Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing/Archive 1

Location of Prague

see User talk:Qertis#Country Name

oppose

Query

“After Krafft-Ebing graduated in medicine and finished his specialisation in psychiatry, he worked in several asylums, but he soon felt that the way those institutions worked deceived him and decided to become an educator.”

I don’t understand this: “…the way those institutions worked deceived him.” Presumably he disapproved of the way the asylums operated, but surely he was not “deceived” by their methods. Is this a case of bad translation? Bog 13:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i am very confused by some of the information in this article - it says "Krafft-Ebing reached the conclusion that both male and female homosexuals did not suffer from mental illness or perversion ...".

I have read many other sources and they all contradict this. For example on gayhistory.com it says that "Krafft-Ebing concluded that most homosexuals have a mental illness caused by degenerate heredity. While Krafft-Ebing pitied these unfortunate congenital effeminates, he sputtered with moral revulsion when he described "cultivated pederasts," men who he believed were born "normal" but turned to homosexual liasons for "perverted" sexual thrills." I think there has been some confusion in the wikipedia article - this should be fixed. ∼∼∼∼

Film

Adding a link to the site for a film based on a book is not advertising. It's a relevant item of information. --Mightyfastpig 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

typo? [sic]?

A quote from Krafft-Ebing describes the genitals of a transman he examined: "labia majora having a cock's-comb like form and projecting under the labia majora"

Should this be "labia minora having a cock's-comb like form and projecting under the labia majora" or should we place "labia majora [sic] having a cock's-comb like form and projecting under the labia majora"?

Psychopathia Sexualis

May I know why my edition has been reverted? The correct name of Krafft-Ebing's book is Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia Sexualis (New Research in the field of Psychopathies of Sexuality), distinct from the previous Heinrich Kaan's book Psychopathia Sexualis. If not provided with a proper rationale, I will restore my historically and scientifically accurate edition. --MaeseLeon (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there are many, many editions of the book, and Psychopathis Sexualis was the only part of the title that remained constant, the rest was essentially a subtitle that changed and was sometimes ommited entirely. IT is far and away known by that title, and insisting that it be referred to the long version of a single edition is pedantry of the wrost sort, because it presupposes that such trivia is both correct and of overwhelming importance. You also tried to claim that this book was based uipon the earlier book, which is original research unsupported by the source you linked to, which merely trivially mentioned that that book ha existed and NOT that this one was based upon it. Furthermore your attempt to give the Psychopathia Sexualis article space to an unknown book violates Wikipedia naming conventions for articles, which always go to the most famous thing known by that title, which is clearly Krafft-Ebing's book.

Franikly, your idea of "historically and scientifically accurate" is way off base. Before editing the article you should acquaint yourself on the policies of WP:OR and WP:POINT. On top of that, your version was littered with spelling errors, so besides needing to learn how things work here you should take more care in basic editing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand your abusive answers (see: WP:CIVIL) and your attempts to erase references to this previous book. I notify you that I have asked for mediation in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. --MaeseLeon (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm happy to try to informally mediate a compromise if both of you are willing to engage politely and with an assumption of good faith on the part of the other. If you're interested, please reply below. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interesting in compromising for the sake of compromising. Any changes have to be for encyclopedic purposes. I explained above why his/her edits were inappropriate. If he/she has no response to that then there's no reason to deabte it and the article can stay as it was before he got here. I also do not as a general rule like mediation, formal or otherwise, as it essentially hands WP:OWNership over to a single editor. I am more a fan of WP:3O as everyone is on equal footing and their is no expectation that the additional opinion is binding in any way, so if you'd like to serve in that capacity, great. You said on another page you had a suggestion, so feel free to post it here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking ownership of this article, or even a small portion of it. I am just trying to provide a way reaching consensus, by which I mean a form of words that everyone will consent to. I'm not asking for a binding commitment to accept my judgment; I'm asking if you're both interested in help. If not, no problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't currently look like there's anything to mediate/provide a third opinion on. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so - for now, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

link missing?

I can't understand why there is no English version of this page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathia_Sexualis did I miss something? Oriettaxx (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Styling of his name and title

IP editor 89.100.150.198 objects to the insertion of a translation of a foreign title of nobility in the first sentence of the article. He says it is a violation of the MOS, or as he likes to call it, "Wikipedia's usual style."

