Talk:Wilhelm Reich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sensationalist and biased

"His second wife, Ilse Ollendorf, said it replaced the psychoanalytic approach of never touching a patient with 'a physical attack by the therapist.'"

This sentence in the section on Vegetotherapy appears to me as a trivial and ill-justified attempt to "spice up" the prose. As Reich's second third wife writes in the preface to her own 1969 Reich biography on page xix: "I am neither a scientist nor a psychiatrist, and I will have to leave it up to future scientists to write an evaluation of Reich's scientific work", and she then goes on to make a similar disclaimer with respect to his therapeutic work. She clearly does not consider herself qualified to make authoritative assessments about Reich's scientific and professional practice. Anyway, I take it I'm not the only active contributor on this subject who reacts against the clearly tabloid quality of this quote, so I'm not going to argue more for its removal at this time. But removed it should be. __meco (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Affair with Gerda Ring

I've added information about his affair with Norwegian actress Gerda Ring. Now, what I added looks suspiciously similar to what was already mentioned about him having an affair with an actress who was also his student. The reason I didn't simply conclude that that actress must have been Ring is the additional information that this actress had been married to a colleague of his. Ring was married to a colleague of hers (i.e. an actor–Halfdan Christensen), and that marriage lasted from 1922 to at least 1943 (and likely to his death in 1950). Sharaf may have had his facts mixed up (or he has been inaccurately cited). For the time being I suggest we treat these two actresses as separate people. Also, in my source there was mention of Sigurd Hoel having assisted Reich and Ring in keeping their affair hidden from the public which I didn't include here. I suppose that would be too much detail here. __meco (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should regard them as separate people, because they do sound like the same woman. I've moved the paragraph here for now.

Reich and Lindenberg reportedly grew apart during the media attacks and Reich started seeing other women, one of them the actress Gerda Ring, whom also Reich had in training analysis at the time. Since Reich never received a licence to practice as a therapist in Norway he could only perform training analyses, i.e. analyses of individuals studying to become therapists themselves.

Also, could you give a translation of the following paragraph from the source? It sounds unclear as written, in that one group paid for it, another person owned the building, and yet a third group owned something else (the institute?). What was Reich's role, and when was it founded? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Financed by Norwegians Rolf Stenersen and Lars Christensen, and Englishman Constance Tracey, the International Institute for Sex Economy was founded on the property of the writer Sigurd Hoel in Oslo, with Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic. Hoel and Odd Havrevold as owners. The cost of the equipment amounted to NOK 60,000, with monthly operating costs of NOK 2,000.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The structure of this section has become cluttered, but I'll leave that for now, responding directly below to your request to me. Huldra has supplied below the translation which you request. My late response is due to the fact that I was finishing reading a 2010 biography of Ola Raknes which also contained information on this issue and I wanted to absorb it adequately to assess how it could best elucidate the information about this research institute.

Reich's experimental activities would eventually take place in Sigurd Hoel's house on Ensjøveien. In February 1936 Reich here created his Institut für Sexualökonomische Lebensforschung, heavily sponsored by Rolf Stenersen. Here also the Sexpol publishing company was localized. Reich saw to it that a number of assistants were employed, some were German refugees, and the official language was German. The institute was owned by Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel/Waal and Odd Havrevold, and Rolf Stenersen made guarantees for it.

[Den eksperimentelle verksemda til Reich gjekk etter kvart føre seg i Sigurd Hoels hus i Ensjøveien. I februar 1936 oppretta Reich her sitt Institut für Sexualökonomische Lebensforschung, sterkt sponsa av Rolf Stenersen. Her heldt òg Sexpol-forlaget til. Reich fikk tilsett fleire assistentar, nokre var tyske flyktningar, og det offisiell språket var tysk. Det var Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel/Waal og Odd Havrevold som eigde instituttet, og Rolf Stenersen garanterte for dei.] (Gatland, p. 140)

In the next paragraph this information is added:

On May 1, 1937 Reich opened his news research laboratory at Drammensveien 110 H, where he was also living...

{Den 1. mai 1937 opna Reich sitt nye forsøkslaboratorium i Drammensveien 110 H, der han òg sjølv budde...] (ibid., p. 140)

Next paragraph (perhaps the Norwegian original text isn't crucial here, let me know if I should add it):

The development of vegetotherapy and the experimental work in the laboratory went on in parallell. He researched among other things electrical potential differences in the skin during anxiety attacks and during erotic stimulation. This was done in order to learn more about the two basic phenomena of opposite nature which are present in all neuroses, and which are fundamental opposites in vegetative life: sexuality and anxiety, which thus has a biological and bioenergetic basis... (ibid., p. 140)

Nexr paragraph (this is not about the institute but about the controversial human experiments which is also discussed further below between yourself and Huldra):

There were a number of rumors going about regarding Reich and his sexual experiments, but the experiments were far from as direct as for instance those which have later been detailed by Masters and Johnson. True enough, Reich did take measurements on the sexual organs of research subjects, also during erotic stimulation, but the trials did not include intercourse or gratification. At least this is what Helge Waal claims, who probably has the information from his mother, Nic. Waal. In the Arbeiderbladet, chief physician Johan Scharffenberg nevertheless claimed that Reich did want to make electrical measurements on mentally ill patients during intercourse, which would have been a grave criminal act. Reich himself rejected this as untrue rumor. (ibid., p. 140)

Then the next paragraph which adds some reflection to the seemingly one-sided criticism of Reich's sexual experiments in Oslo.

More than thirty years later Raknes expresses that he does not view it as unreasonable that Reich wanted to research this. Reich was ahead of his time, and later much more thorough experiments in this field have been done. "What's supposed to be wrong with this?" Raknes asks: "Who would be suffering from such experiments?" He adds that nowadays doctors perform experiments about which the mentally ill have no notion of the consequences of. Perhaps Raknes is thinking about lobotomy as a much more outrageous and sensational experiment on mentally ill than that which Reich had wanted. "Reich was an ethical man," Raknes emphasizes and repeats Harald Schjelderup's earlier statement about Wilhelm Reich being one of the strictest moralists he knew of. (ibid., p. 140f.)

