Talk:Orgone and Half Hour of Power: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
what is the reliable source that orgone or orgone energy is pseudoscience? please point that out.
 
m gen fixes: rm 'of' btwn month & year, using AWB
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
{| class="messagebox standard-talk oldafd" style="text-align:center;"
| Name = Half Hour of Power
| width="48px" | [[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|35px|Articles for deletion]] || This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] on [[February 12]], [[2007]]. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgone|the discussion]] was '''keep'''.
| Type = [[ep]] <!-- Half Hour of Power is an EP. Not an Album. Do not change this. -->
|}
| Artist = [[Sum 41]]
{{talkheader}}
| Cover = Sum41_halfhourofpower.png
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
| Released = [[June 27]], [[2000]]
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=Start|nested=yes}}
| Recorded = 1999 - 2000
{{Rational Skepticism|class=Start|attention=yes|nested=yes}}
| Genre = [[Pop punk]]
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start|nested=yes}}
| Length = 30:00
| Label = [[Big Rig Records|Big Rig]] (US) <br /> [[Aquarius Records (record label)|Aquarius]] (Canada)
| Producer = [[Greig Nori]], [[Deryck Whibley]]
| Reviews =
* [[Allmusic]] {{Rating|3|5}} [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A4gd5vwxia9ek link]
| Last album = ''[[Half Hour of Power#1998 Demo Tape|1998 demo tape]]''<br /> (1998)
| This album = '''''Half Hour of Power''''' <br /> (2000)
| Next album = ''[[All Killer No Filler]]''<br />(2001)
| Misc = {{Singles
| Name = Half Hour of Power
| Type = ep
| single 1 = [[Makes No Difference]]
| single 1 date = 2000
}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 80K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Orgone/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}


'''Half Hour of Power''' is [[Sum 41]]'s debut [[EP]]<!-- HALF HOUR IS THE FIRST SUM 41 EP NOT ALBUM. AKNF is THE FIRST FULL SUM 41 ALBUM -->. Despite it's title, there is only 24 minutes of music on it, with 6 minutes of dead space added on. It was released on [[June 27]], [[2000]] on [[Big Rig Records]], a subsidiary of [[Island Records]] (US), and [[Aquarius Records (record label)|Aquarius Records]] (Canada).
{{archive box|auto=yes}}


On the thanks to section, it states "This EP Is dedicated in loving memory to the band [[Closet Monster]]."
== Blatant Bias of Article ==


This is the second of three times that "Summer" appeared on a Sum 41 album, the first being the 1998 Demo tape, and the third being ''[[All Killer No Filler]]''. The band planned to put the song on each of their albums as a joke, but scrapped the plan after ''All Killer No Filler''.
Reading over the history of this article (and sighing throughout), it's very clear that there's an effort to corrupt the neutrality of this article. As it stands, these lines under the "Evaluation topic" are in particular very blatantly biased toward the side of orgone believers:
The cover of the album features drummer [[Steve Jocz]] in his [[boxer shorts]] holding a water gun. It bears a resemblance to the cover of the [[Megadeth]] album [[So Far, So Good... So What!]]


The song "Dave's Possessed Hair/It's What We're All About" was redone as "[[It's What We're All About]]" for the Spider Man soundtrack.
"The idea of orgone has not been upheld by any experiment in the physical sciences according to this website, (see below).[17] The Masters and PhD research of Stefan Müschenich has supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone, namely a replication of the effects of the orgone accumulator on test subjects in keeping with Reich's original descriptions, while a control "dummy box" showed no such effects.[18]"


In an online poll on the SUM 41 Forums, the song "Makes No Difference" was voted favorite song, with "Machine Gun" coming in second. <ref>[http://theresnosolution.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=832&p=11820&hilit=survivor+game#p11820 TheresNoSolution.com - Boards • View topic - Half Hour Of Power Survivor Game<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
The lines concerning Müschenich are clearly written to upstage the skeptical response, which is only written in a brief, poorly-formatted passing.


