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)

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! [1]. 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)

Bad Article looks as if it was written by a child

"and then the federal government destroyed everything of note, the end!" No mention of books relating to him, mentions him impacting culture but never further than "oh yeah these authors thought he was cool I guess" and the talk section is a bunch of midwits seething about reddit-tier trite. You should humble yourselves, because even if this man was peddling pseudoscience he is still more intelligent, relevant, and influential than any of the turbo-goys here. This would be like reading an article about John C. Lily and it's just "yeah this dude was a freaking whacko or something and anyway he had sex with dolphins and the government shot him a bunch or smthn". Can't say I don't expect this quality editorial from people that eugenics would certainly never allow near existence. They made a successful broadway theatrical about this guy and all I see are retarded redditors picking their belly button and tipping their fedoras about his crazy *adjusts glasses* "idea that sexuality is a form of energy and must be studied in relation to health benefits" Wow, I can see why the sub-Saharan IQ incels here would HATE him.

Dictated but not read, Sneed 2600:6C55:67F0:3F40:865B:391D:E6BA:1438 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

And I understand you're loading your fedora up for a witty retort like saying that my post reads as if written by a child, but I'll preemptively have you know I wouldn't waste even a molecule of effort on this dump. Now you don't have to come up with such a scathing seething reply and you can save some braincells for later. 2600:6C55:67F0:3F40:865B:391D:E6BA:1438 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not an article about his biography, it is an article about the non-existent energy called "orgone". tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Einstein?

To say that renowned figures like Einstein scrutinized Reich's claims and found no scientific basis for the phenomenon is an Appeal to Authority fallacy: “Einstein found no basis, therefore the matter is settled.” I would simply write something to this effect: "Einstein rejected the theory." Stjohn1970 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article concludes anything from that fact. It does not mark Einstein as a renowned figure or as an authority, and it does not claim that the matter is therefore settled. It just quotes Einstein's opinion, based on his research, which was solicited by Reich, who was indeed concerned with experimental verification from other scientists. So I don't see any appeal to authority from the article's part, let alone a fallacy. - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)