I think in particular the two testimonies above concerning Reich's moral/ethical character should be considered important to the issue of ensuring balance in the present article.

Now, skipping the next paragraph there's more about Reich's laboratory (mustn't we take that as synonymous with the institute?):

In his laboratory Reich had a great number of assistants and first-rate scientific equipment, including electrical microscopes, stills and film cameras. In addition to expensive scientific instruments there could sometimes be 2000 kroner per month in operational costs. Just the biological laboratory had cost close to 60,000 kroner, he informs... (ibid., p. 142.)

Several pages onward in the Raknes biography, Gatland introduces some information about Reich's institute which are confusing and perhaps even controverting information give earlier (and detailed in the quotes I have provided above):

As a kind of follow-up of [Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie und Sexualökonomie], Reich took towards the end of his stay in Norway the initiative for the establishment of an International Institute fir Sex Economy (Internasjonalt Institutt fir Seksualøkonomi) with himself as the leader. Among the members were Ola Raknes, Nic. Waal, Sigurd Hoel and Odd Havrevold fraom Norway and the two Danish doctors Tage Philipson and J.H. Leunbach and Englishman A.S. Neill. The institute was dissolved in 1940 as a consequence of the war and Reich's departure... (ibid., p. 150.)

Unfortunately Gatland does not provide inline footnotes. The situation, however, is not as bad as with Søbye since at the end of the book Gatland does provide detailed references except that he lumps them together for each sub-chapter. For that reason I have not dealt with these yet. That would entail a lot of work, untangling the individual references finding which applies to a particular statement or item of information in the book. (I hope no other biographer ever takes after Gatland's format!). __meco (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, the first of Gatland's references which I did consult, Ilse Ollendorff Reich's Wilhelm Reich: A personal biography, contained information on this:

In February 1936 Reich together with a number of his Scandinavian friends and colleagues founded the Insitut für Sexualökonomishe Lebensforschung (Institute for Sex-Economic Bioresearch). A building was found where all aspects of the work could be brought together under one roof: the experimental laboratory work, the teaching and training courses, and publishing activities. The official language of the institute was German. Reich employed mainly German political refugees as secretaries, as laboratory assistants, and as staff for the publishing house, although there were some Norwegians working as assistants [...] Among those working with Reich at that time were physicians and psychologists, educators, nursery and kindergarten teachers, sociologists and artists, and laboratory assistants, (I.O. Reich 1969, p. 35)

__meco (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is really good stuff, Meco, thanks for putting it all together. If you want to go ahead and write something up for the article, using your and Huldra's material, please feel free. I'll get round to it eventually if you'd prefer not to, but it may take me some time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to find more of the sources which Gatland has used (and Søbye—hopefully I find all of his information in the Gatland sources). So I'm not going to attempt any injection of this quite yet. Also, I'm trying to collate sufficient references for adding something about Reich's unresolved psychological issues, i.e. his inability to successfully conclude an analysis (where he is the analysand) despite numerous attempts, his possible father issues (both with his actual father and with Freud—and possibly also Raknes—as substitute father figures), and also within this complex (possibly, that might be a tenuous tangent but notable in its own right nevertheless) his homophobia. __meco (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Just a few notes: Søbye, 1995, p.195, in Norwegian:

"Wilhelm Reich trengte penger til forskningen. Rolf Stenersen, skipsreder Lars Christensen som okkuperte Bouvetøya med sine hvalfangst-ekspedisjoner i 1927 og den grunnrike engelske Constance Tracey ga Reich penger så han kunne skaffe seg blandt annet to kostbare elektriske mikroskoper som forstørret 4 500 ganger. Reich fikk 20 000 kroner av Christensen og enda mer av Stenersen. Den eksperimentelle virksomheten foregikk i Sigurd Hoels hus i Ensjøveien på Kampen. Der opprettet Reich sitt Internasjonale seksualøkonomiske institutt. Det var Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Noc Hoel og Odd Havrevold som eide instituttet, og Rolf Stenersen som garanterte for dem. Reichs vitenskapelige apparater hadde kostet 60 000 kroner, og driften av instituttet slukte 2000 kroner pr. måned"

Basically: Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel and Odd Havrevold owned the institute. (They were all very central people in the "cultural scene" in Norway for years). The practical/experimental work took place in the house in Ensjøveien, (which was owned by Hoel). The money behind it all came from Stenersen. And it was a lot of money: the instruments alone cost 60 000 nok, and the Institute cost 2 000 nok per month to run. (2000 nok was a good yearly income for a normal worker in the 1930s in Norway.) (However; Stenersen could certainly afford it: he was one of the richest men in Norway. Even today, Norway has his museums, with all the modern art (Picasso, Munch, etc) he gave to the country.)

However: the fact that Reich got money from Stenersen disgusted many who had earlier been sympathetic to Reich. This because Stenersen at the same time was treated by Reich, breaking all ethical rules about doctor/patient relationships. People like Johan Scharffenberg turned against Reich partly for such reasons. That Reich at the same time also started a relationship with a female patient did not make matters better.

And there are other extremely controversial aspects, p.213 refers to his plans to measure "the electrical voltage" of the sexual organs during sexual intercourse. And these experiments were to be done on schizophrenic patients at Dikemark!! (Needless to say: they were never done).