He has most recently foisted upon the unsuspecting reader K-E's entire natal name, his lineage, and the location of the old folks' castle. (He found this in an early 20th-century German-language necrology).

I submit that the insertion of a translation of the foreign title is a service to the reader, and that supplying his full genealogical name is a distraction and a disservice to the reader. Note that K-E never used this lengthy name on the title page of any of his books and, in fact, never even included his title, Freiherr (Baron).

For background, see the history of the article and the history of 89.100.150.198. Wahrmund (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about the addition of the full name, that sort of completeness is generally a good thing, but explaining "Freiherr" as it is an infix title seems a good idea too. More important perhaps is the way the structure of the last paragraph of "Principle work" seems fractured before the last sentence. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC).
  

" IP editor 89.100.150.198 objects to the insertion of a translation of a foreign title of nobility in the first sentence of the article. He says it is a violation of the MOS, or as he likes to call it, "Wikipedia's usual style." "

I never, ever said that the insertion of a translation was a violation of the MOS. I made it abundantly clear that I was basing my argument upon the usual style -i.e., the style usually used, arrived at by consensus, in the lede of other persons bearing the title "freiherr". I suggest that you take a look at the articles of other freiherren. Do not misrepresent my position again. I did not "foist" anything upon anyone. I added relevant, factual information to the article. Supplying relevant, factual information is the purpose of an encyclopaedia. I did not insert his "lineage" or the "location of the old folks' castle". I inserted his full name. No more and no less. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Usual style" counts for nothing. Apparently you think it means whatever you want it to mean. Wikipedia functions on the basis of WP:MOS, not your personal ideas of usual style. As for the lineage and location of the castle, they are indeed there (learn a little German!) -- it's just a useless distraction for the reader. You only confuse and annoy the reader by inserting the full technical artistocratic styling of the name, which is of interest only to people interested in the history of the German aristocracy. Such a styling has never been associated with Krafft-Ebing or his work (see the title page of his book, shown in one of the article's photographs). The correct and officially accepted styling for English-speakers will be found here:
  • Library of Congress Authorities.

Wahrmund (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia functions on the basis of WP:CON. " "Usual style" counts for nothing. ". The usual style was arrived at by consensus. Are you saying that consensus counts for nothing?

Again, I did not insert his "lineage" or the "location of the old folks' castle". I inserted his full name. Which, when transliterated, can be used to arrive at his family's geographic origin. I am fluent in German.

I only confuse and annoy the reader by inserting the subject's full name? Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Well, now you're confusing me.

If such a styling (sic) has never been associated with him, would you care to explain how it could be that it was used in the obituary that I referenced?

Would you mind redoing your link? It contains no information of the subject, much less any information on how your version of his name is "officially accepted". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The Library of Congress is as official as it gets for American English. Go to the site; select "Name Authority Heading" in the drop-down box; enter Krafft-Ebing in the "Search Text" box; click "Begin Search." Then on the left margin four lines down you will see a red button marked "Authorized Heading." Also listed are two variants. However, I suggest we use German styling since I have found a definitive reference for it and since you seem to prefer the German style, based on the fact that you used a German source for his full name. I will re-edit the article later but don't have time to do it now. Wahrmund (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because the American government does something one way does not make that way "official" nor does it mean that we have to do things that way. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Contested claim about origin of terms

An IP has removed several long-standing claims about the origins of terms (masochism, sadism, and anilingus) that were supposedly coined or popularized by the book Psychopathia Sexualis the subject wrote [1]. I'm restoring the long-standing version pending conclusion of this discussion.

The IP has also removed just one of those claims twice more [2], [3] from this article and once from Anilingus [4], where it was restored by User:Flyer22 Reborn. The common element from all the blankings was the claim that "anilingus" was coined by von Krafft-Ebing.

The IP has claimed in edit summaries that the term does not appear in the online version of the book, but does not specify which version of the book he or she has examined. According to this article the book went through 12 editions by the author so it is entirely possible the term does not appear in the edition the IP looked at but does appear in a later edition by the author. Can anyone confirm that the term exists in the book, or the claim in the cited source ( Mark Forsyth. The etymologicon // Icon Books Ltd 2011, page 49). The source is definitely real and appears to be a reliable source. See The Etymologicon.