===Track listing===
This, along with the rest of the article is in dire need of a rewrite and (especially) a disputed neutrality flag. - [[User:LbCyber|LbCyber]] ([[User talk:LbCyber|talk]]) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
All songs by [[Sum 41]]
<!-- BEFORE CHANGING THE ***'s TO THE WORD THAT THEY STAND FOR, PICK UP A COPY OF HALF HOUR OF POWER. ON THE BACK, THE TRACKLISTING STATES GRAB THE DEVIL BY THE HORNS AND **** HIM UP THE ***, without the expletives. -->
#"Grab the Devil by the Horns and **** Him Up the *** - 1:06
#"Machine Gun" – 2:29
#"What I Believe" – 2:49
#"T.H.T. (Tables Have Turned)" – 0:43
#"[[Makes No Difference]]" – 3:10
#"Summer" – 2:40
#"32 Ways to Die" – 1:30
#"Second Chance for Max Headroom" – 3:51
#"[[It's What We're All About|Dave's Possessed Hair/It's What We're All About]]" – 3:47
#"Ride the Chariot to the Devil" – 0:55
#"Another Time Around" – 3:19 (6:52 with added silence to make album length thirty minutes)


===Singles===
:As I read it, the article says that there has never been any confirmation of any orgone - there is some evidence for certain effects attributed to orgone, but that is a different thing. Those effects require either refutation or explanation, but so far as anyone here can determine, they have received neither. Even if some heavyweight biologist were to come forward and say "the reason they have received neither is that any decent scientist knows the experiments must have been somehow flawed" we could insert that, but even this is not forthcoming. The moral campaign against Reich has prevented proper investigation, still, those people were awarded their Masters and that is how things stand. The best thing we can do is make it clear that questions remain. If we do otherwise we are helping to maintain a situation that is unsatisfactory - and we are also going beyond the sources. But please bring forward any appropriate material. [[User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] ([[User talk:Redheylin|talk]]) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
*"[[Makes No Difference]]" - [[2000]]
===Personnel===
*[[Deryck Whibley|Deryck "Bizzy D" Whibley]] – [[Singing|Vocals]], [[guitar]]
*[[Dave Baksh|Dave "Brownsound" Baksh]] - [[guitar]], [[Singing|Vocals]]
*[[Jason McCaslin|Jason "Cone" McCaslin]] – [[bass guitar|bass]]
*[[Steve Jocz|Steve "Stevo 32" Jocz]] – [[Drum kit|drums]]


==1998 Demo Tape==
::The issue is not a balance of critical versus supportive entries, but the presentation of both. Insofar I do not see such a balance, as the only means of providing disputing points of view to the subject, the Evaluation section, is not in line with Wikipedia's expectations concerning NPOV as is underscored in its section regarding [[Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression|Information Suppression]]. Rather, the scarce criticism present in the article of Orgone is overshadowed by its positive assessments and the edit wars evident in its history make it clear that this article needs to be, at the very least, flagged... not for deletion, but for a neutrality dispute, as the History and Fictional Account sections have maintained a neutral, factual point of view and should be preserved.
[[Image:Sum41Demo.jpg|thumb|left|100px|The original cassette]]
Referred to by fans as '''''Rock Out With Your Cock Out''''', Sum 41's [[Demo (music)|demo tape]] was released in [[1998]] on [[Compact Cassette|cassette]] only.


{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
::No matter what your feelings are regarding Reich and his work, the point of view of detractors, which contains an exceptionally large portion of the scientific community, is significant enough to deserve fair treatment in a clear, reasonable and concise format. It's, again, a question of balance. The Evaluation section currently contains little. - [[User:LbCyber|LbCyber]] ([[User talk:LbCyber|talk]]) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
| Name = 1998 Demo Tape