In short: there are so many aspects of his stay in Norway, that it could be an article by itself.... But if I could sum up the controversy in two parts it would be:

• A: much of the "science" was rubbish
• B: all normal ethical standards were non-existent.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I think he did do the experiments on the psychiatric patients, at least according to Christopher Turner in Adventures in the Orgasmatron (2011). If Søbye says that didn't happen, maybe I should look up Turner's source. I'll try to add something about the Institute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim, do you have the Turner-book? If so, could you please see which sources he gives for pages 173-175? Søbye just mentions that Reich wanted to do this, not that it happened. (Not that I´m too pleased about the Søbye- book, as it has no foot-notes/references.) I find it very hard to believe that Reich got permission for experiments on psychiatric patients, especially as the "established" medical community in Norway (who would have to allow it) mostly had a very low opinion of him. Reich certainly also has his supporters in Norway, but they were typically among the more liberal or radical "intelligencia" (writers, artists etc). (If you don´t have the book, I can get it from an out-of-town library, but that will take a few days.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have Turner. The psychiatric patients are on pp. 174–175.

On p. 174: "Several of his students and Norwegian friends served as test subjects for these bioelectric experiments: Reich was nothing if not persuasive. Willy Brandt, who later became German chancellor but was then living in Norway to escape Nazi persecution, was one of Reich's unlikely guinea pigs. Others included the catatonic inmates of the Dikemark Sykehus, a psychiatric hospital just outside Oslo; rumors spread that Reich was arranging couplings there between mental patients. ..."

There is a footnote at the end of the paragraph referencing a film directed by Digne Meller-Marcovicz, Wilhelm Reich: Viva Little Man (2004), but that might be the source of some quotes that end the paragraph, unrelated to the psychiatric patients.

Then on p. 175: "Another of Reich's helpers, Wilhelm Hoffmann, who had trained in physiology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, also became suspicious of Reich's thesis. He found that the catatonic patients he tested for Reich at the Dikemark Sykehus displayed similar readings to those of healthy patients (Reich expected them to be lower), and he found that the skin potential recorded on these patients' erogenous and nonerogenous zones was identical (Reich expected the erogenous zones to be more sensitive). Reich also rejected Hoffmann's criticisms, claiming that Löwenbach had poisoned Hoffmann 'with lies.'"

The footnote after the p. 175 paragraph refers to Wilhelm Reich, Beyond Psychology: Letters and Journals, 1934–1939, p. 56. But again, it doesn't say which part of the paragraph the ref supports.

There's a reference to Reich in this 2012 article, "A History of Norwegian Psychiatry," but it's subscription only. It might mention those experiments, or the fact that he wanted but wasn't allowed to conduct them. I'll try to get hold of a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF at the Resource Exchange passed a copy of the article to me. It doesn't mention the psychiatric patients specifically, just that Reich had to leave the country "because of his uncritical medical treatment and research" (p. 264). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a reference to Hoffmann's criticism of Reich's experiments on schizophrenic patients in Sharaf's Fury on Earth (Sharaf is generally regarded as Reich's main biographer). See p. 215. Sharaf references a newspaper article (I assume it was Sharaf who translated this into English): William Hoffmann, "Dr. Reich and His Electrophysiology," Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. The Sharaf -book is available here; I´ll try to get hold of it. Also I found this: Randolf Alnæs (1995): Norsk Psykoanalyse i Mellomkrigsårene. (="Norwegian psychoanalysis between WWI and WWII"). Alnæs is professor emeritus in psychiatry at UiO: a better source than Søbye, me thinks. The booklet (about 50 pages) is partly about the bitter dispute between Otto Fenichel and Reich in the 1930´s. (Fenichel also lived in Oslo, part time until mid 1930s). And Alnæs does not mention anything about experiments on patients.

If you want any of the pages translated; feel free to ask (Alnæs writes about the "Institute for sexual economy" on p.28-29)

Alnæs points out that Reich did not have a license to practise as a doctor in Norway, and (p.36-37) he never got access to a proper hospital lab, but had to do his research on "Die Bione" in a private flat.

As a sidenote: Alnæs writes that the girlfriend of Willy Brandt (who worked for Reich), was Gertrud Gaasland, who later became Brandt´s first wife. However, that does not fit with the Willy Brandt article. It is well known that he was married first for a few years to a Norwegian woman, then divored and married a second Norwegian lady, Rut Brandt. But I cannot remember the name of the first wife...there is some mix-up here, somewhere.

Both Nic Waal and Ola Raknes knew & worked with Reich, and both wrote about him. I´ll see if I can find it. (Both were relatively positive to him, though, (especially Raknes).)

And Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938: should be relatively easy to get a photocopy of that article. I have not come across the name William Hoffmann anywhere else, yet. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that Gertrud Gaasland is listed elsewhere with a different surname. I forget all the details, but I believe it's the same woman, i.e. Brandt's wife = Reich's assistant. If you could find a copy of the Arbeiderbladet article that would be very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have got a scan (or rather: 3 scans -its a large article) of Wilhelm Hoffman: Dr Reich og hans elektro-fysiologi, in Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938. Basically, it refers to measurements done by Hoffman, and an "electrophysical" assistant, in the summer of 1935, on patients of Dikemark. Hoffman writes that these measurements were of interests, with or without the theories of Reich. They were not experiments, but measurement of "skin voltage" on different areas of the body, including the nipples. Hoffman and the assistant found no difference on the different parts of the body. The measurements were therefore terminated after about 2 months. Hoffman then writes that he was invited to observe a "sexual experiment" in the private home of Reich. Prof. Schelderup was also present, and the same assistant as at Dikemark prepared the instruments. Also this experiments was negative, as there was no measurable difference of "skin potential" related to sexual reaction. Hoffman then goes on to why he had drawn the conclusion that Reich had no knowledge of research into the natural sciences. He then criticize in some detail the 1937 article Experimentelle Ergebniße Über Die Elektrische Funktion von Sexualität und Angst. He also mentions that Reich was an unknown/ignored in Norway until he held a highly publicised speech in Norwegian Students' Society, which became front-page news in the liberal Dagbladet. That triggered a strong reaction from the "science research community".

