Talk:Major depressive disorder

FA review needed
These issues have not been addressed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Management
... section is getting stubby ... lots of short paragraphs and information that needs to be merged or possibly removed. I see student editing here. (Also found info chunked in to the lead that was nowhere in the body, so fixed that.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! This is next on the to-do list Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Elderly
This section looks also like it was chunked in as an afterthought. It duplicates some management information, which can be merged to Management or deleted, and the rest of it can go within the other sections as appropriate (prognosis or epidemiology?). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * this and the chldren section that had been tacked on at the end have been incorporated and vague or reduplicated bits removed (easier than I thought it would be actually) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Terminology
This section is not "terminology" and some of it looks undue; relevant content can be merged elsehwere. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stigma
Out of whack, and looks like people are just chunking in random factoids here, rather than following WP:WIAFA. "There has been a continuing discussion of whether neurological disorders and mood disorders may be linked to creativity," has WHAT to do with stigma? The section is not very well written. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh....I'll compare current with featured version in the first instance for structure etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That section dates right back to the FAC. I can see it there almost unchanged in December 2008. So I think I might be the guilty party on that one. :P - I do think we need to do something about the length of the article and updating etc. Am looking now.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are guilty, so am I;) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Resurrecting this from the archive, as this is now the longest standing medicine-related FA at Featured article review/notices given. Sandy and, how do you feel about the article's current state? If you're pleased with changes, I can remove it from the template. If not, I can try to whip up some volunteers to plug away at any deficiencies. All else fails, we can start the WP:FAR process. Thanks for all your work on this! -- and of course thanks to Casliber for doing the heavy lifting to bring this to FA condition almost 13 years ago. I hope you're both doing well. Ajpolino (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs some cleanup. I've mostly been looking at unclear/inelegant prose today, but I intend look into Sandy's content concerns soon. Haven't gotten through the whole article yet, but the "Pathophysiology" section, for one, seems overly detailed. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh...on the "to do" list - will have a look later. Daytime here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Take whatever time you need, of course. And let me know if there's anything I can do to be useful. Ajpolino (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'm doing is comparing the current version to this which was soon after it was promoted and near time it was mainpaged. Just to compare the prose and scope mainly. However, the data needs to be updated to latest studies. I've begun adjusting the prose a bit. Work in progress....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Basic Problems of this Article
Hi, I was studying this article that I realized there were many sentences that do not have a reference. Also, the references were not added to the article alike, some one are sfn and others are not. Many parts need to be updated and the article is not comprehensive. I do not know how this article was Featured but must not be Featured now. Pereoptic Talk✉️  09:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find a single unsourced paragraph in this entire article, are they any concrete instances you can point out where a source would be needed but is lacking? I ask the same for what you think needs updating and what information is missing.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise, where is the specific uncited text? Every sentence does not need to be cited; the reference may after a subsequent sentence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Megaman en m:For example, the first paragraph of the management section, the second paragraph of Antidepressants.
 * @SandyGeorgia: The main problems I mentioned in the article were not the only one. To the things I mentioned above, add the short introduction of the article and Having a reference in the introduction.
 * Issues not covered in the article:, In the pathophysiology section, it is also possible to discuss the relationship between major depression and chronic diseases
 * Updates:
 * Pereoptic Talk✉️  19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of management clearly references the NICE guidelines, which are cited at the end of that para (including the bullet points). The second paragraph of antidepressants is cited, so I'm unsure if I'm looking somewhere different than you are ?? The size of the lead is fine, and citations in the lead are neither required nor discouraged; I see no problem there.  Could you please provide a PMID or description of what you consider not covered, so others don't have to click on each little bracketed number to see the concern?  It would help, thanks.   I am wearying of being the only person maintaining this article.  Can we get it updated or else move to the next step?  I am swamped, and yet here I am, trying to click on little numbers to figure out what is wanted next. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh joy. Updating medical articles. Ok, will have a look soon. Just got some other chores to attend to (long time since I looked at this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Joyous it is not, and I'm really tired of it; we need committed FA-knowledgeable editors to keep this article updated. Are the 2004 NICE guidelines the latest? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The statistics presented in this reference to ==> Epidemiology (update)