| Type = Demo
== Psychotherapy as pseudoscience ==
| Longtype =

| Artist = [[Sum 41]]
Before we get into an edit war..
| Cover = Rock out with your.jpg
:Of course this may be seen as something of an controversial statement on behalf of psychotherapy as this field itself has been considered by many critics to have no basis in science.<ref>http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/philosophy_psychiatry_and_psychology/v012/12.4deeley.html</ref>
| Released = [[1998]]
The linked article doesn't support this. In fact, the word psychotherapy isn't even *mentioned*. Psychoanalysis appears a few times. I don't think that the abstract is remotely clear enough to be
| Recorded = 1998
used to justify any specific position. [[User:Bhimaji|Bhimaji]] ([[User talk:Bhimaji|talk]]) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
| Genre = [[Pop punk]]<br />[[Punk rock]]

| Length = 9:40
I'm sorry, are you sure you read it in it's entirety or just the summery? If you wish adding references from Popper et al is not difficult. I too have no wish to edit war on this but this is just silly. Psychotherapy accusing the Orgone "hypothesis" as having no basis in science is known, where I come from as "the pot calling the kettle black" :-) [[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
| Label =

| Producer = [[Marc Costanzo]]
Any of these do? They are all - I think without checking - wiki compliant. they do use pseudo-science a lot however and I was trying to keep away from that.
| Reviews =

| Last album =
http://www.psychology.org/links/Resources/Pseudoscience/
| This album = '''''1998 demo tape'''''<br />(1998)

| Next album = ''[[Half Hour of Power#Half Hour of Power|Half Hour of Power]]''<br />(2000)
http://www.gwup.org/themen/lesetipps/michaelshermersencyclopedia.html
}}

http://counsellingresource.com/books/science-and-pseudoscience/

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/two-edged.html

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=106&cn=394

This statement as nothing to do with the article on hand, and seems to violate several core policies. What purpose does this serve in this article? What does it have to do with orgone? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that would be obvious. It is simply silly to use one pseudo-science to accuse another of the same. If you wish to include such a thing then in the balance of fairness - and so that the reader understands the background of the argument - this needs to be explainned. [[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out what "core rules" it violates? [[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Verifiability, NPOV, and original research. Not to mention coatracking. Feel free to explain what it has to do with orgone. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - explain in detail [[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:You have yet to even justify what it has to do with this article? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: The7thdr : As far as I can tell, I need an account to access it. In fact, they state that only institutions may subscribe. However, if you believe that this reference backs up the claim that psychotherapy is pseudoscience, I think you should head over to [[Psychotherapy]] and get it into the main article. It would be highly inappropriate for the Orgone article to describe psychotherapy as pseudoscience if there isn't agreement that it belongs in the main article. [[User:Bhimaji|Bhimaji]] ([[User talk:Bhimaji|talk]]) 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::look, if you want to 'rehabilitate' Orgone for some reason, there are better ways to do it than casting aspersions on the entirety of the psychological and psychiatric fields. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "rehabilitate" anything - I think that all pseudo-sciences should be treated the same way - whether that be be the loopy ones like orgone or loopy ones like psychotherapy. I assume from your defence of the "science" of psychotherapy - which orgone is part of a long line of other pseudo-scientific views in psychotherapy no matter how much you might protest - that you have a vested interest. I consider "rainmakers" as disproved as much as research has disproved "collective unconscious. Falsifiability is falsifiability - or should that be lack of it. [[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
:This is better taken up on the page dealing with psychotherapy. Not the page dealing with Orgone. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::true. do let me point out, though, that (unlike Orgone) psychotherapy is well-established, and generally accepted as scientific. that may be a mistake, mind you, but the weight of current reliable sources do not support your claim that it is a pseudoscience. when and if that changes, I (for one) will happily allow the addition you propose. till then, it's [[wp:OR]], at best. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Orgone is certainly related to psycho-analysis, since, as the article states, it derives from a [[vitalist]] hypothesis of the Freudian [[libido]]. Such a view was popular in the thirties and anathema in the fifties. Many people hold that the concept of libido is scientifically suspect to begin with, even because it is not susceptible to physical experiment. However, such a view (presenting psychoanalysis as pseudoscience) is deprecated in the wiki pseudoscience guidelines; therefore the remark, piquant though it may be, is really in breach of those guidelines in my opinion. [[User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] ([[User talk:Redheylin|talk]]) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::part of the problem here (and this was part of the eventual break between Freud and Reich) was that Freud took libido more and more as a metaphor, whereas Reich took it more and more as a physical fact. as a metaphor it's useful; as a fact its suspect. such is life... --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my argument was that the article stated that some claimed orgone was pseudoscience and my response - with many references to support it - was that many respected thinkers have/do also consider/label psychotherapy as a "pseudoscience" but to be honest, it seems that the article has now been re-edited and is no long the POV fest it was only a few weeks ago so simply ignore me :)
[[User:The7thdr|The7thdr]] ([[User talk:The7thdr|talk]]) 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:yeah, I took out most of the radical pro-Reich stuff. just so you know, I respect the pov that psychology is a bit of a pseudoscience (don't agree with it, mind you, but I do respect it); it's just out of context for ''this'' article. {{=)}} --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 06:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== References (please start new discussions ''above'' this section) ==