I have gotten hold of the Sharaf-book, and also Reich "Beyond Psycology: letters and Journals 1934-39". This last book is fascinating, as it shows Reich was in contact with just about "who is who" in Norway during that period. He also has some problems with Norwegian names.....on p. 138 he writes about a dr Jessing at Dikemark, alas, Jessing is not a Norwegian name, that should be dr. Rolf Gjessing, pronounced "Jessing." Oh, and Reich also writes about visiting Gertrud Gaasland and her husband, Willy Brandt, on his 25th birthday. "Gaasland" was one of the false names Willy Brandt used at the time.

I have not gotten the Turner-book yet, but I am wondering if the last (=third) paragraph in the "Bioelectricity" should perhaps be rewritten. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is great stuff, Huldra, thanks. I've made the part about the patients invisible for now. Does Hoffman say that the patients were present during the sexual experiment(s) in Reich's home, or that Reich was present during (or in some other way involved in) the measurements of the patients' skin voltage? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoffmann does not state it directly, but in the context, I think it can be taken for granted that the Dikemark patient were not present at the home of Reich. (Firstly, Hoffman mentions the "notables" who were there, people like Schelderup, Secondly: the patients at Dikemark at that time were seriously sick people. Just moving them would be a logistical task. (Just about all patients were at Dikemark for life, there were other hospitals in Norway for "lighter" cases.)

And Hoffman says clearly, that while Reich was given permission in the summer of 1935 to make some measurements on the patients at Dikemark, the measurements were not actually done by Reich, but instead by Hoffmann and his "electrophysical" assistent. ("Målingene på Dikemark blev ikke utført av dr. Reich selv, men av hans elektrofysiologiske assistent og av mig." ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can tweak that sentence to make clear what Hoffmann says, or if you want to go ahead, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I´ll leave the editing to you; I´m not "into" the material enough. I just got interested as I think that period in Norway is fascinating.. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilhelm Reich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be glad to take on this review. I should be able to provide at least some initial feedback by the weekend. Hopefully I can get the process started quickly, as I see that the article has been nominated for some time already. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Eric, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your hard work on this article. Reich is a controversial figure, and that is reflected in the talk page comments over several years, but all content disputes seem to be dormant if not resolved. Despite this being a long article, I see very few items that need to be addressed.

Lead

• May want to link University of Vienna and neuropsychiatry (second paragraph)

• psychoanalytic outpatients' clinic - outpatient (no apostrophe or s) is a bit more common, may be more straightforward

• What is the source for the six tons in the portion about book burning?

First two fixed, and source added for the six tons. [1]

Early life

• I would avoid saying "by all accounts" unless specifically attributed to a source; might use an example of a source that said he was cold and jealous.

• I've left this because all the sources I've seen mention it; attributing it to just one would make it sound as though it was just one opinion. And as I suppose all the sources about this ultimately rely on Reich anyway, there probably isn't another opinion out there.

1919-1930

• Rework the sentence beginning "He arrived in the city with nothing" - might just take out the "where in addition..." portion. I generally prefer shorter sentences, but that's just a personal preference. In this case though, the sentence isn't quite clear.

• Is there doubt about whether he considered shooting himself? I'm not sure what to make of the "apparently." Best to clarify further.

• I think we generally prefer hyphens or other punctuation in lieu of slashes, as in reductionist/mechanistic. Some other sources use hyphens or commas between these two words.

• Fixed the first, removed the second, left the third. It's reductionist, i.e. mechanistic, so a slash is more appropriate than a hyphen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

1930-1934

• In the "Verlag..." section, the government "failed to renew" his visa - denied the renewal of?

• I may be missing it, but who is Paul Federn?

Fixed the visa issue. Paul Federn is described on first reference: "The appointment was made over the objection of Paul Federn (1871–1950), who had been Reich's second analyst in 1922 and who, according to Sharaf, regarded Reich as a psychopath."

1934-1939

• First sentence under Personal life is a bit awkward. Better might be "According to Sharaf, Reich's personal life was the happiest between 1934 and 1937."

• Fixed.

1947-1957

• Under Imprisonment, flying saucer guy and sex box man should probably be in quotes as they aren't common phrases.

• Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is pretty superficial, so it should be straightforward to address. I may make some additional minor copyedits. I look forward to promoting this. Thank you for some hard work on a thorough and extensively sourced article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, I'll go through the article and smooth out the issues you raised. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Any remaining issues fall outside the scope of GA.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor copyedits made by nominator and reviewer.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Extensively referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot checks of text show consistency with cited references.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Appears comprehensive without trivial details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you for dedicated work on this article over several years. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and promotion, Eric. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CIA

Hi -- why is there no mention of Reich's work with the CIA?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_mannequin03d.htm

(I also put the link in a but couldn't see it.)

Thanks!

Foundpra (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankfurt School

Shouldn't his relationship with the Frankfurt School be mentioned? http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/ --41.151.138.128 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy link

Hi JzG, I think we do need this link as a courtesy link to the letter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A link to $RANDOMWEBSITE is a bad idea in most cases, when the random website is whale, it's an atrocious idea. People don't have to see the letter to cite it or know it exists. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looking around it I understand the problem. Could you restore the short citation without the link? That quote from Victor Sobey is currently unsourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

