Talk:Dementia praecox

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible article; needs rewrite 

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

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

text: 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)

text: Thank you very much. Hopefully I'll finish the bloody thing soon! FiachraByrne (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is this an article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final sentence in 2.4 - irked