Talk:Orgone/Archive 5

DeMeo refs
Dear Famousdog, you removed my insertion of James DeMeo's video about orgone energy on the basis that it is an unreliable source. I would like to ask on what you base this claim? I would like to point out that much of DeMeo's work mentioned in the video has been published in peer-reviewed journals, for example such as you can read here.--Gulpen (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gulpen, this video is a self-published source, therefore unreliable. If it is based on reliable sources, then please use those. Famous dog 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok--Gulpen (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To educate myself I read Verifiability and happened to come across the following passage: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Would that change the situation? --Gulpen (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see many of DeMeo's papers published in "reliable third-party publications". Correct me if I'm wrong. You might also want to look at WP:FRINGE. Being an expert in a fringe topic does not necessarily make you an expert. Famous dog 07:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about the paper I referred you to in the opening message? --Gulpen (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments below. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to point to the following (as I see was just added on the Wilhelm Reich page):
 * 1. DeMeo, James. "Preliminary Analysis of Chang es in Kansas Weather Coincidental to Experimental Operations with a Reich Cloudbuster," 1979 University of Kansas Dept. of Geography. (See here.)
 * Unpublished thesis. Counts as WP:SPS. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Gulpen (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2. DeMeo, James. "Water as a Resonant Medium for Unusual External Environmental Factors", Water: A Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2011, pp. 1-47. (See here.)
 * Water is a very new (only 2 vols so far) online journal. It does not look like a WP:RS to me. It is not listed in any of the usual databases (PubMed, Web of Science) and the only reference to it on WP is in relation to Orgone energy. Nuff said. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether other WP articles cite the same journal is not a reason to qualify the journal as reliable or not. You have a valid point, however, regarding the non-inclusion of the journal in the 'usual databases' (I assume you have checked this correctly). However, I know from my own experience that many journals (that you undoubtedly would also consider as reliable) are not included in such databases, because they are included in the many hundreds of various sub-databases for specific disciplines. Moreover, whether the journal is electronic is a technical matter. It is true that the journal is relatively new (3 vols.). However, they seem to have a respectable editorial board which seems to me like a good reason to consider this as a reliable source.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only point to this glaringly gushing defence of Reich in particular, along with the way the journal includes at least one quite troublingly pseudoscientific article in each edition (vol 2 had one which took Homeopathy very seriously and went to some lengths to try and prove that "it CAN work, honest!", including some economies of truth re its reported effectiveness) - whether for parody's sake or for serious I cannot rightly say - and wonder if you might even be, behind the internet mask, involved with "Water" in some way yourself? (Link: http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-4/demeo-summary-2 ) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3. DeMeo, James. "Experimental Confirmation of the Reich Orgone Accumulator Thermal Anomaly", Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine 20(3):1-16, 2010.
 * Subtle Energies is, forgive me, NOT a WP:RS. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you personally like and/or are in favour of research into any particular field of knowledge is not a reason to judge a journal as unreliable. This is not a convincing argument. Again, they seem to have a respectable editorial board.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4. DeMeo, James: "Report on Orgone Accumulator Stimulation of Sprouting Mung Beans", Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, 21(2):51-62, 2011. (For both see here.)
 * Ditto. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5. DeMeo, James: "Dayton C. Miller Revisited", in Should the Laws of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? Hector A. Munera, Editor, 2011, pp. 285-315. (See here.)
 * Book. Counts as WP:SPS. Famous dog 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "a book", but "a self-published book" is considered as WP:SPS (I presume! - otherwise how about all other books?). As far as I can see, this book is not self-published by DeMeo. However, the editorial policy of the publisher is not clear, so that leaves this source in a grey zone.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, none of the four sources have any direct link to or interest in either Wilhelm Reich or 'Orgonomy' and, thus, qualify as third-party sources from my point of view.