SlimVirgin, with all respect, the wording of the lead that you restored here is awful. "One of the most radical figures in the history of psychiatry" is indeed sourced, but it's a sensational and foolish expression. It could be used if given as the quoted opinion of a source, but it shouldn't be in the lead and it's inappropriate to place it in Wikipedia's voice. Among other reasons why it's objectionable, it could be read as implying that psychiatry is somehow a "radical" profession, full of radical figures, of whom Reich just happens to be one of the most radical. If you don't like the wording I used, then think of some other alternative to what's there currently, because it's no good. Beyond that, other changes need to be made to the lead. That students in Paris in 1968 threw copies of one of Reich's books at police officers is a good example of the kind of "who cares?" detail that doesn't belong in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I like that phrase, FKC. It's true, it's sourced, and it tells the reader why they might be interested in Reich. (Saying that someone was the most radical X doesn't mean that X is invariably radical.) Also, I love the image of students throwing his books at police; again, it paints an effective picture of how Reich was regarded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You may indeed like the phrase, SlimVirgin, however, I do not. Many descriptions of Reich could be sourced, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily be placed in the lead. That Reich was called a psychopath could be sourced, but it wouldn't be at all appropriate to place "Reich was a psychopath" in the lead, in Wikipedia's voice. There should be other ways of indicating Reich's importance than the current "one of the most radical figures" phrasing. Your point that saying that someone was the most radical X doesn't mean that X is invariably radical misses the point of my objection to it: the problem is not that it is intended to mean that psychiatry itself is somehow radical but that it could be taken as implying that.

Further to that, while you may love the image of students throwing Reich's books at police, others may regard that same image with scorn and contempt. Such personal reactions are not relevant to whether that particular detail should be placed in the lead. I object to it on the grounds that it is trivial. I think that students scribbling Reich's name on walls is enough to indicate how he was regarded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific community dismissed Reich's orgone theory as pseudoscience?

Just for curiosity, how do you define 'mainstream community'?

If it is by number of citations, Reich is far more mainstream than his critic, as he has way more citations by other publishers... So What makes this KS Isaacs guy a 'mainstream community'?

Answer appreciated. 178.221.104.112 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, might this be energy he is talking about: [2] 178.221.104.112 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

++++++++++++

Sir, the "mainstream scientific community" hardly knows anything about Reich due to the 80 years of slander and misinformation on the subject, much as appears today on Wikipedia. I have just attempted to add some citations to published research articles in scholarly journals, peer-reviewed, and also books, some being compendiums of articles by up to 30 different investigators, most with the MD or PhD degree, and ALL OF THEM WERE SCRUBBED BY VANDALS IN THE WIKIPEDIA EDITORIAL STAFF! So they are on a mission to erase and censor the facts about Reich's later work, and to perpetuate the falsehood that he was a crackpot, etc. This kind of abuse and vandalism only reinforces the public view that Wikipedia is unreliable and overseen by prejudiced disinformation experts. I would like to be proven wrong on that, and in such a case I would issue apologies all around. But just in the last couple of hours, all my edits added in multiple citations were erased almost as quickly as I had put them up.

Here are examples of a few of the items I had posted up, and which were censored out:

• DeMeo, James (2013). In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: Opposing the 80-Years' War of Mainstream Defamatory Slander of One of the 20th Century's Most Brilliant Physicians and Natural Scientists", Natural Energy Works.
• DeMeo, James (2009). "Experimental Confirmation of the Reich Orgone Accumulator Thermal Anomaly", Subtle Energies 20(3):17-32.
• DeMeo, James (2010). Following the Red Thread of Wilhelm Reich: A Personal Adventure", Edge Science, 5:11-16.
• DeMeo, James (2011). Water as a Resonant Medium for Unusual External Environmental Factors ", Water Journal, 3:1-47.
• DeMeo, James, et al. (2012). [http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-4 In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: An Open Response to Nature and the Scientific /

Medical Community"], Water Journal, 4:72-81.

James DeMeo, PhD

Demeo@mind.net (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why the Chronic Censoring and Vandalism of Material Supporting Reich's Later Research?

Maybe 10 years back I posted up a long list of citations from medical professionals and research scientists, myself included, who had undertaken university-level studies investigating Reich's later work on bioenergy, the orgone accumulator, and his atmospheric theories. Over time, they were almost competely erased, and instead substituted by a list of slander articles written by laypeople in the popular press.

Today I added back my own citations, books and journal articles, but within one hour, editor Adam Cuerden had erased them all, with the claim they were "advertising". It is ironic that the FDA burned Reich's books for exactly that claim. Now, it seems Mr. Cuerden does not wish any kind of balance in this Wikipedia entry on Reich, so as to keep it dominated by skeptic-club fictions and lies on the subject.

I hereby charge Mr. Cuerden with Vandalism of the Reich website, in removal of scholarly and scientific materials, for reason I cannot fathom.

For the record, I found many false statements in the body of the Wikipedia page on Reich, but out of some past bad experiences, I did not even attempt to correct those, because I know the Reich-haters will subject the page to reversions if their falsehoods are erased. So my citations were added only at the very bottom of the page, as "Further Reading", in hopes there would be some small tolerance of materials which support Reich, as it comes from the admitted minority within the scientific-academic community.

Now, however, just as I am writing this, I observe someone has reverted the page back once again, to delete my research contributions to the questions surrounding Reich's work. VANDALISM! Once again.

James DeMeo, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demeo@mind.net (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at two of the works you're trying to add. One is a book published by a decidedly non-scholarly publisher [3] and one was published by the Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal which doesn't seem to have wide acceptance in mainstream medical sources. Taking that, along with the obvious COI, leads me to think these links should not be in a good article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN:

Regarding my efforts to restore some balance to the Wikipedia page on Wilhelm Reich, I got your message about the "edit war", which was never my intention. But as it stands, this page includes many slanders and false information about Reich's work, with giant "lies of omission", which as Orwell pointed out, are "the worst kind of lie". You and the current editors of that page appear to be routinely censoring out anything which challenges an apparently long-held negative opinion about Reich and his later work on bioenergy, or the orgone energy. What you call a "good article", based upon my 35 years of in-depth study of Reich and his works, I can only say is a most alarming and completely indefensible opinion. You surely have the "power" to write whatever you want on the Wiki page, including to block contrary facts, as you control the switches. But is that what Wikipedia is about? Advancing public slander and disinformation? What about the stated objectives for "balance"?