<references />

== POV tag ==

Tmtoulouse - please say what pov issue you have. POV tags should not be permanent features of articles, you know, but I can't see what objection you're making, or how to fix it. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:The sourced, overwhelming consensus that Orgone is a pseudoscience belongs in the lede. That is a good place to start. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

::What's the source, again? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Gardner is the most obvious source. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, we need an exact quote posted from the source -is one already here on the talk page?- and we need to attribute something like "[[Martin Gardner]] called orgone pseudoscience in his seminal work of the skeptical movement ''[[Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science]]''. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

::::The reason I say we need a quote where he says it is pseudoscience, is I cannot get more than the tiniest glimpse of the book, even by searching for the word "orgone." So I hope someone has the book and can give us a quote, per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#cite_note-1]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Martin, attributing a quote to one individual when it's representative of the mainstream view smacks of giving undue weight to a fringe view. However, as it is now in context it doesn't look too bad. Regarding the judgement, here's a handy link[http://www.orgone.org/wr-vs-usa/wr40319d.htm] . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Dave, you know it doesn't matter to me what comes out of the sources when they are given their due weight. However, making claims which our common sense says is correct, as with OrangeMarlin, won't do (of course, common sense also says that all these people haven't heard of the subject, so can't be condemning it; but I recognize OM meant "if they knew about it, they'd condemn it" and was merely leaving out the small minority who would not condemn it). It doesn't matter whether it's common sense: it matters what the sources say [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinphi/FAQ#What.27s_your_basic_editing_philosophy.3F see first one]. Nice work on your part. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::As to giving it undue weight because we attribute, I don't think anyone believes that. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::Tmtoulouse - I am not about to '''guess'' at what you are objecting to, so don't tell me where we need to ''start'', tell me what you ''want''. the simple omission of a pseudoscience label is certainly not grounds for maintaining an NPOV tag. please spell out your objections in detail so we can address them all appropriately; that way I can move on to more interesting topics. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Hello Ludwig - you made a point; that libido is a metaphor. In this case such a metaphor resembles the American idea of a "putative" energy. There is a case for viewing orgone in the same light, and it has been cited as such by NICAM, which represents a volte face in the US govt position. This is not at all what Reich intended - the whole idea was to make the life-force material - but in reality we are left with orgone as the only cause postulated for a couple of claimed and weakly-supported, unrefuted experimental claims; those revolving around the "accumulator" and the "cloudbuster". It is, of course, as wholly unsatisfactory an explanation as are chi or prana, since no point of contiguity can be suggested and tested to observe the interaction of this force with other known forces. But unless the actual effects claimed are refuted or accounted for this metaphoric or putative "explanation" will remain. Apart from this, when viewed in a strictly psychotherapeutic context, the ideas of orgone and libido do not differ in status, it is merely that the former suggests and supports physical and emotional, rather than purely mental, interventions.

