Template talk:Wilhelm Reich

Criteria for Biographies
I'm pretty confident that Charles Rycroft's work should not be included as a (scientific) biography. It is an essay, really, and focusses on only limited aspects of Reich's work. Moreover, there are virtually no references and is quite generally poorly sourced. It is an interesting work only because Rycroft knows so much about the contextual psychoanalytic doctrines and history, and he has a keen intellect.-Gulpen (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see a reason to exclude it (not sure what you mean by a scientific biography). Charles Rycroft was a notable psychoanalyst. It was a 112-page Fontana Modern Masters in 1971, edited by Frank Kermode. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rycroft's is not a serious biography because he summarises all of Reich's life in something like five pages. It is not a serious "scientific biography" (referring to Reich's work) because Rycroft does not even mention more than half of Reich's work. It is an essay because it is a personal reflection (he does not refer to any other opinions about Reich's work). It is 112 pages because it is pocket-size. You may still argue we include it, but I'd like us to come up with some consistent criteria (which hopefully exclude Turner) .--Gulpen (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)