Talk:Emil Kraepelin

Symptoms

From the article:

Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) attempted to create a synthesis of the hundreds of mental disorders identified by 19th century psychiatrists, by grouping diseases together based on classification of common symptoms.

Correction: The foregoing is altogether incorrect; Kraepelin did not group diseases based on "classification of common symptoms". In fact, it was precisely because of the demonstrated inadequacy of such methods that Kraepelin developed his new diagnostic system. (...) In the absence of a direct physiological or genetic test for each disease, it is only possible to distinguish them by their specific pattern of symptoms. Thus, Kraepelin's system is a method for pattern recognition, not grouping by common symptoms. Kraepelin also demonstrated similar patterns in the genetics of these disorders and in the course and outcome.

I think we are saying the same thing. How about 'common patterns of symptoms' -- The Anome

Anome: Your proposed change would be perfectly satisfactory. The distinction is crucial, however, since K's nosology is not at all based on common symptoms. And what needs to be kept in mind above all, is K's principle that there is an underlying biological-genetic basis. Diagnosis by 'common patterns of symptoms' is only a very distant second best, and research should be concentrated on the underlying brain or other pathology which will make accurate diagnosis and treatment possible someday. In the meantime, we know extremely little about the nature of these diseases--this above all is what Kraepelin sought to teach.

Edit War I

The 'patterns' Kraepelin referred to were not 'demonstrated,' in fact, but in fact blown out of the sky by his successor Bleuler. --londheart 08:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre, bizarre... how about leaving some weird science-history personal vendettas out of it and trying to stick to normal stuff that belongs on wikipedia? 84.174.218.119 Ebbinghaus 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave out the impertinent false readings and odd accusations. If you can't get a name, at least get some insight. --londheart 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what nice wikipedia courtesy. Of course one can't deal with people who obviously have a mental problem with one's normal ID. I think anyone in the community here knows what it means if you wholesale accuse people of Nazism because they insist on a halfway decent and scholarly representation of who is after all one of the founding fathers of scientific psychology. If you have a problem with the field and call any psychologist a nazi who paves the way for the holocaust, I think you should get some help. 84.174.214.33 Ebbinghaus 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you knew very much about Wikipedia you would realise that providing an IP address as 'one's normal ID' simply isn't providing a normal level of accountability here. Go ahead, vandalise away, and when you've realised your mistakes send us a postcard. I haven't got time to deal with this juvenile delinquency. --londheart 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't say "us" if you refer to the wikipedia. You are someone who abuses the system, and someone who's a problem here and not an answer - a disruptive and ugly force. You are the vandal here, and your discussion site proves it. And you should definitely recuse yourself from this article, or you'll be blocked again, I'm sure. 84.174.215.8 Ebbinghaus 07:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if wiki discipline has completely gone out of the window, now: Wikipedia has gone from one extreme, of inappropriate bannings, to a lack of arbitration - or do we need to request it? Don't all rush at once(!).