 * WP:RS says that we need reliable third-party sources. Not just any third-party sources. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, as far as I can tell, there are at present no peer-reviewed journal articles concerning reproductions of Reich's orgone-related experiments on the orgone page. There is only one, Isaacs, journal article and I suspect s/he didn't reproduce an experiment (though I don't have access to the full-text at this moment!). Most of the other sources are merely popular science books which have to be used with due caution. In this context, DeMeo's three journal articles have considerable weight. If there are any peer-reviewed journal articles where any of Reich's orgone-related experiments are reproduced and falsified, then I would be very happy to learn about this. As yet, I do not know of any.
 * Finally, if you permit, I would like to copy&move this discussion to the talk:orgone page, because this discussion touches on issues that are of a more general interest there. However, just to be clear, I'm not arguing for anything here, except for inclusion of DeMeo's video. --Gulpen (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That other researchers haven't bothered to reproduce Reich's rather silly experiments does NOT mean he is right. Famous dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue this on Talk:Orgone. I've transcluded this discussion there. Famous dog 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note: I responded also above) I have to submit, therefore, that the two journals can be considered as reliable sources (apart from that DeMeo can be considered an authority in the (fringe) field and that his above-mentioned articles seem to be well-written and well-referenced) Of course, as I stated, I am not implying that these articles of DeMeo validate Reich's work. If my assertion is correct that there are no other peer-reviewed experiments, then this merely means that there are no direct sources that can be used to counter/qualify DeMeo's work. This implies, therefore, that if any of DeMeo's work or his video are included in the article, we should provide general due qualification of their status, i.e. not-supported by majority view/scientific concensus.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Subtle Energies is a joke and the jury is still out on Water is clearly a bullsh*t journal (see below). Regarding Water journal, I'm not familiar with the names of ANY of those researchers, sorry. What aspects of "water" do they research? How do you conclude that they comprise a "respectable editorial board"? There are no biogs or links. Regarding Subtle Energies journal, I at no point said that I "personally like and/or are in favour of research into" anything. Stop making assumptions about my motivations. Now, there are in fact several researchers on that board that I most certainly DO NOT respect as academics. Namely Radin, Norris, Benor & Kreiger. The others I am unfamiliar with. The "research" I have read from those particular editors has struck me as far below par. However, this is just my opinion. I think you will have a hard time convincing anybody that this journal is a RS rather than simply being a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Finally, being an expert in a fringe area does not make you an expert or an authority. It makes you a promoter of fringe ideas and fringe ideas should not be published in an encyclopedia until such time as they become notable and/or verifiable. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Famous dog 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see Michael Persinger has published in Water and they publish waffle about how water retains information (i.e. has a "memory") which presumably explains how homeopathy "works" (i.e. doesn't). Frankly, this is not looking good... Famous dog 19:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I do not personally subscribe to any of Michael Persinger's theories, I think that everyone has an equal right to publish articles. At any rate in academia we judge articles on themselves, not on the basis of the worth of the author (though on Wikipedia we do both). Whether you are personally familiar with the names of any of the researchers is not important, nor whether you respect them as academics, or whether you consider their work below par. I am unable to judge the worth of any of this. The only option is gathering details on their bios/work and decide together using the same information. I have to admit that I did not study the bios/work of the Water Journal editors - my assertion there was not substantiated. The board of Subtle Energies, however, at any rate shows due academic credentials.
 * Regarding my assumptions of your motivation, you stated "Subtle Energies is, forgive me, NOT a...", without providing any argument. Hence, I concluded that you had a personal judgement. At any rate, a strong judgement from you about this matter is evident from the language you use about the journals ("a joke", "waffle", "clearly a bull*shit") and the topics they cover ("what aspects of 'water" do they research?", to which the answer can be found on their front page.)
