. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, Daniel, this is a good proposal to come to a reasonable solution. But after my experiences with Slim Virgin's uncooperativeness over the last six months – see the talk pages – I think I'm entitled to have serious doubts that it will work. Actually some of my edits can be seen as an alternative chapter. The best example perhaps – which will not take too much of your time to check, and which does not require familiarity with Reich – is my handling of the Einstein episode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Einstein_episode_overstated

Please, consider the reactions of Slim Virgin, and you'll understand my doubts, if you had not beforehand.

Another example is my proposal of a completely new structure of the article. OK, it may be difficult to judge for someone without knowledge about the topic. But a person who has the ambition to write an article about Reich should be able to have an opinion on it.

It's difficult for someone with some expert knowledge to have a partner who declares against him:

"I know what's required of FAs whether I'm familiar with the topic or not." (Slim Virgin, 22 Nov 2006, 22:21)

--Nescio* 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, you are permitted to have all of the doubts that this will work as you like. However, if you want this mediation to come to a successful conclusion, I recommend that you go along with this as it is a fair idea. This way, you won't have to continue to go back and redo all of the edits that you made before because we will have an agreed-upon article. Also, you are correct in saying that "a person who has the ambition to write an article about Reich should be able to have an opinion on it," but your assumption that you may include that opinion in a Wikipedia article is incorrect. Wikipedia has a very clear NPOV policy and this cannot be violated. Again, I recommend that you at least attempt to create a version of the article that you would find acceptable. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you misunderstood what I meant. "It" was related to "structure". What I wanted to say is that I expected an opinion of Slim Virgin about my proposal of a new structure of the article, given that the old one, even if it's of long standing, is IMO completely inadequate. Further work within that scheme is bound to bring about a miserable article. But she ignored my proposal, as usual. You'll agree that's not a good basis for cooperation, is it ?

If you take the trouble and scrutinize our long edit war you cannot realistically believe that, after both of us will have completed a separate version of the article, Slim Virgin would accept mine, wholesale or chapters of it, or take it as a basis for grammatical improvement. As I said before, we already tried such a solution exemplarily with the lead and the Einstein chapters. Look at the results.

We also had it the other way round, that I take Slim Virgin's text as a basis for factual improvement. This did not work either. You, I, and anyone interested can easily see the reasons for this failure from the exchanges Slim Virgin and I had over some months.

--Nescio* 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, you can use your suggested structure in your draft version of the article. I'll continue my work in a separate draft version. It should eventually be self-evident which is the better version, or which parts of which version are better. Daniel can then mix and match as he sees fit, or ask others for their opinion. That strikes me as a fair and constructive suggestion. We have found we cannot work together, and yet we both want to improve the article. Therefore, let us work separately on trying to improve it, and when we're done, Daniel can merge the best of each of our efforts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

I cannot accept Slim Virgin's proposal of writing separately two articles, for the following reasons:

We already tried out a similar procedure with the lead and Einstein sections – it did not work.
I already invested a lot of time for this article – with little avail. I won't write the whole article, because the predictable result will be that Slim Virgin deals with it as she did before with most of my contributions (see the numerous reverts, beginning at 30 May, and the reluctance to bring forward reasonable arguments on the talk page).
I don't believe that a third person, who gets his or her knowledge on the topic from the two articles alone, will be able to "merge the best of each of our efforts" with a good result.

For the best of the article appears to me a proceeding as follows:

We agree for the time being on the scheme I proposed here (because it's nearly canonical for any account on Reich)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Proposal_of_a_new_structure_of_the_article

Slim Virgin writes the chapters as she proceeds with her study of Sharaf's Reich biography.

My job would be to comment, name additional sources, correct if necessary, and amend new research results Sharaf, writing around 1980, didn't know.