It must be very frustrating for you being just a number, an article not worthy of expansion or comment. But if you adopted an ID, that would expose you to public criticism, which presumably you couldn't handle? --londheart 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally something we agree about - I also wonder where the others remain, although I will be most happy to request review, arbitration or whatever. I guess people just want to avoid your dirty invectives; some people are troubled to be called a nazi even by a commie of the worst kind (I'm not). I think a self-confessed totalitatrian who calls others Nazis just because they don't agree with his more than outlandish views and who vandalizes psychology pages all around because he has a problem with academic psychology as such is not particularly credible, yet especially not as regards Kraepelin, where your work is 100% source free and just a personal vendetta. 84.174.216.130 Ebbinghaus 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between you and I is that, even if I do request it, I am not 'most happy' to request review. Things should not need to get to that stage in a civilised exchange, and my experience of authority, including Wikipedian, clearly doesn't merit your degree of optimism. In fact, in view of other commitments, I'm not sure I want to pursue taking Wikipedia that seriously just yet. After all, their technology is flawed, it allows you to misrepresent, libel and defame under the cover of an IP address, which doesn't serve to precisely locate you. So Wikipedia is effectively facilitating these offences. --londheart 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In a civilized exchange, which you started by calling me a Nazi? My God, how do your uncivilized exchanges look like?! Your interest is not in getting this article right in a cooperative manner; to the contary! And anyway - if my optimism in the wikipedia isn't justified, wouldn't it be good for you? And as regards libel and defamation, you are clearly not a lawyer, or even legally informed; otherwise you would know that one cannot defame an alias (and your "identity" here has a - double - name and a talk page, but it is still an atavar, a persona and not a person) at all. But even if it were, you and anyone will note that my first edits and descriptions here were certainly not even insulting, whereas you started right away to attack someone who begged to differ with you by calling him a Nazi (projection? ;-)). 84.174.234.108 Ebbinghaus 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your problem here is your failure to see how your support for Kraepelinian psychiatry is in fact worse than insulting. --londheart 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the almost first time, we agree, I fail to see this, but I think this is less a problem than an answer. This is in the end an encyclopedia (though with flaws), so an eminent historical figure - and in the end a mainstream figure, as you can see in the general histories of the discipline - in psychiatry and psychology should be described accurately and sine ira et studio. All your changes were emotional and judgmental, and none were backed up with citations, although this was repeatedly asked for. I am not necessarily "supporting Kraepelinian psychiatry" at all; that is not the issue here. If you find that "worse than insulting" (and I wonder whether any other user will be able to follow such a claim), then really, by wikipedia rules, you should not be involved in this discourse at all. 84.174.220.23 Ebbinghaus 05:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going way to fast. By your own reckoning, this isn't the first time we agree, but at least the the second. You call Kraepelin 'eminent' while I am 'totalitarian.' I rather suspect you have applied the latter epithet the wrong way round, and are yourself authoritarian to the degree of seeking to expunge almost all criticism of your sinister hero. --londheart 05:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it's the second, even more frightening... Even if you were right, and even if Kraepelin were totalitarian, which is manifest nonsense of course (both politically and scientifically), totalitarian and eminent are not antagonisms; surely you can be both - only that Kraepelin was only eminent (and why in the world would he be sinister?), whereas you are a self-confessed (on your own discussion page) totalitarian (a communist). Emotional criticism is not what makes the wikipedia; for the umpteenth time, if you have a citation, give it and that's that. 84.174.214.35 Ebbinghaus 08:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a simple (if 'PC') equation between 'communist' and 'totalitarian,' yet again. On the arbitration page, you quote the Kraepelin Society as one of three 'neutral sources' in the matter. I do wonder whether your grasp of scholarly rigour and neutrality matches your knowledge of Latin phrases. As for citations, I had a link to 'reductionism' in an earlier edit and you saw fit to delete it. --londheart 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop the discussion and wait for the arbitration results, no? (To answer your points, though: Yes, I would say that per definitionem communists are totalitarian. I never said the Kraepelin Society was neutral; I only say that its page provides mainstream reference to Kraepelin. And as for reductionism, that was an intra-wiki link and not a citation, and it went away with all your changes because their point is not to add existing criticism to the Kraepelin article but to malign him with made-up charges.) 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See bottom of discussion page. 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you would like to define communists as totalitarian, and end the discussion there? You wish to argue the toss between a citation and an intra-wiki link, while missing the underlying point I'm making?

You agree that your 'mainstream' and its link may not be neutral?

You would like me not to point out that non-/anti-communists are, by definition, exploitative and oppressive? --londheart 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

See the end of "Edit Wars III" below. Ebbinghaus 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar = Manic

From the article:

Correction: Manic-depression is not now known as "Bipolar Disorder". Bipolar Disorder is just one form of affective disorder and it is affective disorder which is another name for manic-depression. (SE)

SE, I can assure you that Bipolar Disorder == Manic-Depression. For a reference, try 'Manic-Depressive Illness' by Goodwin and Jamison, the definitive textbook on the subject. 'Manic-Depression/Bipolar Disorder' is a member of the category 'Affective Disorder', and affective disorders are considered now to be a bipolar spectrum -- The Anome

Anome: I am afraid that I must correct you and point out that there is no basis for your equating "Bipolar Disorder == Manic-Depression". In the first place, the ultimate authority would be the DSM. I refer you to either the DSM-IV (p. 317), which you should have access to, as well as the more recent DSM-IV TR (p. 345), the more recent edition to which you may not have convenient access. Both of them divide the mood or affective disorders and list on the opening pages given above the many subdivisions of mood or affective disorder, only one of which is bipolar disorder. I will quote from p. 345 of the latter:

"The Mood Disorders are divided into the Depressive Disorders ('unipolar depression'), the Bipolar Disorders, and two disorders based on etiology--Mood Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition and Substance-Induced Mood Disorder."