 * But rather than going around the bush a few more times - I do not get the impression we are approaching a consensus - how about we ask someone else to comment? I believe there is a RS settling forum or something like that. We can ask whether they consider the two journals & the Munera book to be RS (to the extent that it is allowed to represent a minority view!!) and, consequently, whether we can include DeMeo's video.--Gulpen (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, that's a very good idea. I have posted a notice here. Hopefully we can get some second opinions. Famous dog 07:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Famousdog, after another lengthy discussion there the following was the verdict regarding our initial point: "Yes! Externals links are the perfect place for this material. It is of interest and pertinent (because the article topic is directly about the FRINGE content, so regardless of its acceptance people may wish to learn more); but, given that the video isn't a reliable source we can't expand the article with its content..." Which, I have to admit, was not the type of reasoning I had, and I think you neither. Anyway, do you find this agreeable?--Gulpen (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with what was said on the rs noticeboard. The video is fine as an EL if tagged as an example of DeMeo's fringe work, but it cannot be used as a reference for the article text as it is simply not RS. This would also seem to imply that his papers cannot be used either. Are we going to remove article text based on DeMeo's academic work? Famous  dog   (c) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost. If I remember correctly, inclusion of DeMeo's work in the main text was allowed IF DULY QUALIFIED as a significant fringe position - ie only as DeMeo's personal views, not as generall information about Reich or Orgone, etc. Do you agree with this interpretation (was halfway the discussion)? --Gulpen (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It also recommends we "Limit use of DeMeo as much as possible", "don't use DeMeo's statements about other living people", don't "treat those journal publications as anything other than extremely FRINGEy and "avoid inserting any medical claims made by DeMeo". I'm not sure what that leaves us! I would not include any of the articles from Water or Subtle Energies as those are clearly fringe journals. His book chapter, I'm happy for you to include as long as it doesn't raise any of the above-mentioned red-flags. I also think it should be made explicit in the main text that his thesis is an unpublished academic thesis. Famous dog   (c) 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood "Limit use of DeMeo as much as possible" to mean that we should try to use DeMeo's work only for DeMeo's personal views, which I do not think is a problem. On the RS noticeboard it read "[treat] his expressions as notable expressions of FRINGE opinion; [but] avoid stating them 'as fact'". Here, I understood "his expressions" to refer to the list of sources I mentioned just above this comment, which included the two journal articles. Even though the articles are admittedly FRINGE, they are valuable sources to summarise DeMeo's views (which would fall under "summariz[ing] significant opinions" as per WP:FRINGE). I think this is most certainly possible without referring to "other living people" or making "medical claims" (insofar his claims have medical implications, those can be omitted). Are our interpretations really diverging so much here?
 * Regarding qualifying DeMeo's thesis (his PhD dissertation?) as unpublished, I'm not sure why that is important except if we have reason not to trust some source's claim about the content of that thesis. If this is the case, or if there is another good reason to include this qualification, then I have no objection.--Gulpen (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to check, I submitted this point to the RS noticeboard. By the way, I don't know why, but this doesn't show up on the Talk:Orgone page anymore.--Gulpen (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, now foo is saying: "I would suggest that the video not be used as a source at all; similarly with the book edited by Munera." So I really think we need to get down to brass tacks here. What exactly do you want to say? And why exactly do you need any of DeMeo's work to support it? He is such a fringe figure that really his opinion is not really notable enough to even mention. But if there is something I'm overlooking please try to convince me otherwise. Famous dog   (c) 07:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What in His name are you doing? I really thought we had reached consensus regarding the video!? On the noticeboard it stated regarding the video: 1) it should be used "Not as a reference." and "not be used as a source at all" in the main text, however, 2) Regarding the video: "Externals links are the perfect place for this material". These two do not exclude one another! And, in fact, you yourself stated: "The video is fine as an EL if tagged as an example of DeMeo's fringe work" ... So I really do not understand why you removed the video A SECOND TIME. Please undo.


