Talk:Emil Kraepelin

message: 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)
replies: text: If anything Western culture is *overly* proud of the alleged scientific basis to psychiatry, and thus should elevate Kraepelin to the status of a secular saint. Having said that I think it has more to do with Kraepelin's writings not being as accessible and/or interesting to a non-professional reader (as the article states), although the fact that some of his views dovetail with those of National Socialism undoubtedly provide a further blow to anyone seeking to publicize his "contributions" (as has also been done, with much viciousness [and more unfairness IMO] to Jung [who has been accused in all kind of specious ways of collaborating with Hitler's government]).Historian932 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Political reasons

message: :...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: Okay, then just let it go and do something else with your time. 84.174.216.130 Ebbinghaus 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compulsive instructive disorder. --londheart 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See bottom of discussion page. 84.174.222.13 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emil Kraepelin was remembered in a Brazilian newspaper, in 2010

message: In broader terms, he has been described as a bourgeois or reactionary citizen.
I can't even characterize the unique political viewpoint that would produce the extraordinary phrase bourgeois or reactionary citizen. Citizen! Citizen? It's absolutely precious! Are we in a dystopian SF novel?
84.226.185.221 (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange phrasing 

message: The section is on Kraepelin's support for and contributions towards eugenics, so referring to the section with the current title seems obtuse particularly because the phrase doesn't even appear in the section. 
I welcome people editing the title for greater clarity and better wording to describe his work in relation to eugenics, I considered 'Support for Eugenics' and 'Contributions towards Eugenics' but i felt they were too much.
Frantrouge (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of section title from 'Degeneration of the race' to 'Eugenics related work'