It appears you and your editors are committed to block and prevent anything from showing on that page which would counter your negative opinon. That is not merely unfair and unreasonable, it is as I said, a VANDALISM of Reich's biography and work.

Consider the following:

1. I am not affiliated with the Reich Museum, nor any other "Reichian" organization. I have no connections to the Reich family. I am a former university professor with an earned PhD from within the mainstream, who happened to investigate Reich's later work on the cloudbusting issue experimentally, and obtained confirming results. My specialization is environmental science and climatology, and I have, upon invitations by several foreign governments, applied the Reich technology to end severe droughts, in addition to the original U. Kansas study that confirmed Reich was on to something important. My research papers and credits are listed at ResearchGate, if that is of interest. Reich is not my only research interest, but it is a primary one, and I have confirmed many of his scientific claims, and am not alone on that.

2. Many years ago I was contacted by one of the Wiki editors -- using the name "slim virgin" -- to help restore some factual basis to the Wiki page on Wilhelm Reich. Presumably they did so because of my known independent research on the subject of Reich's work. I agreed to help with the edit, and added in many citations to published studies from the scientific literature which confirmed Reich's research on the controversial subject of orgone energy. The text was also adjusted at that time, to present the results of those studies.

3. As I recall -- this was years ago -- most of my editorial corrections and citations were erased over the next year or two, being replaced by half-truth or, in some cases, outright slander. And with the confirming studies on Reich's biophysics erased, it gave the utterly wrong impression that there was no confirming evidence, which also was a lie (of omission). There was no discussion or debate, the editors just erased what I had been asked to correct. Basta!

4. Within the last year, I looked at the Wiki Reich page since a long time ago, and was shocked to see the erasures and misrepresentations were even more significant, in how nearly every major citation which confirmed Reich's experimental work was censored out. Not just my own but the citations referencing the work by other independent scientists and scholars. So today, I took the time to add some of them back in, notably my own primary articles and books on the subject. My intention was, when I had more time, to return and add in additional citations to the work of others.

5. Unfortunately, everything I added today was deleted, within less than an hour, by two of the Wiki editors -- slim virgin and Adam Cuteren. So I reverted the page back and voiced my alarm about censorship and vandalism -- the deliberate erasure of the citations which I had made, and which started to add some very needed balance to the Reich page. It was highly imbalanced without those citations, and is imbalanced once again now that you have deleted those citations. My materials, and the others I had planned to add, were restoring balance. And I only added those citations at the bottom of the page, in the Additional Readings section, where I thought there might be some slight tolerance for the facts.

6. I just noticed you make a harsh judgement about Natural Energy Works, which is my own press, which specializes in unorthodox scientific works. My own half-dozen books, plus by other natural scientists. For the record, two of those cited publications -- Saharasia, and Preliminary Analysis of the Kansas Cloudbusting -- are reprints of studies originally endorsed by my academic committees at the University of Kansas. They were already subjected to intensive peer-review by different groups of PhD professors, in anthropology, atmospheric science and geography. The methodology and findings were intensively scrutinized and approved, in procedures far more rigorous than the usual published journal article, which is partly how I earned the MA and PhD degrees. I publish them by my own press as it makes better sense economically, though I could have done so with other academic press if I was willing to settle on a pittance of payment. But you also reject the other journals, Subtle Energies, and Water Journal, in spite of their peer-reviewed standing. I know the editorial boards of both, and they are also PhD and MD investigators. I submit, your objection to them is transparently a ruse and falsehood. This is made plain also by a simple review of the other junk-press stuff you DO allow into the Reich Wiki page. If it is aggressively against Reich, a slander bit in a newspaper by a non-scientist, then it is permitted, and no contrary opinion is tolerated. Your criterion appears to be, if it makes Reich look ridiculous, or tarnishes him otherwise, then it is permitted. But if it shows, by careful experiment and hard experimental or field work, that Reich was on to something important, then it will be censored out!

What kind of "balance" is that? You take it upon yourselves to rigidly censor out discussion you don't agree with, no matter how carefully constructed were the experiments and conclusions? By that "standard" you place yourself on the side of the FDA book-burners, the Inquisitors of Galileo, the persecutors of Pasteur, or the pompous academics who pooh-poohed the Wright Brothers airplane, or Goddard's rocket. I can remember when Apple computers got the same arrogant rejectionism from the IBM mainstreamers.

You should reconsider your position, as it is irrational, censorious, and unfair.

Sincerely, James DeMeo, PhD Demeo@mind.net (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Reich

I've removed this from the lead, [4] as it adds clutter and I don't think it would help many people work out how to pronounce it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, using IPA transcriptions to respell names is common Wikipedia practice (see Einstein, Freud, Marx, Mozart). They cause no real "clutter" problem, and they are linked to special pages where the reader can read more: Help:IPA for English, Help:IPA for German. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think most readers will not find those links meaningful, Omni. Why would Reich be less helpful than /raɪx/ or German: [ʀaɪç]? (And is the name really pronounced differently in English and German?) What would be helpful is to have pronunciation of awkward names recorded and linked in the infobox, so that people could hear it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are pronounced differently in the two languages (English: /raɪx/ at 0:37; German: /ʀaɪç/). I could also add a Wikipedia English-respel transcription (RYKH) next to the IPA one. In any case, having scientific transcriptions is common practice. An audio file would be nice but not as necessary. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the name is pronounced differently in English and in German. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.29.211 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't pronounce them differently. Omnipaedista, are you saying the standard English pronunciation is rike? There's a BBC documentary here, 00:06 mins, where (as in Third Reich) it's pronounced as the Germans would. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As there's disagreement about the English pronunciation, I've removed that but left the German. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, he lived in America and his surname was nativized (in any case there are no [ʀ] and [ç] sounds in English). I have already provided a citation ("Reich, Wilhelm" – Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). If you can find a source for a different English pronunciation you can add it. Please do not remove sourced information. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way the video you provided agrees with the /raɪx/ transcription. This is a nativized English pronunciation. English phonology is different from German phonology. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