 * Regarding the main text, there is some room for DeMeo's views, because 3) "I would suggest treating [DeMeo's] expressions as notable expressions of FRINGE opinion", though 4) NOT "to wholesale include 'DeMeo thinks...'", etc. etc. etc. So what DOES this leave room for? I think that at least it is possible to include something along the lines of: "There are some individuals who think that orgone does exists and have published their findings in fringe journals. [with references to the two journal articles]".--Gulpen (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm being contrary. I should point out that you are citing other WP editors' opinions there, which may not chime with mine (or yours, or anybody else's for that matter). Those conclusions are far from gospel. The fact is it is difficult to know exactly what you are trying to achieve by adding this material. I understand that a distinction has been made between using stuff as a source for the article text and simply placing an EL on the page, but WP is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links and as such there should be a really rather good reason to add this as an EL otherwise EL lists simply expand exponentially and become a dumping ground for material not good enough to be cited in the main text. However, I have undone my edit and restored the EL. I just don't think it should be there at all. WP is not a promotional tool for, forgive me, tools. Famous  dog   (c) 13:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this 2012 article is a more reliable source: "In Defense of Wilhelm Reich". Though also published in Water Journal (though peer-reviewed) it is authored not just by DeMeo, but by 24 scientists and physicians (18 holding PhD/MD/DO degrees, plus three more PhD candidates - you can do your own research to verify this). It shows that the following claim in the current text of this article is contested: "There is no empirical support for the concept of orgone in medicine or the physical sciences, and research into the concept ceased with the end of the Institute" (Isaacs, K. [1999]. "Searching for Science in Psychoanalysis". Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 29 [3]: 235–252. doi:10.1023/A:1021973219022.). I'd like to see someone include this nuance in the text. -- Gulpen (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A new source


 * Just because you happen to hold a doctorate doesn't mean you're incapable of losing your goddamn mind, being corrupted, misled by clever conmen, or continuing to believe in fairies because you Definitely Saw One age six whilst dosed up on refined sugars ... nor in fact that it was awarded by a reputable organisation, other than e.g. the Institute of Orgone Research or similar. What other work have these fine upstanding folk published? I'm not to waste time going off to looking for it, you're the one adamant about these wacky claims and theories, thus the burden of proof falls upon yourself.
 * Maybe you could even do some properly organised research for yourself, or at least make up a telescope with an amber lens on it and show us the bions falling from the sky, or rent some time at the LHC and discover that they're actually Higgs bosons, and thus get something, anything published in a periodical that stands on a slightly more solid scientific base than MAD magazine...
 * The claim about everyone being allowed their fair say and moment in the scientific community's spotlight is just baiting me to channel Godwin or bring other stuff like the antivax scene into the discussion (with reference to my first para, one of the most prominent UK antivaxxers ended up being struck off the medical register - having previously been a practicing MD - after it was revealed his research was all bullshit and conducted at the behest of a company paying him a tidy sum to fix the results... up until and even after then, people pointed to his qualifications as a sign of veracity... no, your veracity comes simply from the method and theory in your work; remember that Einstein did badly at school and was stuck at a menial desk job before producing an actual theoretical breakthru).
 * You're allowed a turn at the mic, yes, but if what comes out of your mouth whilst you're up there is patent nonsense without any verifiable backup, don't expect a second go. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category
I removed Category:Pseudoscience on the grounds that as I explained at Talk:Health at Every Size, “it is a very stigmatizing label that discourages inquiry into any subject labeled as such” and should be avoided when in doubt. Reich himself is not placed in Category:Pseudoscientists, but Scientists. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's okay. If a theory is established as pseudoscientific, then it is natural and correct for further inquiry into the subject to decline, since it holds no legitimate scientific interest. Your justification for removing the pseudoscience category is insufficient, because you're basically saying you don't want the topic to be stigmatized and you don't want further inquiry to be discouraged. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the topic is, in fact, pseudoscience. There has already been discussion in this talk page about the scientific validity of "orgone". (If anything, the article does not emphasize enough how discredited it is.) Since the removal of the category is not justified I am reverting that edit. Rotiro (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I found some references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Orgonomy which I will add to this article. This is a better place for them anyway. Rotiro (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourced hypothetical
Note: Three times now, anon 216.80.29.25 has removed the word hypothetical from the lead, although it is properly sourced. Anon was warned on talk page for unexplained content removal. - DVdm (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)