Template talk:Wilhelm Reich

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Philosophy This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

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

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

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