Talk:Sex economy (essay)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for elaboration on proposal to delete article 2 Proposed Deletion template removed 3 James DeMeo 4 Addressing the objection of original research

[edit] Request for elaboration on proposal to delete article

The article has been prod'ed, which I might suggest is a somewhat bold action in itself since prods are supposed to be applied to articles where there is assumed to be no controversy over the deletion issue. That said, I, the initial creator of the article, am quite bewildered by the rationale presented by the editor who has made the proposition: original research/unencyclopedic. Could these phrases be elaborated upon in the current context? __meco 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have prod'ed the article because I find it quite obvious that it violates WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. The article claims to be about an essay, but in essence, the article is an essay. The article fails to show that the original essay had some kind of pivotal importance for the development of either accepted science or of a system of beliefs that had an important influence on culture (outside of academia). The literature list ends in 1945, so this is either a historical subject that should be presented accordingly (but it is not), or the developments of the last 67 years (specifically, that the theories presented have not made it into the scientific mainstream) have silently been ignored. In addition, by its sheer length the article distracts from the fact that it presents theories that have not been tested experimentally or that cannot even be tested experimentally, hence cannot be considered knowledge ("Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge" says WP:NOT). In summary, the article, in my opinion, is lacking the objectivity and critical distance one would expect from an encyclopedia article. --DrTorstenHenning 09:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[unindenting] Meco, your article is interesting and goes a long way to providing an overview of Reich's theories. But I understand DrTorstenHenning's reasons for proposed deletion in that the article reads like an essay and it's unclear whether the article is about Sex Economy (as a scientific theory), about Sex Economy (as a historical school of thought),or specifically about the essay on Sex Economy by Ola Raknes. I recommend you consider the following approach, which could avoid deletion by avoiding WP:NOR, and by clarifying the above distinctions:

• make a separate article about the essay. Make that article much shorter and only focus on the essay, what makes it notable, how it contributed to the historical development of Reichian theory or therapeutic methods, how it came to be written, etc... Importantly, include sourced references for those points.
• shorten the main article substantially (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some segments of the article could become separate articles on their own, with short summaries and links in the main article. It seems that some parts of the article as it is now are in the form of summaries of other theories (for example the Freudian theories). For those, you could use a See Also section and link to either new or existing articles on those other theories.
• You already list some sources. They may be enough, if you lay out clearly how they support the text. More sources may be needed, depending on the point of the article.
• To avoid a biased POV it could be good to include a discussion of criticisms of the Sex Economy theory and include sources for those too.
• instead of presenting the article as a scientific theory, since there is most likely very little active research on this theory today, it might be better to present the article (as DrTorstenHenning mentioned) as a historical description of Riech's theories. If you know of current research or use of this theory today, you could mention those in a new section and include references.
  

You've clearly done a lot of work on this article. While it does read like an essay as it is now, I believe you could salvage much of your work and reframe it into a valuable encylopedia article or two by following WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. I don't have the time to assist with this work, but I commend your efforts and feel a well-sourced article on this topic would be valuable. Parzival418 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also not going to remove the PROD to force an AfD. I do see the points made by both you and DrTorstenHenning as valid. As you will appreciate it will not be possible for me to rehash the article in a sufficiently substantial manner in the time allotted by the PROD. I have also thought about using sections from the article as basis for other articles and to supplement other already existing articles. The article and indeed the essay is about the historical development of a theory which is no longer being developed, although that does not mean it has been abandoned. It does form the foundation of body psychotherapy directions worldwide, however, I have intended for there to become a separate article about sex economy, much leaner than this one. Also I have started to make inquiries with contemporary successors of Reich and Raknes, and this will hopefully pan out in the way of providing the article with a background of how it has been received and how it has influenced later developments in this field.

What I will do if (and this seems a highly probable outcome) the article cannot be accepted currently, is to retract it to my user space and continue development there. __meco 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. I like your plans for the Sex Economy article and am interested in reading it when you're ready to post it. From what you wrote in the essay article I can tell you have a lot of knowledged on the subject and I'm sure Wikipedia will benefit. Personally, I would have no issue with you removing the PROD and taking some time to make the changes, but since that could result in an AfD as you pointed out, your idea of moving it to your space for development may be the better choice. I concur with your comment that Reich's work has become the foundation of many currently developing practices. I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but in case you haven't seen these, here are a couple links you may find useful in developing off-Wiki sources for your article: [1] and [2]. Best wishes for a succesful project. Parzival418 09:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion template removed

After further consideration I removed the PROD tag to allow some time for the article to be split into two - one about the essay and one about the topic of Sex Economy itself.