:::Therefore it appears to me that orgone must be viewed at present mainly in its original psychotherapeutic conception, secondarily in its historical context of biological vitalism. From this there proceeds Reich's various failed experiments in the physical domain. The furious anti-vitalist reaction of the fifties does need to be mentioned, but polemic from that period cannot and should not be aligned, given NICAM's position, with the present-day evaluation. As far as I can understand, TMToulouse's position is that a "neutral" account must involve a prominent and categorical presentation of Gardner's views on the tertiary, physical aspects of Reich's ideas as a modern-day scientific consensus on their totality, overriding psycho-analysis, vitalism and the aforementioned claimed effects, as well as any account of Reich's actual concepts. Since this view cannot be defended by scholarship, it has instead been a justification for edit-warring and disruption. As the article stands, we have an absurd and avowedly partial account of "blue skies and orgasms" instead of a coherent account. The achievement of incoherence and untrustworthiness apears to be the goal, and it seems to me that the mentioned tag, then, is simply an extension of this aim and is essentially intentionally disruptive. [[User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] ([[User talk:Redheylin|talk]]) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::::well, again, I'm not willing to ''guess'' at TMToulouse's motivations. since he hasn't seen fit to respond to my last post, I'll take it that he's been convinced, and I'll go ahead and remove the POV tag again.

::::I'm not sure I agree with (or maybe I'm misunderstanding) your other point. it seems clear to me that we can discuss Orgone from a variety of perspectives: as the material substrate that Reich envisioned, as a development from Libido, as a putative energy that has no empirical verification... I can see why you object to the 'blue skies' quote on the grounds that it's a sarcastic statement - maybe we should find a better one - but in fact, the phrase is fairly accurate, for all its sarcasm. For Reich, orgone was a 'grand unification' theory; I can even see the Hegelian dialectical elements that infused so much of Germanic academic thought from that period (think orgone as the physical manifestation of Geist). trying to present it as a mere extension of libido - or even as a mere bodily energy, as from Reich's character analysis days - would miss the full breadth of scope of the concept. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::POV tag stays. The article implies orgone exists, and since it doesn't, and everyone removes NPOV language, it stays. Quit reverting it. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::OrangeMarlin - I don't think you mean to suggest that the POV tag should stay there indefinitely, and I'm trying to find out exactly what we need to do to remove it. I don't see where the article says that Orgone actually exists (maybe I'm missing it?), and I'm more than willing to remove an obviously incorrect statement like that. can you point me to this objection, so that I can revise it? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Since this comment is an uncivil personal attack and not an explanation of why the tag should or should not go, the tag stays. I've made my points. The article claims Orgone works, and there are no reliable sources that support that statement. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::well, since the article doesn't actually say that orgone works, anywhere that I can see, then I don't see any reason to keep the tag on the article. plus, I don't think you can turn my previous comment into a personal attack, and even if you could, that wouldn't be grounds for maintaining a POV tag. so again - can you show me where the article makes this claim, so that I can edit it out, or do you have a more general objection? I'm open to either, but I'm not open to leaving a POV tag in place for no real reason whatsoever. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Continuing to edit war is certainly your modus operandi. I've placed the tag back, since there are statements like "as a "[[putative energy]]" – one which has to date defied any measurement but provides some therapists a paradigm for clinical procedures." There's no verification for such a statement. And no, the NCCAM website that is essentially a self-promotion of this stuff is not a verification. Show one reliable source that states it's a paradigm for anything.[[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I support keeping the POV tag. Every time I read through it, I try to figure out precisely what I think needs to be changed. I'm not happy with the arrangement of the information; it doesn't seem to flow in a reasonable way. I think that too many of the sections in the article sound like they are authoritatively true. Yes, there is information that talks about the conflicts, but I don't think it's in the right areas. [[User:Bhimaji|Bhimaji]] ([[User talk:Bhimaji|talk]]) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::thanks Bhimaji, I appreciate the feedback. I'm not averse to reorganizing things if you can clarify what's bothering you. for instance, which conflicts are you referring to - maybe we should bring the conflicts straight up to the forefront?
::::OM, your objection to putative energy is noted, but it ''is'' reliably sourced, so far as I can tell, and the context makes it clear that this is no claim that orgone is a true fact. we could rewrite it, though, to make that more prominent; would that satisfy you? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(addendum) I got a suggestion from elsewhere to rewrite the first line ''"Orgone is a theoretical energy first postulated and then promoted by Wilhelm Reich. There is no evidence that it actually exists."'' I'd be fine with that; would that go any length towards solving the problem? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::It its better than what we have right now, I think it should state ''There is no evidence that it actually exists and has been called a pseudoscience.'' [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] ([[User talk:Tmtoulouse|talk]]) 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::(ec) (Coming from ANI for a quick comment and run.) I don't know much about this nonsense theory, and I have only read the lede, but I am not too happy with that. I think that the proposed new first line (presumably followed by "It is a bioenergetic interpolation...") would be a big improvement. I would also suggest removing the second sentence but one ("putative energy"), which I think is more or less implied by the adjective "bioenergetic" in what is currently the first sentence. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::The suggestion is an improvement, but a long ways from NPOV. This is a fringe theory, pseudoscience nonsense. There are no reliable sources stating that it exists. Tmtoulouse's suggestions would work for me. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand your point. The only additional thing that Tmtoulouse wants is "and has been called a pseudoscience", right? Is it really necessary to ''say'' that? What would that help? Those who are at least somewhat scientifically minded, or able to read between the lines, will come to the conclusion that it ''is'' a pseudoscience. The others won't be impressed by "has been called". --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Hans: I don't actually think you'll get a response to this, so let me try to fill in. labeling is an easy way to frame a concept without going through the trouble of analyzing it. it's like slapping a 'kick me' sign on someone's back. the prominently attachment of the label 'pseudoscience' instantly discredits the concept without anyone understanding why or how it's discredited, and frees the labeler up to go slap more labels elsewhere. this isn't about whether orgone is ''actually'' pseudoscience (since that term is so loose that it defies any meaningful definition); this is about making the topic look bad in the most expedient and effort-free way possible. I'm not objecting, mind you, though I think it's juvenile. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