--Nescio* 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my proposal that we each write a draft; it was the mediator's. I take issue with your claim that you've invested a lot of time in this article; you've added almost nothing, but have mostly deleted material I've added or reverted to an intro that was POV and sometimes hard to understand. The two-versions suggestion is fair and is the only thing that will work, as far as I can see. Anyway, it would be interesting to see what you would actually come up with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems continue

Daniel, the problems with Nescio removing material s/he doesn't like continue. She has even removed a post of mine from the talk page, with an edit summary I don't understand, but which I think means she couldn't see the point of it. [16] (The point of it was to explain to other editors why I had removed the DOR disambiguation link from the Reich article.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say the problems with Slim Virgins continue. What happened was that she used the article – again – like a sandbox, writing something without much consideration, and shortly afterwards removing it. Such was the entry above. There was no need to keep a separate record of this hasty and inconsiderate editing in the talk page, the effect of which is a distracting from and a burying of the real discussion.

I still have not heard a word about why Slim Virgin seized just upon the Wilhelm Reich article, a topic she just started to study, why she defends furiously its deplorable state while pretending that she alone can make it a featured article. A preposterous game.

--Nescio* 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that since neither of you wants to cooperate with the other, the only way that this will be successfully resolved is if you both leave off editing Wilhelm Reich for now and simply create your own version of the article. I will be able to determine which information from each article should be merged into a final version. As you both know, there is no way that I can stop anybody from editing, so telling me all about the other person "ruining" the article isn't going to help. Instead, concentrate on writing your own version of the article. Once you have finished, simply tell me and I will look over it. In the mean time, I think it would be better all around if neither of you edited the actual article itself. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to agree to that. I'm waiting to hear whether Nescio agrees too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, I can't agree to this proposal. I've already given some of my reasons above. We already tried out this mode with the lead section and the Einstein chapter, and it did not work. This also shows: You cannot judge reasonably about this conflict without knowledge on the matter involved. The same would apply all the more if both of us would work out separately the whole article.

If you, Daniel, look to the pertinent portions of the history and talk pages of Wilhelm Reich, and if you look beyond that to those pages in their entirety, beginning with SV's reverts at end of May, and to the discussions I tried to initiate with the patience of a saint, I can't imagine that you don't arrive at the conclusion that SV's conduct was in the main disruptive - and this from a basis of an admittedly very limited knowledge about the subject matter.

I wonder if the following rule from WP:BAN applies to a case like this.

While bans often apply to the entire project, partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter.

Anyway, whatever happened in the past half year, I'm still willing to cooperate for the sake of the improvement of the article in the way I proposed above. I hope SV, after a well-considered review of our past conflict, will agree to my proposal, or at least will respond to it in a constructive way.

--Nescio* 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, I can tell you for a fact that WP:BAN most certainly does not apply in this case. I can also tell you that currently, you are being more disruptive to this process than SlimVirgin is. If you have an alternative idea to the one currently proposed, please mention it. Simply saying that this idea won't work is not conducive to solving the problem. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have to be more precise. When I spoke of Slim Virgin's disruptiveness this was related to her conduct during the span of May to October this year. You did not comment on it. Am I wrong ? – Now, what is in your opinion my disruptiveness in this mediation process? –– I made a fair proposal, based on a due consideration of the capacities of both of us, without looking back on our conflict history. You can find it here above, under no.8. – Slim Virgin replied shortly, avoiding any comment or to say yes or no. Now you say I'm disruptive ? I refuse to write a complete article which afterwards shall be merged with Slim Virgin's article by a third person with little factual knowledge about the topic, probably you. There is nothing disruptive with this refusal, since I gave my reasons and made a constructive proposal. Please reply on it.

--Nescio* 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn't ever doubt that Daniel is a good and intelligent editor. Though, can you tell me how someone can judge the relevance of materials and the solidity of sources – both extremely difficult especially in the case of Reich with the web full of rubbish about him – without background knowledge ? (see our dispute on the "Einstein experiment" which in the article has been puffed up by some energy freaks with dubious sources to a huge scientific event)

Furthermore, I'd like to hear your – and Daniel's – opinion about my proposal how to proceed.