 * Citation: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, but this may be overemphasizing one country (Wikipedia is global); I would not be surprised if someone deletes it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * «Structured psychotherapies» section in this reference to ==> Management (for reference update and article expansion)
 * is how you can easily reference a source on talk for others. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation format: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This reference to ==> Cause and Prognosis (for example generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and social anxiety disorder and poor treatment outcomes)
 * That is a news source, not a secondary review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this reference is considered a secondary review, because at the end of it, the bibliography section is placed. In addition, its source is the American Psychiatric Association. Pereoptic  Talk✉️  13:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not using a source like that in a Featured article; an alternate approach to adding whatever content you wish to include is to see if any of the sources listed at the end of that article are secondary reviews, and use them. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will mention the shortcomings of the article's introduction in the future. My written English grammar is a little weak, otherwise I would have added the required content to the article myself. Pereoptic  Talk✉️  09:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to help do the updates as I have time, but I can get to things faster if you provide MEDRS sources and if I don't have to do all the citation formatting (see above). Do you have the tool for citing PMIDs used in this article?  Or you can use the PMID template followed by a bracket and the number for easier reference. For today, I have to finish work on another Featured article, so perhaps someone else will get to them faster.   have you any interest in helping maintain this FA?  I don't have time to get to it today, and two updates needed are identified above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sandy, but this is pretty far out of my wheelhouse and I'm busy with other things at the moment. Spicy (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one source remained:
 * to ==> Cause Pereoptic  Talk✉️  13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very dated primary source; the information should have been mentioned in a WP:MEDDATE compliant WP:MEDRS. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia:It seems that I mention the wrong reference. Correct reference: PMID 34634250 Pereoptic  Talk✉️  16:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Better :) I can attempt to work on some of this over time, but for the next few days, I am up to my eyeballs at the Joan of Arc Featured article review, and must stay focused on getting that wrapped up.  I'm hoping someone else will jump in here to help ... what is listed so far does not look insurmountable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you will be successful in improving the above article. There is no rush, we will improve the article as time permits. I will also try to add things to the article over time, although it needs to be checked grammatically by an English speaker. Sincerely Pereoptic  Talk✉️  20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Urgent FAR needed
I am one person and cannot maintain this old FA alone, and will no longer endure the demoralization of trying to do so. This is one of the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, and my recommendation is that someone submit it urgently to WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation 283 is mis-linked
It should be linked to https://doi.org/10.1080/09638239917427 Fairthomas (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Dated text removed for improvement
There is not a single modern citation in this text, which should be updated to modern sources if re-incoporated. Most of this dated text is based on sources at least 20 years old; WP:MEDDATE. Debatesdebates? It's also unclear why it belongs in the Terminology section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"The diagnosis is less common in some countries, such as China. It has been argued that the Chinese traditionally deny or somatize emotional depression (although since the early 1980s, the Chinese denial of depression may have modified). Alternatively, it may be that Western cultures reframe and elevate some expressions of human distress to disorder status. Australian professor Gordon Parker and others have argued that the Western concept of depression medicalizes sadness or misery. Similarly, Hungarian-American psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and others argue that depression is a metaphorical illness that is inappropriately regarded as an actual disease. There has also been concern that the DSM, as well as the field of descriptive psychiatry that employs it, tends to reify abstract phenomena such as depression, which may in fact be social constructs. American archetypal psychologist James Hillman writes that depression can be healthy for the soul, insofar as 'it brings refuge, limitation, focus, gravity, weight, and humble powerlessness.' Hillman argues that therapeutic attempts to eliminate depression echo the Christian theme of resurrection, but have the unfortunate effect of demonizing a soulful state of being."