The wording is identical in the earlier edition, the DSM-IV.

I can assure you that this is absolutely authoritative and is maintained consistently throughout all of psychiatry. You may think that you read otherwise in Goodwin and Jamison, but (while I have not checked your citation) it is almost inconceivable that they would make the basic mistake of equating bipolar disorder with mood or affective disorder. You probably would have avoided this error if you had provided a quote, which would have required more precision, and would have provided you with correct information. The status of bipolar disorders as a subdivision of mood or affective disorder goes back to the origination of the term. Common sense will tell you that a bipolar episode or disorder must combine some level of mania with some level of depression (or mixed state of the two). The fact is, there are many patients with mood or affective disorders who have no elevated affect, whether mania or hypomania, and therefore do not have bipolar disorder. Yet all such patients, whether depressive, manic or mixed, may fit to the original concept of manic-depression. The important point is that it is absolutely incorrect to equate manic-depression with bipolar disorder, since bipolar is only a part of manic-depression which is also known as mood or affective disorder. Be sure to write Goodwin and Jamison if you can find a quote equating the two--and please be good enough to provide it here as well!

OK, here I go.

Firstly, I agree with you about Kraepelin's 'original concept of manic-depression', and the modern, recent, expert psychiatric usage.

The root of our difference is that I am citing the terms as used in general lay usage and much American psychiatric usage in the 20th Century. And, yes, I'll cite G+J's citations of those usages.

I assert that for much of the 20th century, in both lay and some Americal professional use, "Manic Depression" has been used as a synonym for Bipolar disorder.

1. Common usage: in the name "National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association" - this appears to make the distinction between Unipolar and Bipolar, labeling Bipolar "Manic-Depressive" and unipolar "Depressive".
2. Goodwin and Jamison, p.86: in the DSM-III "manic depressive reaction became manic depressive illness, and, with involutionial melancholia, was classified under major depressive disorders" - clearly 'involutional melancholia' is part of what would now be called 'affective disorders' == (DSM-IV and Kraepelin's) 'Manic-depression'

So: we are arguing about a term which has changed its meaning over time, somewhere between DSM-III and DSM-III-R. G+J cite these uses. My edition is the 1990 OUP hardback, ISBN 0195039343

So, should we say:

1. Kraepelin saw "Manic-Depressive Illness" as the whole spectrum.
2. In DSM-I, 'manic depressive reaction' is contrasted with 'psychotic depressive reaction' under 'affective reactions' (see p. 86)
3. In DSM-III, "Manic depression" was used opposed to other 'involutional melancholia' (p.86)
4. DSM-III-R (as cited by Goodwin and Jamison, p.89) divides 'Mood disorders' into 'bipolar disorders' and 'depressive disorders'
5. G+J restored Kraepelin's global sense of "Manic-Depressive Illness"
6. DSM-IV reflects this use.

Can I also just point out that G+J say (p.70) 'In the sixth edition,' (of Kraepelin's textbook of pychiatry) 'published in 1899, the term manic-depressive encompassed the circular psychoses and simple manias' and that later 'in the eighth edition virtually all of melancholia had been subsumed under manic-depressive illness'. This seems to indicate a shift in Kraepelin's own views in a similar direction.

Naturally, this being Wikipedia, I am more than willing to bow before the Wikiconsensus.

-- The Anome

Portrait

The gif at www.kraepelin.org/db5/00479/kraepelin.org/_uimages/01_Kraepelin.gif is (a) served from outside Wikipedia, and (b) not known to be in the public domain. For this reason, I have removed it from the article. Could the source of this picture can either demonstrate it to be public domain and resubmit to the Wikipedia admins, or if they are the copyright owner, submit it to Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL licence? -- The Anome

Political reasons

I'm interested in the paragraph

Largely for political reasons, Kraepelin's great contribution in discovering schizophrenia and manic-depression remains relatively unknown to the general public ....

I'm curious 1) what those political reasons are and 2) if this is a consensus view among psychariatrists.

