Talk:Major depressive disorder

References problem

Hello, in the latest revision (as of this one), there is a problem with the references that I can't figure out. Try looking at "References", #28, and there is a table of contents and numerous lines that look like source citations. I can't find where the source of this problem is. Could someone who is better versed at ref tags please fix this? Thank you. --Kyoko 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. There was an open ref tag at the end of the sentence with no content and no closing ref, so it was basically attempting to throw the whole rest of the article into a footnote :P Collectonian (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do we put Styron, Solomon

I believe we should highlight two works:

Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness, William Styron, a classic and extraodinary book, by someone who is a master of words, about the descent into the hell of depression.

The Noonday Demon, Andrew Solomon, National Book Award, 2001, Finalist Pulitzer, extraordinary self-account, history, social analysis, etc. http://www.noondaydemon.com/

Neither of these books are by "psychiatrists or psychologists," but deserve (as do others I presume, but none as important as these, in particular Styron) a citation not buried in "references."

Best, Shlishke (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Depression and natural therapies

Depression and natural therapies is a povfork, and contains little if anything not already in this article (other than unsourced and poorly sourced information with NPOV problems). It should be merged into this article. --Ronz 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No reason to have that seperate at all. Collectonian 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep these articles separate but have them interlink better. Currently, Clinical depression doesn't link to this article, for instance. There seems to be enough info here to justify having a separate article. That being said, Depression and natural therapies should be expanded perhaps to discuss in greater detail the history behind using natural therapies to treat depression. I think that would certainly make the article even more encyclopedic. (Based on the thread just above, this article already seems to be pushing the file size threshhold. Merging would certainly cause a size issue.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If going with separate articles, then wouldn't it better to have the entire treatment section as a separate interlined article rather than just the natural therapies aspect? Collectonian 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Then we don't have the povfork issues. --Ronz 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a povfork issue in the first place. The article wasn't created as a fork for pushing a point of view, at the risk of repeating myself. It was created to cover ground that wasn't covered in the first article.

Sardaka 10:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a POV fork, whether that was the actual intention or not. For whatever reason, you did not add it to the main article, but instead created a new article that that only discusses "natural" therapies with no clear definition of what "natural" is except that it isn't anti-depressants. The list could quite easily and snuggly fit into the main from the get go, which would have served to improve the original. If you felt the article was already too large (though other articles about medical issues are just as long if not longer), then the better option would be a separate treatment page all together. Instead, you made no attempt to contribute to this article, but created a page that focuses only on the treatments of interest to you. To me, that is very much a POV fork. Collectonian 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The existence of an article on depression doesn't mean that there couldn't be other articles about depression. For example, if you look up Sydney, you will find many articles about it, on different aspects: general, history, architecture etc. This is a legit way of covering the subject. With depression, there can be more than one article to cover different aspects of the issue. the existence of the first article doesn't preclude others.

Sardaka 09:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sydney is a country, not a medical condition and those are not POV forks. The natural therapies article is not a seperate aspect moved, it is a POV fork and will be merged. After the merge, and the during the clean up discussed below, if appropriate, neutral sections will be broken out covering ALL treatment options, not just your fork. Collectonian 13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored this conversation from the archive to allow more discussion since the merge hasn't happened or been conclusively rejected yet. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no need for merge as page is already 63k long! We should be looking to split articles off this one not merging it... Johnfos (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Three months have passed and there is no consensus to merge, so I'm removing the tag... Johnfos (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What should be done

Depression and natural therapies is, as others have said, a POV joke. That's not to say we can't mention therapies that aren't scientifically proven--on the contrary, we should document ANY therapy that has been used on a significant scale or somehow achieved prominence or approval somewhere in the world--but it's a joke to separate out the "natural" options. "Natural" medicine is just medicine, like "natural" food is just food. The word is simply meaningless. A molecule from a plant isn't any different than one from a lab.

What we need is a Treatment of Depression article. Yes, I do believe a separate article is needed, because some contentious therapies (such as CES) inevitably turn into a massively detailed (sourced) analysis. I don't think such analyses are a bad thing, but if they all turn out to be like CES, they would clearly render this article unmanageable. Even if you were to restrict yourself to accepted, mainstream, FDA-approved (or pending-approval) methods,there is still a LOT of ground to cover: SSRIs, SNRIs, dopamine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic, MAOI, electroshock therapy and each of the other electric therapies approved or pending approval, light therapy, psychotherapy...