===template discussion===
There has been some talk of creating a template for articles such as this one, which merely says something like "This subject is scientifically controversial. It may encompass pseudoscience, unverified scientific claims, or claims which are disputed. Therefore, all its content should be subject to skeptical analysis on the part of the reader." Place that tag, and stop quarreling so much over the exact wording of the article. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:what is the status on that? last time I checked, it was fizzled, but I haven't been paying attention. I mean, I could whip up a simple infobox template in about 2 minutes - should I just do that, apply it, and see if it solves the problem? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::That's not going to work for anyone I know, except for the two of you. There's no "may". It is pseudoscience. Sheesh. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


It was the first and only demo tape to be recorded by the band. This demo was produced by Marc Castanzo.<br />
:::well, you're the one who wants to label it pseudoscience, OM. if it were up to me I'd leave silly labels like that out of the picture entirely, and just let the ridiculousness of Reich's position speak for itself. I don't quite understand why you're objecting to us helping you out on that, though the irony of it tickles me. {{=)}} sheesh indeed - lol. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This demo tape was never officially released and was only used as a promotional material for record labels and was given away to a few random people at the time, and is extremely rare.


It is also the only Sum 41 release to feature [[Richard Roy (musician)|Richard "Twitch" Roy]] on bass.
::::I think that a pseudoscience label of some sort would be reasonable. Or, perhaps, a template stating how the scientific community views Orgone. In fact, I think that a template like that would be a useful thing on most scientific and pseudoscientific articles. Wikipedia is moving away from "criticism" sections, but I think in this case a summarization of how accepted something is would really be clearer than fitting the criticism only within the body of the article. [[User:Bhimaji|Bhimaji]] ([[User talk:Bhimaji|talk]]) 03:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Three of the songs on this record, "What I Believe", "Another Time Around" and "Summer" were later re-recorded for the debut EP, "[[Half Hour of Power]]". The cover was also reused for the [[Half Hour Of Power]] EP.
:::::I'll add that a template might relieve some of the more intractable cat-fights on fringe articles, where various editors mangle prose while trying to shade an article to discredit or promote the topic. just put it right out there, say that the reader needs to read with a few big grains of salt, and let the squabbles go. I made a mockup, [[User:Ludwigs2/:test2|here]]. forgive the color scheme (which I stole from wikipedia), but what would you think about something like this on the page? also, I rewrote the lead with some of the comments I saw here in mind. is this an improvement, or does it move away from the mark? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Weasel-worded nonsense. I'd revert it from any article that I was editing. <s>You POV-pushers></s> would just use it to say, "see, it has a tag, so you don't have to write any criticisms." The tag is worthless. Instead of this constant pushing, why don't you do some real work on this project. I note the FAR list has never seen an edit from you.[[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::<sigh...> I struck out the unjustified and insulting personal comment. I'll leave the bad faith assumption, because it at least deserves some discussion. you should really read the comment about labeling I made above... so, two points:
::::::::#even assuming someone was dumb enough to ''make'' the argument you suggested above, what possible chance would it have for success? a short discussion, and the inclusion of reliable sources, would cut the legs out from under it. the tag would simply obviate a whole lot of article-damaging argument about trivialities