Presumably the original editor was referring to the fact that Western culture doesn't seem sufficiently proud of its psychiatric science to have elevated its founder to the status of a celebrity(?). --londheart 08:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit War II

...and his epic battle to create and maintain scientific psychiatry in the face of an ascendant obscurantism...

I have deleted this because it seems to be against POV to me. Concluding from his feud with Freud they were BOTH disputed authorities with followers and opposants. Despite Kraepelin having been the 'underdog' for so long it seems unjustified to side with him so strongly... I hope this offends no one. Sjoerd de Vries

Sounds reasonable to me. --Dante Alighieri 18:56 28 May 2003 (UTC)

You didn't go far enough. --londheart 08:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article is now anti-Kraepelin in a weird way. Sounds as if someone has an axe to grind. 84.174.218.119 Ebbinghaus 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - seems like someone has a name he's shit-scared to reveal - scared the of the Nazi hunters or what? --londheart 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary? Well, it seems your choice of words amply justifies this approach. But I am sure you'll be reverted by the wikipedia community in no time. 84.174.214.33 Ebbinghaus 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, dear boy, not 'the wikipedia community' but one lone, rather sorry revert warrior not man enough to have an ID or a corresponding talk page. --londheart 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Not man enough" is a typical Nazi expression by the way. And sooner or later these edits will draw some attention, and then your vandalism will be stopped. That's the nice thing about wikipedia. :-) 84.174.215.8 Ebbinghaus 07:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'Not man enough' is not about Nazism except in so far as what it really is about, which is character. Wikipedia's monitoring doesn't seem all that good to me: we seem to have each reverted the article sufficient times to warrant automatic investigation, but it appears not to be forthcoming, and grown-ups have more important things to do than getting involved in interminable revert wars. --londheart 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then just let it go and do something else with your time. 84.174.216.130 Ebbinghaus 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Compulsive instructive disorder. --londheart 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And that from a guy whose staple statements include "bog [sic!] off" and "leave that page"? :-D 84.174.234.108 Ebbinghaus 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was exasperated at a virtual institution which on previous occasions has intervened early and often, but on this page, all the rules about revert wars and removal of templates seem to have gone out of the window. --londheart 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! This last comment is a complete non sequitur. But I agree with you (second time; something must be wrong with me...) that it is rather annoying that nobody intervenes here, either way. (I would have no problem if some wiki admin chooses to freeze your version rather than mine, because that is the wiki principle, and to some extent it's a gamble where the admins will come out on this.) Partially you are to blame though, because you are not reverting the article back to your hate speech variant anymore. So, some observers might have gotten the idea that you have accepted the current version. 84.174.220.23 Ebbinghaus 05:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first three sentences here seem contradictory. Your assertion that 'it's a gamble where the admins will come out on this' reminds me of Saddam Hussein's recent court performances. Sorry if I am 'to blame' for not having time to join your preppy little revert war ad nauseum(!). --londheart 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean ad nauseam? No you don't, indeed, but then don't complain if no admins intervene. The Saddam reference is just too loopy to reply to. Admins freeze a page in a revert war, as is well known, not always at the "right" point, but also occasionally in the vandalized format. You should welcome that, being a vandal. 84.174.214.35 Ebbinghaus 08:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad nauseum seems more apt, actually, and therefore funnier, if there's anyone with a sense of humour round here(?). I do appreciate your little Latin lessons, altho the one with ira in went over my head. Your familiarity with Latin phrases does have its value, of course, while arguably, at the same time, perhaps undermining your credentials as a modern(?). --londheart 10:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop the discussion and wait for the arbitration results, no? (To answer your points, though: sine ira et studio means, literally, "without wrath and zeal", and it is one of these classicisms trying to catch the essence of a scholarly approach. I'm really at a loss what you mean with my credentials as a "modern"...) 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See bottom of discussion page. 84.174.222.13 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that what I'm seeing so far on the arbitration page from User:MacGyverMagic fails to merit that degree of reverence for the judicial process. Re 'sine ira et studio': it's not a very well-known Latin phrase, perhaps because it doesn't make total sense, e.g., here. I can agree on 'ira' (and your contributions weren't tainted by anger?) but 'studio'/zeal appears to be what's lacking: you appear to have got some sense of what you imply by the somewhat inadequate Latin phrase, but seem to fail to apply it. I was tempted to say that your failure to understand my point re 'modern' 'says it all' - not 'all' perhaps, but it goes some considerable way towards explaining our overall disagreement. --londheart 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