I would do this myself, except I don't think I can deal with another Paul Gene-type sabotage effort again. (He believes that all negative studies about CES--all 1 or 2 of them--should be explained in detail, yet doesn't allow anyone to mention the positive studies without a mile of disclaimers and forty paragraphs of debate on the talk page. I'm all for plenty of skepticism when it comes to "alternative" medicine, but damn...) I could just do a cut/paste job and walk away, but I wouldn't feel quite right about that. Perhaps someone with a little more stamina than myself is up for it.--Lode Runner (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, in theory, that the Treatment section could likely support being a sub-article, I think this article as a whole should be fixed first. Some fixes were done to the first bit, but the majority of it has problems with sourcing, neutrality, etc. With the article as a whole in better shape, then we can better evaluate if one (or even two) sub-articles might be needed. Otherwise, we'll just have the same problems in two places instead of one. As for the potential of massive detailed analysis on some stuff, if there is enough information to support that kind of thing (like CES), then it should be in its own article with the depression article briefly mentioning its releveance specifically here with a main link at the top of that section. I disagree with your categorizing Paul's work as sabotage efforts. As this article deals with a medical topic, it is vital that we are especially vigilant about the sources being used so as not to present misinformation. While Wikipedia is, of course, not a medical text, people will look here and read what's in the article and may very well act on it. So that what is here is verifiable and well sourced are of extra importance. Collectonian (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, do me a favor: Stop lecturing me on the rules of Wikipedia. I am not violating them. I am not suggesting we violate them. Paul, in fact, is the only one who has violated them--he has repeatedly misrepresented sources (WP:V), removed sourced material (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE), and used untruthful phrases (WP:VAN).

If I seem a little sensative about this, it's because the tactic is getting old. On this page alone I've been subjected to it like a half dozen times already. Don't like what someone is saying? Just link to the WPs, repeatedly, at every opportunity, even if they don't apply to the current situation, and just hope you wear them down.

I have never argued for anything other than good verifiability. On the other hand, Paul has repeatedly removed my SOURCED material and inserted his own erroneous interpretation of a source that he didn't even believe was authoritative to begin with (he argued it shouldn't be used at all), but now claims it's a comprehensive overview of every CES study done prior to 2003, and thus can be used as a proof-by-omission. He's also repeatedly edited the section to claim that there is only "inconclusive and negative" studies, when in fact most studies in the sources show at least a small positive outcome, with several showing major positive effects. There's an entire paragraph devoted to negative-outcome studies right now, even though the sources I've given clearly show that they are the minority.

The statements in the article should represent reality, period. To this end, I have written and supported the inclusion of anti-CES material (e.g. "to date there exists no consensus or even prospective clinical trials to support its use") as well as pro-CES material. Paul has never once written or supported anything remotely pro-CES, and I believe every pro-CES line currently in the article has been COMPLETELY REMOVED by Paul at least once. Even in their CURRENT form, he's loaded them full of inane disclaimers such as "according to the authors"... what the hell? OF COURSE it's "according to the authors". You could put that disclaimer after every single source in Wikipedia.

This is turning into a rant, sorry, but it's imperative that people understand how insidiously and relentlessly POV his edits have been, and how cynical and hypocritical his rationalizing has been. You weren't exactly openminded yourself, but I suppose this can be for the benefit of others. This is what Paul said about the first source I found:

The current supporting source for this chapter is a promotional material and is not acceptable.

(I don't think he is referring to *precisely* the same paper, but he makes the connection between them himself a little later on. Says they're basically the same, and the criticism applies to both.)

He also said:

...is a link to a promotional brochure, and not a peer reviewed publication so it is not very reliable.

He never once wavered--he REPEATEDLY said that this source was untrustworthy. Then, a little later, he apparently decided (without explanation) that it was a 100% comprehensive paper, and used it as proof-by-omission that no other studies have been conducted: According to a 2002 review, there have been no controlled trials of SES for clinical depression as a primary diagnosis. This is a lie. The paper makes no such claim. I called him on it, removed the passage, explained that proof-by-omission isn't strong enough to make such a boldfaced claim (at best, it's WP:SYN--which is forbidden), and he reverted my edits anyway. I believe there was another edit-revert exchange before I gave up. I just now removed the passage once again--let's see if Paul re-inserts his old lie yet again. --Lode Runner (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check your temper and reread what I wrote (and if you are noticing that you are ranting while posting, why not just step away from the keyboard and calm down first). Ranting doesn't help and I wasn't lecturing you. I was primarily offering my view on the discussion you started, including my view that before we look at splitting, we clean the article as a whole and pointing out the issues with the article that I see. I wikified stuff because other people will read this discussion and some of those folks may not know much about that, and personally I like quick links whenever anyone refers to a policy or guideline in case I want to check it in light of the discussion. I also gave a one sentence (apparently ill placed since you focused almost entirely on that) saying that I disagreed with your assessment of Paul's actions. I get you vehemently disagree with Paul's actions, but I'd rather this discussion actually stay focused and not get into yet another argument with no resolution. This is an extremely important article and it needs attention, not editors bickering. Collectonian (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of clarifying my annoyed tone when you replied. I do not need you to tell me to calm down, nor spam me with WP links. Suffice it to say, I'M AWARE OF THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. I've already been reminded of them in a very long-winded fashion on this very page. I find it *at best* extremely condescending to link to the WPs at every opportunity, even (or especially) when they don't apply. It's a non-sequitur. It basically allows people to sidestep the issue and blow off everything you say.