DrTorstenHenning makes good points in his reply to Meco's inquiry about why he PROD'd the article. But I don't see why we need to be in a hurry to delete it when instead we can improve it. After all, Wikipedia is not paper... Even the not-yet-cleaned-up version has value - rough edges and all, it's a strong intro to Sex Economy for someone not familiar with the topic. The important thing is that progress is made to improve the article. I recommend we move towards splitting the article as discussed in the prior section above.

I further suggest that the sections on Freud's ideas and on Reich's biography be merged into their respective main articles. That would help shorten this article while the progress on further improvements proceeds.

One thing that would help would be to add references to books in English rather than mostly in German and Norwegian.

Bottom line, if there is consensus to delete this article, so be it. But deleting it right away without more editors checking in on the discussion does not seem to me to be the best option. Parzival418 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have informed you above, I have made inquiries already to obtain some material that can place the essay itself in a disciplinary and historical context. I think DrTorstenHenning now will have to decide whether he will accept this time-out or there should be an AfD immediately. I am very unsure if the needed changes can be effected in the short time the latter would provide. __meco 07:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the time-out is fine. I'll keep the article on my watchlist and not take this to AfD until further notice (which would follow further exchange on this discussion page). Good luck with the project, it would be nice to have a sound article among the mess of orgone-related ramblings on Wikipedia. --DrTorstenHenning 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James DeMeo

James DeMeo appears to be a caretaker on the American scene of much of Reich's scientific heritage. An anonymous contributor has added some bits relevant to sex economy, but which are not relevant to this article which must focus on Raknes' article. I therefore move this text here pending a separate sex economy article.

A significant cross-cultural evaluation of Reich's Sex-Economic Theory was undertaken by Dr. James DeMeo in the 1980s. Entitled "Saharasia", this work demonstrated Reich's ideas could explain, with a high degree of statistical significance, behavior within a representative global sample of 1170 human cultures. Cultures which inflict trauma on children and infants, and which suppress the heterosexuality of their adolescents and unmarried, have high levels of social hierarchy and violence, with subordinated status for women -- and vice-versa.

• James DeMeo: "Saharasia" http://www.saharasia.org

__meco 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing the objection of original research

I have reverted the insertion of {{OR}} and {{fact}} by User:Mattisse and will address this as well as DrTorstenHenning's still standing objection pertaining to original research.

The article contains no original research. If that had been the case Ola Raknes and not I would have had to be the creator of this article. This view hence is a mixup of positions. Ola Raknes was Reich's closest colleague over a number of years and the essay upon which this Wikipedia article is based has been published on three occasions, one of them in an international scientific journal in English. Had I strayed from summarizing the Raknes essay into inserting my own personal thoughts and opinions into this article, then that would have constituted original research. I insist that I have not done so. As for the addition of {{fact}} by User:Mattisse, this was applied in relation to a statement of opinion made by Ola Raknes. There should be no requirement for furnishing learned opinions (or any other opinions for that matter) with factual references as long as it's clear that it is an opinion voiced and not an assertion of facts. If the question is raised with regards to where the statement has been published, that would be an inapplicable issue in this case since all of the article so far has been drawn from one single source, as is clearly stated. __meco 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: for an article to "qualify" as original research, it does not matter at all who writes it, it is just the contents that are relevant. If my colleague next door (who is not Wikipedia-aware) has a new theory or made a nice experiment, and I write about this, it would still be original research. --DrTorstenHenning

The significant issue is whether the research has been properly published or not. __meco 08:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DrTorstenHenning, you make a good point. And I also concurr with Meco; in this article, the "colleague next door" (to borrow your analogy) has not made up a new theory but rather has collected and summarized the theories of Reich. So the essay being described in the article is a secondary source, not a primary source (as defined here: WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). As I understand it, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources as one way of avoiding original research within articles.

I suggest we focus on the fundamental change needed in the article which is to split off the substance of the theory of Sex Economy from the article describing the Ola Raknes Essay on Sex Economy (and its notability in this field of research). In other words - while Reich's characterization of the Sex Economy theory was original research (and a primary source), the essay by Raknes is not original research, it's a notable summary of Reich's work that was published multiple times in more than one language. So the article about the essay is not original research or even a report of original research, it is a report about a historical document that in turn reported and clarified the research done by another (making the document a secondary source rather than a primary source). It's helpful for the article to include some discussion of the content of the document (ie, some explanation of the theory of Sex Economy), along with the essay's relevance to the science of the time in which it was published and its effect on subsequent research. As we've discussed, the deeper substance of the Sex Economy topic needs to be moved to an article focusing on that topic directly (as Meco mentioned is his plan). Parzival418 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)