I originally placed it there as elaborates on idea of definition and meta-aspects. However looking at it now, and given the length of the article and the age of the quotes, I feel the article is better without it - much of these are more pertinent to more general discussion of mood disorders, the reification sentence possibly could stay if I can update it and find discussion making it notable but not fussed really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023
This article must be flagged as having a geopolitical bias. It needs to be globalized beyond the United States and other English speaking countries or Europe. BennuPedia (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing of Biomedical Content
You removed this: Research has found that unhappily married couples are at 3–25 times the risk of developing clinical depression.

in favor of this: Couples that are unhappily married have up to 25 times the risk of developing clinical depression.

That doesn't make sense.

You also removed: Should you have experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences, you're 3.2 to 4.0 times more likely to suffer from depression.

claiming it was referenced elsewhere, and more recently. The description of ACEs in the article does not say 3.2 to 4. And I find your issue about the publication date very vague. Lau737 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We discussed these at length on your talk page; once you've processed everything there, we can continue (I'll be away from computer for several hours). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We assuredly did not bring up ACEs even once. And why you would bring back the "bad" statement after that lengthy discussion about how everything had to be secondary source, with review articles is beyond me. Lau737 (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What we've talked about at your user talk is information included in these links:
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Major depressive disorder
 * WP:MEDRS
 * WP:MEDORDER
 * WP:MEDDATE
 * Information about adverse childhood experiences is already in the article, cited to a newer and higher quality source. The information about unhappy marriages, as we discussed, needs secondary sourcing (it now has that, and is in the article using the citation style of this article).  I don't know what the "bad" statement is.  Perhaps WP:ONUS and WP:SS will help; this is a broad overview article that has been community vetted, and we don't need to provide excess detail on well-established items like childhood adversity; such detail can probably find a home in a different article.  We don't have to necessarily repeat information across multiple articles, and we don't have to repeat detail in a higher level article that may be covered in a sub-article.  In terms of how much detail to include, we are governed by due weight (in this case, of the highest quality recent secondary sources). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A statement like "four ACEs" increase the risk of depression 3.2 to 4.0 times is relevant to many pages like Major depressive disorder, Family disruption, or Happiness. It's not undue weight. Personally, I find the severity of the increase difficult to spot, even on the Adverse childhood experiences page.
 * I do not agree with rephrasing all those findings into "an unhappy marriage increases the risk of depression." That's just common sense. People are going to fill in the blank thinking it's +5%, or something, not +200% or +2400% times. It's just a bad way of conveying information
 * I referred to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_depressive_disorder&diff=1186959470&oldid=1186959348 in which you changed 3-25 to "up to 25" and pointed the references to Weissman (1987) via Goldfarb after you told me that you thought that the 25 times study was old.
 * You then proceeded to remove "25 times in its entirety," in an a subsequent edit described as " →‎Environmental: general"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_depressive_disorder&diff=1186984595&oldid=1186959470 Lau737 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * could you please read WP:TALK and WP:THREAD? Following talk page guidelines will make your posts easier for others to work through.  As per our discussion on your talk, I'm still waiting for a secondary source on the 3 to 25 (we have the 25 at Goldfarb), so I generalized the whole thing pending that. If you can provide a secondary source, I agree that expressing a range up to 25 is more useful.  Similar on the childhood adverse events: if you have more than a 15-year-old primary study for the content, "Should you have experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences, you're 3.2 to 4.0 times more likely to suffer from depression", more detail can be added, but depending on due weight in broad overviews of major depression, that content might find a better home at Epigenetics of depression.  This is a broad summary article; see WP:ONUS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The additional sources were already secondary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_depressive_disorder&diff=1186959348&oldid=1186957111
 * They were presented on my talk page before inclusion. One is from the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, so peer-reviewed, the other is from Couple and Family Psychology, so peer reviewed.
 * https://arammu.com/assets/research/MC%20Depression%20Outcomes.pdf
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096140/
 * I think restricting the information to Epigenetics of depression ignores the psychological importance of adverse childhood experiences.
 * Lau737 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please see WP:THREAD (I have again threaded for you).  Both of those papers are primary studies. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are assuredly not. One is Fink et al. (2013) pointing to O-Leary et al. (1994), the other is Gray et al. (2019) which points to Whisman (1999). Lau737 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Gray) is a randomized controlled trial.
 * (Fink) is a primary study, but the preamble does cite 10 to 25 to O'Leary.
 * So I wouldn't be averse to using the 10 to 25 times, but I still don't know where we're getting the three. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they are primary studies in regard to their own conclusions, but they are secondary sources in regard to the conclusions of O'Leary and Whisman. Whisman concluded three times. Lau737 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)