::::::::#what in heaven's name is the FAR list? if it's something you think I ought to be editing - and particularly if you want to attack me personally for ''not'' editing it - you'll have to clue me in on what and where it is.
::::::::incidentally, do you realize that over 90% of the posts you've made to me have contained personal insults of one form or another? when I get a chance, I'll whip up the statistics - may need to write a bot to do it, though. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 05:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you are both not being very nice to each other (each of you just ''reacting'' to perceived misbehaviour of the other, of course), and suggest that you make absolutely sure to keep the personal dimension out of this article.
:::::::::The tag is an interesting idea, but I am very skeptical about it. I think it shouldn't be introduced without extensive discussion. I'll unwatch the article now, because I can't keep quiet otherwise. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 08:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::ok by me. and I'm adding a header to set this discussion apart - it's a side point that doesn't really apply to the main topic. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 09:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


A copy of the Demo tape recently sold on eBay in January 2008 for $50 and is currently the only copy known to have been sold online. In February 2008 the tape was leaked onto the internet along with its information.
== [[WP:TE]] ==
===Track listing===
# "Summer" (Demo version) - 2:50
# "Another Time Around" (Demo version) - 2:18
# "What I Believe" (Demo version) - 2:52
# "Astronaut" - 1:43


===Personnel===
Martinphi, you are being really obnoxious, and I know you know how to be civil. If a statment does not align precisely with a ref, ''work with your fellow editors'' to find phrasing which suits, or discuss alternate references, ''thoroughly'' before making edits like you just did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orgone&diff=238070791&oldid=238068230 here], adding a "fact" tag to a sourced statement. That is simply [[WP:POINT]], and you've been around long enough to realize that. If you're getting frustrated, take some time off. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
* [[Deryck Whibley]] - [[lead vocals]]/[[guitar]]
* [[Dave Baksh]] - [[lead guitar]]/[[backing vocals]]
* [[Richard Roy (musician)|Richard "Twitch" Roy]] - [[Bass guitar|bass]]
* [[Steve Jocz]] - [[Drum kit|drums]]/[[backing vocals]]


==References==
== court injunction stuff ==
{{Reflist}}


{{Sum 41}}
Dave - what text are you looking at? it's been a long time since I read the Reich stuff on my shelves, but as I remember it (and logically, if it comes to that...) the FDA got an injunction against the distribution of Reich's stuff on the grounds that the concept of orgone was false and misleading, and the burning of Reich's books and devices only came after Reich violated the injunction by shipping a device across state lines (which is the only place the FDA has jurisdiction). I don't think the destruction of the material was part of the original injunction; I think the FDA just assumed that as part of their purview after Reich was arrested (the way they might single-handedly destroy a lab full of illicit drugs if they found one). minor point, really, but I'd like to get it factually correct. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:See the wee number at the end of the paragraph? Click on it. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::lol - sorry, duh. :-)
::ah, ok. you've got a link to the second ruling, not the initial injunction (notice how it says in the first couple of paragraphs that Reich et all failed to appear?). I'll see if I can dig up the initial injunction; but if not, this works fine. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