not sure why the infobox was changed from {{infobox person}}? if there is something missing from {{infobox person}} it should be discussed at template talk:infobox person. examples of such discussions include this RfC. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I support that infobox person is used by plain infobox code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is used, as far as I can see, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, it is now. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis and friends, leave me alone, please. I've started improving this to take it to peer review, then perhaps FAC. It's going to be a lot of work, and I'm not going to spend time discussing the infobox I'm using. You're not involved in this article, so it makes no difference to you.

You did this to me at Study 329 over some other formatting issue when I was preparing it for GAN, and I stopped editing it as a result. Look at the history of that article. You didn't continue working on it, so there it sits. Magioladitis, you said you were sorry about that a few weeks ago, but here you are doing it again (and I keep seeing you or Yobot everywhere I edit). I would like it to stop. Sarah ^(talk) 16:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And we'd like you to stop re-building existing infoboxes, but we try not to take it personally. Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am here not as a friend of anybody, but as a friend of the best-suited infobox for any person, {{infobox person}}. Parameters are debatable. I will say the same thing at FAC if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"we'd like you to stop re-building existing infoboxes." But why, who are "we", and how did you all manage to get here so quickly? Bear in mind that this is happening within the context of Magioladitis following me around, so this is not some isolated thing. I am tired of it, especially the swarming.

Infobox person has some awkward parameters ("resting place," for example), I can't get the colours at the top to work, and I wasn't able to change the width, and several other things that are a nuisance. So I switched back to the generic box, which was in this article for some time and is much easier to work with. I can't see what earthly difference it makes to anyone not working on the article. Please leave it as it is. Sarah ^(talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

is there a particular reason why these perceived deficiencies cannot be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person? should we start an RfC concerning making custom infoboxes on a per-article basis? Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed discussion about this on Sarah's page and decided to butt in and give my impression. If it were me and I was trying to write an article, seeing this many edits all at one time, and this many people on the talk all at one time, would be enough to knock me back and give up. When researching, reading, and trying to write, there's no immediate reason to address the issues of boxes. The immediacy is trying to keep together all the strands of thought in one's head, and when those get knocked out it's hard to recover. My suggestion would be to leave it alone, let it go, and let her get on with the writing. The box is not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, the impression is that no one else is invited to collaborate on the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that getting in content is hard and needs to be done without edit conflicts, and that the details of box parameters can be worked out at a later date. I'm not privy to the specifics here, but often I get books via inter-library loan and have to work quickly when they arrive; asking for space to write doesn't to me seem either unusual or unreasonable. It's part of the process of building content. I meant leave it alone for now. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

which is why there is the {{inuse}} tag. one would think that after the {{inuse}} tag has been removed that others would be welcome to edit, but that's not the case here. Frietjes (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting and adding new material should not conflict with well-established infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• For clarity, infoboxes are neither prohibited nor required, whether they are infobox person or otherwise. Infoboxes should only be added if they serve a purpose, not because of the fact that most articles have them. I think it's a pretty poor show that the infobox police rock up and create problems when a willing and enthusiastic editor is in the middle of improving it. If it wasn't for the actual writers of the prose, infoboxes would cease to do their job in the first place. I, for one, thank Sarah for her efforts so far and would plead with her to continue. It's just a real shame that nobody else has thanked her and are too bloody bothered with what type of infobox this article has. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Restored

In accordance with the above discussion, I've restored {{Infobox person}}. Any concerns about that template may be raised on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. Imposing your style preferences on articles you're not involved in is really inappropriate. Infobox person doesn't have the parameters I want, so I'm using the generic one and there's no reason not to. Sarah ^(talk) 19:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. Imposing your style preferences on any article is really inappropriate. As for "not involved", please read WP:OWN. Wikipedia runs on consensus, not what you want. And as I said about {{Infobox person}}, above, "Any concerns about that template may be raised on its talk page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've been reverted... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I created a compromise version which can be tweaked. I agree that it's not clear why we need to ditch {{infobox person}}, but the compromise version illustrates the minor differences between the two versions. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but:

Austrian<!-- -->{{infobox|child=yes|headerstyle=background-color:#E5E4E2 | header1 = Medical career }}

is not Reich's nationality; nor is:

<!-- -->{{infobox|child=yes|headerstyle=background-color:#E5E4E2 | header1 = Family }}

one of his works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can also use {{Infobox medical person}} as a module. Bgwhite (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Its subtemplate, {{Infobox medical details}} is a better fit and I've now applied that. It resolves the "works" issue I highlighted above, but the "nationality" issue persists. The headings styles need to be rationalised, too - the simplest way to do so would be to remove the inline styles currently shoehorned onto the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Category

If needed, for the category of Sexual pseudoscience see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-12-15/ . Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We would need a much better reference than that, especially since the article itself says the label has been disputed. Also, I'm not convinced that "sexual pseudoscience" is a thing - at least, we don't have an article on it here. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno. It's a slightly charged characterization, so it's only a service to the reader to include it only if its generally accepted (it might be, not sure). So for that we'd want good refs using the precise term "pseudoscience" or quite similar characterizations, and a lack of good refs refuting.

I don't think eSkeptic is probably that good source. They are some website or something and maybe have an agenda. Searching on "Wilhelm Reich pseudoscience" doesn't bring me any good refs right off. I didn't look hard though (that'd be your job, if you want to argue for including the article in this category).