See the end of "Edit Wars III" below. Ebbinghaus 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Could we have a bit of a sectionning of this article.Lincher 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit War III

I found this article in a perilously POV state and have made some modest adjustments. I realise that the normal procedure is strictly the other way round, but assertions like 'Kraepelin's contribution was largely ignored throughout much of the twentieth century,' still in the article at the time of writing, are so patently, bafflingly ill-founded that discussion itself seems to pander inappropriately to glaring inaccuracy. --londheart 08:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is now POV, if negative. If you don't like Kraepelin, isn't that your problem, and not something with which you should mess up the Wikipedia? 84.174.218.119 Ebbinghaus 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like nazis, period. Get off the page! --londheart 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not for you, an obvious psychopath, to demand. (If one looks at your discussion page, with the blockings, the admonishments of the admins not to behave like a vandal, etc., this is very clear.)And if you don't "like" (!) Nazis, why don't you go after them? If you accuse people wholesale of Nazism, you are watering down the term, make it meaningless, and therefore truly exculpate them. 84.174.214.33 Ebbinghaus 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Altho you, as an absent diagnostician, are clearly not an authentic one, you fall into the trap of Kraepelinian psychiatry. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with me, Einstein, Chomsky or anyone else 'on your discussion page' (something you're obviously still saving up for) - that is not what determines either truth or sanity!

BTW, if you paid more attention to my talk page you would realise that an IP address doesn't function as an ID in the way you believe.

--londheart 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know that about the ID. But that is not the point - so far, on wikipedia, there is in such matters (rather than certain votes) no difference between anonymous and registered users. And as you have an "electronic stalker" potential, it is extremely wise not to show a registered name when dealing with you.

The point is that you have a track record as a crank, a troll, and a vandal - amply documented by various admins and punished according to community rules. Whether you have psychological problems is indeed a matter that could only be determined in a session with you, but your performance on wikipedia generally and with Kraepelin show that, in case you don't, you are imitating it rather well (textbook-like).

And finally, truth is not an issue on wikipedia (that has been discussed many times), but previous scholarship, reliable sources etc. is what counts. Without any citations and against all the mainstream literature, you are vandalizing this entry according to your own personal grudge with psychiatry, and this is why your edits are hooliganism and not wiki. You'll see. 84.174.215.8 Ebbinghaus