If you meant it sincerely then I apologize for my tone, but I strongly urge you to ditch the habit. I am innately distrustful of anyone who needlessly spams WPs. And, if you'll care to note, I didn't "focus almost entirely on" that one sentence. In fact, before I added the clarification, it only had one very short (3 sentence) paragraph. --Lode Runner (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you take this side discussion somewhere else please? I'll happily participate. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal for Treatment of Depression. It will remove the problems with the pov fork, and greatly reduce the size of this article. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, a Treatment of Depression article is needed. I am going to make a link on the Depression page to the Treatment of Depression article. --Luke (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with separating the treatment of depression into a separate article is that the treatment parts in the main Depression and Treatment of depression articles will soon get out of sync. This will require constant updating and watching. Then there will be challenges to the treatment parts of the Depression article from the people who did not read the specific Treatment of depression. The literature references will then have to be duplicated, etc. I do not really see the necessity of getting into this unholy mess. The Depression article (64 kB) is not so big and is not pushing any limits. For comparison, the length of the following medicine-related featured articles is: Aids – 115 kB; DNA -86 kB, Schizophrenia-96 kB; Autism – 85 kB; Influenza – 84 kB. For the reader it is also convenient to have the disorder and the treatment in one place. Paul gene (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You said it better than I could figure out how to say. :) Thanks for the examples. Medical and health related articles, I think, are going to lend themselves to being fairly lengthy because we want to give the topics thorough coverage (and they also tend to have some of the the hugest amount of resources). I'd much rather see us focusing on cleaning up this article than having to deal with the issues of maintaining two articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Causes

I propose that we add the following passage written by me:

One etiological theory of depression is the Aaron Beck cognitive theory of depression. His theory is regarded as the most verified psychological theory of depression. Basically, he says that depressed people think the way they do because their thinking is biased towards negative interpretations. According to Beck’s theory of the etiology of depression, depressed people acquire a negative schema of the world in childhood and adolescence. (Children and adolescents who suffer from depression acquire this negative schema earlier, I suppose.) Depressed people acquire such schemas through a loss of a parent, rejection of peers, criticism from teachers or parents, the depressive attitude of a parent and other negative events. When the person with such schemas encounter a situation that resembles in some way, even remotely, the conditions in which the original schema was learnt learned, the negative schemas of the person are activated.

Beck also included a negative triad in his theory. A negative triad is made up of the negative schemas and cognitive biases of the person. A cognitive bias is a view of the world. Depressed people, according to this theory, have views such as “I never do a good job.” A negative schema helps give rise to the cognitive bias, and the cognitive bias helps fuel the negative schema. This in the negative triad. Also, Beck proposed that depressed people often have the following cognitive biases: arbitrary inference, selective abstraction, overgeneralization, magnification and minimization. These cognitive biases are quick to make negative, generalized, and personal inferences of the self, thus fueling the negative schema.

Another theory of depression is the hopelessness theory of depression. This is the latest theory of the helpless/hopeless theories of depression. According to this theory, hopelessness depression is caused by a state of hopelessness. A state of hopelessness is when the person believes that no good outcomes will happen and that bad ones will happen instead. Also, the person feels that he or she has no ability to change the situation so that good things will happen. Stressors (negative life events) are thought to interact with a diathesis (in this case, a predisposing factor to depression) to create a sense of hopelessness.

Some proposed diathesis’s are attributing negative events to stable and global factors, low self-esteem, and a tendency to believe that negative life events will have severe negative consequences. Theses diathesis increase the chance that a person will have hopelessness depression.

If it's ok with you all, I will add the passage in a few weeks, with complete references. Thanks. --Luke (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an appropriate addition. It reads very much like a term paper, and seems to be based primarily around a single person's research. Are the references you mentioned all from his own work or do others in the medical community back up his theories? Also can you post the references here as well so it can be properly evaluated? Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are the references? --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference: Gerald C. Davison, John M. Neale, Abnormal Psychology, 8th edition, pages 247-250. 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.--Luke (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it will be a good addition, because it tells some more about the causes. --Luke (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Research Study

I'm a research assistant for a study that is working to determine the causes of depression by looking for genes that contribute. Is it appropriate to link to our study on this page, either in the links at the bottom or in the "Genetic predisposition" section? The link in question would be to: http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/

Thanks in advance for any input. 171.65.2.53 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No it would not be appropriate. We do not link current or on-going medical studies. Collectonian (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I ask why not? 171.65.2.53 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)