Talk:Dementia praecox

untitled

Article is basically wikified. Will remove wikify tag KarenAnn 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I can see good effort for article improvement; in line Citation is very important for Verifiability. Can someone please edit using WP:CITET?--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrible article; needs rewrite

Great ... an article which begins with a totally misplaced, pedantic history of a psychiatric term people come to Wikipedia to understand. Wbroun (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

why is this an article

i'm having trouble seeing the point of this article ... DP is exactly an archaic term for schizophrenia. why isn't this just better covered in the historical section of schizophrenia or psychosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaxalotl (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not anything like an equivalent disease concept to schizophrenia. It's deeply anachronistic to think of it simply as archaic term for schizophrenia. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If we could persuade the author to add references, I'd nominate this for Featured article status. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked for sock puppetry. It would be good to get a German speaker to look at this. The English language sources are not as good. Having said that, while it might take a little while, it should be possible to find English language sources for most of what he's written. I have the Berrios article, which is pretty good, so I can add some citations from that when I have a chance. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be splendid. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, if I'm adding citations I'll have to rewrite a bit. I hope I don't destroy the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am the "original" author and check the entry every few months to see its development. I just happened to do it this morning, just after the recent (helpful) changes were made. I do not know how to add footnotes, etc., which is why they were not added in the first place. Until I figure out how to do that, I will add things to the body of the entry and rely on the kindness of strangers to give form to my mess. By the way, the Stone and Honig articles are full of errors and misconceptions. The Berrios et al. article is the best thus far. I have a book coming out in the fall which will clarify many of the points made in this entry. 64.121.62.80 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Congrats on the book. Hoenig hasn't done a lot of historical work - hence his contribution on the clinical section of that book. Berrios is a psychiatrist as well but he is very good on the intellectual history. As I'm sure you know, don't add research from your book until it is published. It would be a pointless doing all that work to publish your findings here first! I did the citations. Add them into the body in parenthesis and I'll format them when I get the chance. On the Dowbiggin reference to page 234 - the term Morel uses there is démence juvénile - although he does use the term démence précoce in two other instances in his Études. I've linked to those pages in note 9. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh - and I changed "stupidity" back to "stupor" - the latter term is used in the case books a lot but, to be honest, I didn't check for it in Morel's text. My do that now. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, stupeur does not appear in Morel's book and there's no description on those page cited by Dowbiggin (234) or the discussion of young people afflicted by dementia that, as far as my limited French can discern, would indicate a condition commensurate with stupor. If anyone is fluent in French I'd appreciate if they could reread pages 234-5 of Morel's text. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah - you're Richard Noll. And I was going to accuse you of plagiarism ... can one plagiarise oneself? I'm looking forward to reading your book. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahah. Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! thanks so much for checking and correcting the Morel references. Dowbiggin is an excellent scholar, and so much of scholarship is trusting one's sources, and I have relied on him. In matters of clinical concepts, the most reliable scholars are Berrios and Edward Shorter, but Berrios is often the final word. If you have a special interest in this topic -- as it seems you do -- I'd be happy to share some chapters from the manuscript. It is being copy-edited at this very moment. Harvard UP is a bit slow in getting the book on their website -- it won't appear until April. But it is indeed coming. I think that after reading this book no one will argue that DP and schizophrenia are/were the same thing. A differential diagnosis between the two could be made. Thanks for tending the DP garden! This entry will need to be changed in many ways after the book appears, I would think. 64.121.62.80 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my interest is not particularly the formation of clinical diagnostic concepts but more their application in clinical settings - where things are messier. I'm completing a PhD on the history of psychiatry/the mad based on case files. However, I'd be delighted to read a few chapters, of course. In terms of individual psychiatrists the two terms were often confused and seen as nearly equivalent, as you've indicated in the article. As formal disease concepts they were quite distinct. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent! A very interesting and worthwhile dissertation! 64.121.62.80 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Hopefully I'll finish the bloody thing soon! FiachraByrne (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, it might be good to have a private discussion about some of this stuff via email. if you want, you can reach me at my university email address: richard.noll@desales.edu Just let me know....147.106.5.106 (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just received your email and will respond later today. As for this DP article, i will dig up theexact references for the Kraepelin quotes in notes 21 and 22, rather than citing the Noll 2007 book (which now, after further research, also needs some serious updating).

Two very minor suggestions

• "This was also an etiological possibility intertwined by Eugen Bleuler..." Should that be "entertained"?
• "Kraepelin's idea that categories of mental disorder reflected discrete and specific disease entities..." Would you consider "Kraepelin's idea that categories of mental disorder should reflect discrete and specific disease entities..."

Thank you for the valuable work you're doing on this, Fiachra, and anyone else involved. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Both good suggestions and I'll make the changes now. Incidentally, most of the text that has not as of yet been rewritten NEEDS to be paraphrased. Much of the phrasing is very "close" to the text in Noll's "Encyclopaedia of Schizophrenia". If you have the time any changes you could make in this regard would be much appreciated.FiachraByrne (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked and Encyclopedia of Schizophrenia is apparently on the shelf at my local med library. I'll make a start tomorrow if you'll list the sections that need rewriting. I find it hard to read from the history what has and hasn't been done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent.

Personally, I don't think there's any need to go to the library. You can see the relevant sections of Noll's text here: [1]. Although, if there's a bibliography in that text it might be useful.

The short answer to your question is that anywhere in the text that lacks footnotes is likely to have been extensively borrowed.

On the specific sections.

1. Lead section: this is ok.
2. First Use of the Term: this has been mostly rewritten although the last paragraph needs sourcing; I'm not sure from where this is derived.
3. Time component: this is mostly about Karl Kahlbaum. I'm in the process of rewriting this and I have the sources so you could leave this part alone for the moment, if you like.
4. Quantitative component: See this. Needs a complete rewrite. I think that I just added some sources to this before.
5. Actually, without going into the rest, pretty much from there onwards needs a rewrite/rephrasing. I'd previously added some sources to these sections but I apparently hadn't rephrased them, presumably as I wasn't at the time aware from where they had derived. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. That's pretty much what I figured. I'll give it a shot tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote Dementia praecox#The_quantitative_component but have had very little online time since. I'll do some more when I can. Please rewrite anything you think can be improved. Richard's prose is so smooth and readable, I feel like I'm reworking a Mozart tune. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Final sentence in 2.4 - irked

Hi all,

The final sentence of 2.4, Kraepelin's influence in the next century: Use of the term spreads, is:

"Kraepelin thus finally conquered France via America."

This sentence would be fine in a non-fiction book, but to me at least reads as pointless/non-informative. It's not encyclopaedic and doesn't really mean anything. See wiki 5 pillars please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.215.146 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)