Your contributions are madly intolerant. You are even trying repeatedly to remove evidence that the article's neutrality is disputed, and I'm not sure you get away with that, ultimately, apart from anything else. You deal with the crucial point in my last contribution by alleging blandly that 'truth is not an issue on wikipedia.' Bog off! --londheart 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't feed trolls here, but I will, for other people need to trace what's happening. Intolerance of hooliganism and vandalism is a vital part of wikipedia. There is no "evidence" of POV that I am removing, just your labelling the article so, and as is obviously from your discourse and your discussion page, you are the grand high master of POV (a self-styled communist and anti-democrat, as you say yourself... no surprise here, I guess). Wikipedia is a project that is reflecting previous scholarship; that is one of the earliest, clearest principles. Scholarship only reflects "truth" indirectly, if at all. If you do not understand this, perhaps you find other outlets for your energy? 84.174.236.88 Ebbinghaus 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What you are dredging up from the past, from my Talk Page, is from the past, at a time when I was new to Wiki and was being repeatedly silenced, on one occasion because someone alleges that I was 'using the same IP address as a vandal.' This then appeared to get sorted out, but the dispute made it clear, if you trouble to read the details, that an IP address can apply to several unconnected editors. That is why it is so unfair for you to even refer to my Talk page when you haven't got one, having no proper ID as such. You can exercise your vain little victories on the Kraep page for the time being, but you will need to vandalise this page also to successfully pursue your ongoing campaign of suppressing the truth, which is not, in fact, some sideshow in an encyclopedia of this kind, but central to its purport. --londheart 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is not about the past at all, but the track record of a vandal who has personal vendettas, tries to hooliganize articles to have it his way, is both a megalomaniac and an ignoramus and treats other users accordingly. And about the vandalism - this is clearly always yours, with a pattern (such as here), and you've confessed to it too. "Someone was using my IP address" is really the cheapest of excuses. I wouldn't change anything here, on the discussion page, because only that way can people see what is up. About your bias, hooliganism, and way to treat wikipedia, other uses can also profitably check out the Eugen Bleuler page, where other users referred very aptly, if too friendlily, to your "un-encyclopaedic waffle and rubbish". And on the truth: Of course all you are saying about psychiatry and its history is complete nonsense (let's not speculate whether you are just a mean, sub-academic hooligan high school student or whether you have been disappointed by your own diagnoses and therapies) and not "true" at all, but wikipedia is about previous scholarship - no original research. Altough, as I said, you really do the Nazis' work by accusing all and sundry of Nazism (because by that you make it impossible to determine who the real Nazi psychiatrists and psychologists were), I would not revert your changes anymore if you for once could give one decent published source for your claims. There is plenty of stuff out on the history of the profession, as well as on Kraepelin specifically; read it, cite it, and you can work it in if your views are supported. 84.174.216.130 Ebbinghaus 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Those arguments on my Talk page are very much in the past - largely from several months ago, when I was still learning the limits of Wikipedian authority and its juvenile, preppy contingent. Now, on the whole, I avoid conflict, but here in the Kraepelin article I have discovered a kind of root of contemporary social evil and the anonymous, fanatical nature of its support. Your whole manner and methods mark you out as male and under 35, and, sure as I'm a Net prophet, you will come to regret these arrogant, fanatical and defamatory edits. --londheart 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You avoid conflict by calling people, the first time they change what you said and ask for scholarly proof, Nazis? Wow, what a smart tactics of conflict-avoidance! And "as sure as you are a Net prophet", you may be right, because surely you aren't one, but how can my edits be what you said? I have never contributed to this piece, I have no ownership here - I am just reverting your militantly unscholarly and vandalizing edits to the previous level. (You couldn't get away with your rants against Kraepelin in any normal scholarly publication either.) And you absolutely refuse to cite or quote one shred of evidence for your "un-encyclopaedic waffle and rubbish", as it has been rightly, and very recently, called by others (and not "very much in the past"). I am convinced - admittedly via distance diagnosis - that you have some (perhaps not too serious but certainly manifest and clinical) psychological disorder, and so I think you are not truly evil, even though you do - as communists have a track record to do, of course - the Nazis' work. But in spite of that, it's not something one can let stand here, nor your invectives, for which you are at least partially responsible. 84.174.234.108 Ebbinghaus 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, you do have ownership here, none of the Wiki safeguards are working, you edit the article till it precisely fits your preferred concept of Kraepelinian supremacy, you talk the hind leg off the Talk page, you appear to have all the time in the world to argue in favour of this tedious, oppressive, outdated but still influential German psychiatrist. You appear to have demonstrated Wikipedia's limitations. --londheart 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't have ownership if I didn't contribute to the article, per definitionem. I don't edit the article at all, I am just removing all your changes that are POV and set to - as you admit, as you say even now - maligning and defaming an after all historical figure, in a hateful and racist way, which is a clear form of vandalism on your part. Don't you see from your own writings how emotionally over-involved you are here? Kraepelin and his legacy are not the point here at all; your behavior is. And I think that a user who does not have ownership does not give in to vandalism is rather wikipedia working, not not working... and trust me, it takes very little of my time. :-) 84.174.220.23 Ebbinghaus 05:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As the article's original editor is silent you have effectively inherited ownership. You say that I am emotionally over-involved, but not to the extent that you are, which appears to result in shrill and repetitive defamation - which convinces who? If, as you suggest, these prolix diatribes 'take very little of your time,' then perhaps you are really rather rushing into things, in a peremptory fashion? I'm requesting arbitration[1]. --londheart 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Original editor? I think this is a cooperative effort. In any case, thanks for requesting arbitration; that might take care of your vandalism, or at least it starts the process thither. 84.174.214.35 Ebbinghaus 08:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks? Well somebody has to act grown-up.