[[Category:2000 albums]]
== Orgone / Orgone Energy Theory is Pseudoscience? Reliable Source Please? ==
[[Category:Sum 41 albums]]
[[Category:Aquarius Records albums]]
[[Category:Albums produced by Greig Nori]]


[[cs:Half Hour of Power]]
Based on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience|arbitration]] and
[[es:Half Hour of Power]]
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience|clarification]] on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Orgone Energy category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Orgone Energy category. Thank you.[[User:Self-ref|-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode)]] ([[User talk:Self-ref|talk]]) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[fr:Half Hour Of Power]]
[[it:Half Hour of Power]]
[[hu:Half Hour Of Power]]
[[no:Half Hour of Power]]
[[pl:Half Hour of Power]]
[[pt:Half Hour Of Power]]
[[fi:Half Hour Of Power]]
[[sv:Half Hour of Power]]

Revision as of 00:39, 10 October 2008

Untitled

Half Hour of Power is Sum 41's debut EP. Despite it's title, there is only 24 minutes of music on it, with 6 minutes of dead space added on. It was released on June 27, 2000 on Big Rig Records, a subsidiary of Island Records (US), and Aquarius Records (Canada).

On the thanks to section, it states "This EP Is dedicated in loving memory to the band Closet Monster."

This is the second of three times that "Summer" appeared on a Sum 41 album, the first being the 1998 Demo tape, and the third being All Killer No Filler. The band planned to put the song on each of their albums as a joke, but scrapped the plan after All Killer No Filler. The cover of the album features drummer Steve Jocz in his boxer shorts holding a water gun. It bears a resemblance to the cover of the Megadeth album So Far, So Good... So What!

The song "Dave's Possessed Hair/It's What We're All About" was redone as "It's What We're All About" for the Spider Man soundtrack.

In an online poll on the SUM 41 Forums, the song "Makes No Difference" was voted favorite song, with "Machine Gun" coming in second. [1]

Track listing

All songs by Sum 41

  1. "Grab the Devil by the Horns and **** Him Up the *** - 1:06
  2. "Machine Gun" – 2:29
  3. "What I Believe" – 2:49
  4. "T.H.T. (Tables Have Turned)" – 0:43
  5. "Makes No Difference" – 3:10
  6. "Summer" – 2:40
  7. "32 Ways to Die" – 1:30
  8. "Second Chance for Max Headroom" – 3:51
  9. "Dave's Possessed Hair/It's What We're All About" – 3:47
  10. "Ride the Chariot to the Devil" – 0:55
  11. "Another Time Around" – 3:19 (6:52 with added silence to make album length thirty minutes)

Singles

Personnel

1998 Demo Tape

File:Sum41Demo.jpg
The original cassette

Referred to by fans as Rock Out With Your Cock Out, Sum 41's demo tape was released in 1998 on cassette only.

Untitled

It was the first and only demo tape to be recorded by the band. This demo was produced by Marc Castanzo.
This demo tape was never officially released and was only used as a promotional material for record labels and was given away to a few random people at the time, and is extremely rare.

It is also the only Sum 41 release to feature Richard "Twitch" Roy on bass.

Three of the songs on this record, "What I Believe", "Another Time Around" and "Summer" were later re-recorded for the debut EP, "Half Hour of Power". The cover was also reused for the Half Hour Of Power EP.

A copy of the Demo tape recently sold on eBay in January 2008 for $50 and is currently the only copy known to have been sold online. In February 2008 the tape was leaked onto the internet along with its information.

Track listing

  1. "Summer" (Demo version) - 2:50
  2. "Another Time Around" (Demo version) - 2:18
  3. "What I Believe" (Demo version) - 2:52
  4. "Astronaut" - 1:43

Personnel

References

  1. ^ TheresNoSolution.com - Boards • View topic - Half Hour Of Power Survivor Game
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orgone&oldid=244264132"