As for good refs refuting -- that's harder to search on. But right away I come up with this book from Harvard University Press with a quote "Refuting allegations of 'pseudoscience' that have long dogged Reich’s research, James Strick argues that Reich’s lab experiments in the mid-1930s represented the cutting edge of light microscopy and time-lapse micro-cinematography and deserve to be taken seriously as legitimate scientific contributions". But that's not about sex. But still.

Reich's an interesting figure, and I'm told that he got kind of fringe as he progressed through life... but it might be painting with too broad a brush to categorize this article under Category:Sexual pseudoscience. I'm no expert on the subject, though. Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sexual revolution, driven by the research of Kinsey and Masters and Johnson has become mainstream (socially and scientifically). But Reich's ideas about sexual therapy go against everything the mainstream medicine stays for. At least that's the point of the skeptic.com article and I have no doubt that there are better sources about this, since Reich was or became a complete crank. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting divorce

User:Timothy Hamilton what's up with this and this and this? Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Polical writings

Spectacular work so far, but one thing that could keep this from WP:Featured article is lack of sufficient coverage of his political writings, especially The Mass Psychology of Fascism. This piece is almost utterly focused on his pseudoscience stuff. Aside from veering a bit more frequently into sex than necessary (though that was rather typical of the psychoanalysts), parts of TMPF are brilliant, and it was influential in certain circles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, thank you, I appreciate that feedback. I kind of gave up on the article a couple of years ago, but I've long wondered how much more it would need for FAC. Adding something about The Mass Psychology of Fascism is a good idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A few quick bits I ran across:

• Entry in International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (2005, via Encyclopedia.com) [5]
• A contemporary review in Social Service Review (1947, via University of Chicago Press Journals archive) [6], but seems to be paywalled.
• Another of same, in Foreign Affairs (1947) [7], also paywalled
• Another, same year, and short, in The Physiotherapy Review (via Oxford Academic archive) [8], full text
• Ditto in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (via APA PsychNet archive) [9], paywalled
• A 2010 retro-review from Yahoo Voices (via OpEd News archive) [10]; don't know if the author is notable
• Paper on fascist cinema, drawing on TMPoF, in a 2014 edited volume, Triumph of the Will [11], full text
• 2014 retro-review in The Indypendent [12]; may or may not be a worthwhile source
• 2010 piece in Counterpunch, relating Reich's ideas to the rise of Tea Party reactionaries [13], full text
• A sometimes-dismissive critique is laced throughout the 2009 book The Psychology of American Fascism (via Google Books) [14], seemingly fully text
• Plus stuff already cited at The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Might be fruitful, if you have access to journal search services, to look in more poli-sci and soc journals; I get the impression that Reich's being a psychotherapist relegated most reviews to psych publications, at least when the book was new, so that's most of what turns up in Google searching. I didn't try running a Google Scholar or Google Books search, just regular G'hits to dig up the material above. Might even show up in news sometimes in reference to far-right reactionary stuff like Brexit and the Trump presidency.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is very helpful and kind of you. I'll start collecting the sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help! While I've always known Reich was a crank when it came to science, I actually found TMPoF to be fascinating reading (at around age 18, anyway; I'm sure my take on it would be more critical these days after decades more experience and an anthro degree, heh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death

Nikkimaria, you removed the cause of death with the edit summary "doc". Can you say more? Without that, we leave unexplained that he died in jail aged 60. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The template still states that he died in jail aged 60, but per the template documentation routine causes of death unrelated to notability are omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I see it was added here last year. I wonder whether that would gain consensus if a wider discussion were started, but regardless, this is a well-known case of someone dying of heart failure just before his release, so I'd like to restore it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - the infobox is quite long, I'd actually suggest we look at removing other items. For example, non-notable living children usually are not named. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind removing parents and the brother, but several of the other relatives are very much part of the story, and I can't see what difference length makes. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". That's why very long infoboxes, containing extraneous details like a routine cause of death, are to be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

New Book to Add to the List of Books about Reich?

• Laing, Olivia. (2021). Everybody. Picador.

This book is due to be released on 29 April 2021 in the UK. I am not sure whether it can be added to the list already if it's not published yet. Don't want to mess up anything on this well-written article. Dance Researcher (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mary Boyd Higgins (1925-2019)

Mary Boyd Higgins, trustee of The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust. Born 13 October 1925, Indianapolis, died 8 January 2019, Lexington, KY (stroke). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/obituaries/mary-boyd-higgins-dead.html https://wilhelmreichmuseum.org/about/the-wilhelm-reich-infant-trust/ —AnnaBruta (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of Russian invasion of Bukovina

In the 'Death of parents' section, the following occurs:

Reich managed the farm and continued with his studies, graduating in 1915 with Stimmeneinhelligkeit (unanimous approval). The Russians invaded Bukovina that summer and the Reich brothers fled, losing everything.

However, Russian occupation of Eastern Galicia, 1914–1915 states that the Russians invaded in 1914 and were chased out by the Austro-Hungarian army which regained Galicia in June 1915. General Government of Galicia and Bukovina and Bukovina#Kingdom of Romania also concur. I'm no expert, anyone care to clarify? MinorProphet (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

why is there no talk in the talk section?

why is there nothing in the talk section? 2600:1700:A3A0:1630:A8BC:66AE:DB82:2CE3 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Look on the right of the page. There are two Archives of archived Talk for this page for you to review. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourced quote

@Johnj1995 and Gundanfff: The quote is sourced from Britannica, however as it was stated it amounted to a copyright violation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich page - bad photo

Hello - The photograph showing the Orgone box is misleading. That is not Wilhem Reich. The photo was set up by the FDA apparently, meant to be somewhat lurid, as part of their campaign against Reich. It should be replaced. 2600:4040:5F56:5E00:2099:2708:49A9:75CF (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)