If your recent campaign of reversion is an example of a 'co-operative effort,' then all I can say is, I haven't noticed anyone other than you in it. --londheart 10:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop the discussion and wait for the arbitration results, no? (To answer your points, though: I mean the Kraepelin article, before you started "editing" it, was not, as far as I can see, the work of a single author, but rather that of several users, excluding myself. I am just restoring their version.) 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In his reply to my statement on the arbitration page, londhart writes: "it is my mother's funeral today". I've replied there:

Oops, londheart, that is what happens if person and persona are collapsed into each other... I still believe your are completely wrong and your behavior is (probably) unexcusable as regards Kraepelin, but I am a Camusian, and I think that the death of your mother (if true, but the risk here is too great that it is) is in the end - not within wikipedia, but by the standards of the world of which it is part - more important than to be right on Kraepelin. My sincere condolences, and - although it might sound cynical what I say now, I mean it - if it makes you feel better, go ahead and change the Kraepelin all the way you want. I will, under these circumstances, not touch your edits anymore. To the arbitration committee: From my perspective, this case is closed, and I yield to londheart. 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus

So, indeed, I will, and that's it for me on this page. 84.174.222.13 Ebbinghaus 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am missing my mother's funeral, for a number of reasons, some health-related, to observe what appears to be another funeral on the arbitration page: that of truth, justice, balance, honest scholarship, tolerance, liberty, freedom of speech... all things which might, to an atheist existentialist like Camus, seem less important than the here and now. --londheart 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Primarily for his behavior in the above-discussed edit wars, the discussion itself, and his edits in the arbitration request, which added racism, homophobia, and sockpuppetry [2], londheart has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, and his page and discussion page, where he continued to make comments, protected. Ebbinghaus 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Continueddonations is the current illegitimate sockpuppet (a block of which has already been requested) of londheart.Ebbinghaus 08:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Emil Kraepelin was remembered in a Brazilian newspaper, in 2010

This Brazilian site: [JB] has an article, in portuguese, about the death of about 50 mads in a Cuban asylum in 2010. The article remembers Emil Kraepelin's sentence.Agre22 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Criticism of Kraepelin for considering dementia praecox a biological illness

This post is in relation to this recent diff. Now Kraepelin was criticised and resisted on a range of fronts but for that very reason I think it is imperative to know who Cohen is referring to. Could you expand on that? Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• FiachraByrne, thank you for your question. Unfortunately, Cohen does not specify who he is referring to, and I hope it is not my job to ask him who he implies. You may try to find out this information in Cohen’s book: Cohen, Bruce (2003). Theory and practice of psychiatry. Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 0195149378. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I think it might be preferable to source this kind of statement from a text where one had a more complete view of what exactly the author is saying. Snippet view is like peeping through a keyhole at the book. There were plenty of critics of Kraepelin so it should be possible to find another more specific source for your edit. Would you object to that? FiachraByrne (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • FiachraByrne, if you think that it should be possible to find another more specific source for my edit, you may try to find more specific source for my edit but you may not delete my edit until you find more specific source for the edit. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I phrased it as question as a courtesy. I'm under no obligation to retain a badly-sourced edit because you tell me I may not change it.

Snippet view provides only two short extracts from that page, the one you have used is here and another snippet from that page is available here. The section that you have based your edits on (here and on the psychiatry article page) reads as follows:

...phrenia to be a biological illness in the absence of any detectable anatomic or histologic abnormalities. While the clinical course of schizophrenia suggested to Kraepelin that it was a neurodegenerative disorder like Huntingdon's disease and Alzheimer's disease, the most striking neu-

What you have written based on that extract is as follows:

However, Kraepelin was criticized for considering schizophrenia as a biological illness in the absence of any detectable histologic or anatomic abnormalities.

The source does not support your contention that Kraepelin was criticised for considering schizophrenia a biological illness as in this instance you cannot say that this author is either criticising Kraepelin himself or indicating that someone else is doing so. You could, I suppose, use this source as part of a statement on the aetiological basis of dementia praecox being unknown but certainly schizophrenia - a somewhat different disease concept in any case - was known as one of the functional pscyhoses where, by definition, biological causation was unknown (despite there being a lot of psychogenic and biological theories). OK - I suggest, therefore, that you source this edit propertly yourself in the next few days or I will remove it from both this article and the schizophrenia article. As I said, there are lots of sources critical of Kraepelin. Find a decent one or pick up a copy of this book. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)