The IP also claimed that "The only reference to *lingus is cunnilingus, wherein, there is discussed instances of sexual pleasure regarding [eating of] faecus." I don't know what version the IP was looking at, but certainly the French translation of the 8th German edition http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24766/24766-h/24766-h.htm does not equate cunnilingus with eating faeces. Meters (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've found a snippet view of of a version of "The Etymologicon" It says "So it was in the translation of Psycopathia Sexualis that English first got the words homosexual, necrophilia, frotteur, anilingus, exhibitionism, sadism and masochism. Sadism had in fact been around for a while in French." It appears that the claim is largely correct, but should be rewritten slightly to clarify that the words were introduced to English from the English translation of the book. Meters (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Meters. If Legitimus is willing to weigh in, I think he has access to one or more texts and can clarify things on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I will see what I can find out, but it would help if the location within the text could be narrowed down. I am able to access original paper copies of many editions, including the original in German but it requires some work to get to them and I likely won't have time to read it cover to cover considering I don't speak the language.Legitimus (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, so far I've looked at the Chaddock translation from 1893 (a translation of the 7th German edition) and a 1939 translation from the 12th edition by William Heinemann. I have not found anilingus mentioned. I found "cunnilingus" but interestingly the English language text do not actually define it anywhere, though the meaning is heavily implied to be the modern definition.Legitimus (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2018‎ (UTC)

Thanks, Legitimus. I read some of the book and I knew that some terms were either coined or popularized via the book. I was going to look into the anilingus matter myself. I reverted the IP because the IP's rationale of going by WP:Primary sources instead of WP:Secondary sources doesn't align with what Wikipedia states. But it seems I should revert myself on this, after all? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Meters does point to the The Etymologicon mentioning it, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking in the Oxford English Dictionary Third edition (the online one) the first quotes given for the various English terms listed in The Etymologicon largely validate the claims in The Etymologicon that the words come from translations of Psychopathia Sexualis. I also checked a few related words:

• homosexuality: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis iii 185 Note that while "homosexual" is quoted from the same translation (iii 255) there is also a slightly earlier quote (1891 J. A. Symonds Probl. in Mod. Ethics viii. 60)
• necrophilia: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis iii 368
• frotteur: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis v 496
• exhibitionist: C.G. Chaddock 1893 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis v 383
• exhibitionism: C.G. Chaddock 1893 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis v 394
• sadist: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis 73. Note that while "sadism" is quoted from the same translation (iii 87) it appeared in English as early as 1818, so The Etymologicon seems to have used "sadism" when it should have used "sadist".
• masochism: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis iii 89
• masochist: C.G. Chaddock 1892 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis iii 99
• anilingus: F. J. Rebman 1899 translation of Psychopathia Sexualis edition 10 ii 185

So, it appears that "anilingus" did indeed enter English from a translation of Psychopathia Sexualis. We can't tell from this whether von Krafft-Ebing coined the German equivalent, but we can say something like "The term anilingus entered English through an English translation of sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing's book Psychopathia sexualis (1886)."

The claim in this article that "sadism" and "masochism" were popularized by his book may well be correct, but should be rewritten to use "sadist" rather than "sadism", and, as above, to clarify that these terms entered English from a translation of the book.

There are no claims that "cunnilingus" comes from Psychopathia Sexualis. I simply mentioned it because of the bizarre edit summary the IP left falsely claiming that the book equated it with eating faeces [5].  Meters (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur. While these are secondary sources, they are strong ones and seem consistent. I did not mean in my prior comment to imply I agreed with the IP user (clearly much of his or her reverts do not add up), just that some terms appear to have been dropped in later editions (not sure why though). It's also possible versions that were scanned onto the web are incomplete or that the character recognition is poor, leading to words being missed by searches.Legitimus (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was able to get a copy of the 1899 Rebman translation, and on page 185 there is the following paragraph:

"In the "Centralblatt fur die Krankheiten der Ham- and Sexualorgane," vi., 7, p. 355, I have given such a case of masochism combined with. shoe- and foot-fetichism and koprolagnia (desire for sudorem pedem and axillarum fembna for the foetor cunni et ani, going as far even as to cunnilingus et anilingus!) caused by indifference to coitus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 12:10, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's the line the OED Third quotes as their earliest occurrence. Thank you checking. I'll take a crack at rewriting the passages in both articles. Tweak as desired. Meters (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Meters (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References