--Nescio* 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance and solidity of sources are not particularly difficult to determine. A source is relevant if it adds information that is worth adding to the article. As far as reliability, students are taught from middle school how to determine if a source is reliable. If other sources support its claims, if there is a sponsoring institution listed, if there is a way to contact the creater of the source, etc. These criteria define whether a source is reliable.

As far as your proposal, I am reluctant to accept it because it seems to give you the final word. I think that it would be best if a neutral third party produced the final draft of the article. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can agree modo grosso with what Slim Virgin wrote. I cannot understand Daniel's "final word" argument against my proposal. Neither of us will ever have the final word for any article in the wikipedia.

Tell me please, what can I do to get from you a concrete answer to my concrete proposal above for the TOC and how to proceed with the writing.

--Nescio* 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the TOC proposal is not above, but on the Reich talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Proposal_of_a_new_structure_of_the_article

--Nescio* 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once each of you is finished with your version of the article, leave a comment here or on my talk page with a link to it. Thanks. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of Mediation

I just thought I would post here to find out, what is the state of this mediation? Nothing has been discussed here for quite a while now, and I am wondering if both parties still want to continue with this. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, as a non-native speaker, I never agreed to compete in English prose with a native speaker like Slim Virgin. I made a proposal, as an expert on Reich, how we could work together using our special skills to bring about a good article. This proposal has not been answered yet. Meanwhile, for some months now, the article continues to remain in its miserable state. Nobody seems to care, or those who'd care are waiting for the result of the mediation. But it seems to me that the mediation failed. --Nescio* 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the article is in a miserable state is that you halted the improvements, which would have been completed by now, and would have been vastly better that the current page, even if you didn't like all of them. You've taken part in this mediation as and when the mood takes you; you're not a regular editor to Wikipedia; and you focus almost entirely on this single issue or issues related to it. Your edits elsewhere also show little or no concern for Wikipedia as a whole — e.g. your recent edit about Reich to Paul Edwards (philosopher) not only ignored that the rest of the page was probably a copyright violation, but you added your material after the sentence "Robert Kalin wishes he was [at the funeral] and carried out the ceremony in his mind, with tears for a river," which anyone who cared tuppence about Wikipedia would have deleted. [17]

I admit to having a very low tolerance of this kind of editing, and I really can't continue these endless, pointless discussions. Both the mediator and I responded to your proposal and turned it down. The mediator made a separate proposal. I agreed to it. You didn't. I therefore agree that the mediation appears to have failed.

As for the English, this is the English Wikipedia, and articles must be written properly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that there is anything else left to be done in this mediation. You may try alternative routes to solve your problem, but I am honestly out of ideas. If there is no objection, I will close this mediation. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you, as it seems to me, never looked close enough to the problems at stake here to criticize the conduct of Slim Virgin, during the long edit wars, and in all those often bizarre discussions. Just recently she wrote here above: "The only reason the article is in a miserable state is that you halted the improvements." The opposite is true, as you can easily find out. The present version is largely hers. My improvements were permanently deleted. –– While I never agreed to compete with Slim Virgin in writing the whole article offline – which IMO is not the method Wikipedia editing works – Slim Virgin said she wanted to do this. But she did not, for months. I don't know her reasons. Though the result is that the article is stagnating in its miserable state. I can't think that this is her objective, but for some readers who may have followed what happened since May 2006 it may look like that. I learned that Slim Virgin is a quite influential person in the English Wikipedia. Does this also mean that she is unimpeachable?

--Nescio* 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'd like to remind you is my constructive proposal for a new structure for the article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Proposal_of_a_new_structure_of_the_article

Slim Virgin at Jan 27 wrote triumphantly:

"Both the mediator and I responded to your proposal and turned it down." Yes, the response was just a turning down without giving any substantial reasons or presenting an alternative. I don't think that's a fair dealing of affairs, and therefore think it appropriate to bring the matter to an arbitration committee.

--Nescio* 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.