Talk:Third ventricle hypothesis of depression

Merge proposal
Because this page deals with preliminary studies, and because WP:MEDMOS limits what Wikipedia should report about health-related information, I propose that this page be merged into Biology of depression, as a short section of that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully second what Tryptofish said and in addition recommend that you read WP:COI. And personally I would appreciate if you could read up on the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. As for your arguments about WP being open for "new" stuff: yes and no. WP is not intended to introduce new stuff. But once new things get notable (in the sense of being "noticed"), then it can be included here. The handful of citations that this hypothesis has garnered up till now (even including a few book chapters), absolutely does not justify an independent WP article at this point. As for the funding, I sympathize, too, I know all about it... --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This page outlines the results of an ethological analysis of the behavioural cluster associated with depression and relates this to brain structures that mediate this. The article provides a comprehensive reference list and this can be added to if required. There is also a page relating to the Rank Theory of depression and also a page entitled 'Chemical imbalance' which outlines the monoamine hypothesis of depression - which is now known to be actually wrong. It is inconsistent to merge this page but not these others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support See the discussion on my talk page: absolutely insufficient sources, WP:SYNTH problems. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I read that discussion, and what comes to my mind is the requirement at WP:GNG for sourcing that is "independent of the subject" (the fourth bullet point). Here, it seems to me that the sourcing pretty much comes from a single research group, and the hypothesis has not yet been widely commented upon as noteworthy by other researchers. Consequently, I suspect that if this page were, instead, brought to WP:AFD, the decision would likely be merge or delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to the point that the hypothesis has not been widely commented upon, papers outlining the third ventricle hypothesis have been cited many times (e.g. Schindler et al(2012), Blanchard et al (2013), O’Leary & Cryan(2013) etc etc). The field of depression research is currently undergoing a seismic change, where the once widely accepted theories (e.g. the monoamine [a.k.a. chemical imbalance ] hypothesis) are no longer viewed as being fit for purpose. It is therefore important that Wikipedia has content that reflects this paradigm shift by allowing space for testable theories to be described in detail.RiverMonkey (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps AFD would indeed be the way to go. I have not time right now to check the citations that RiverMonkey gives above, but a handful of cites does not make a hypothesis notable (not "theory", please, there's a difference). The Web of Science lists 11 articles by Hendrie and Pickles that have been cited a total of 22 times (including 5 self-citation). The most-cited article (2003, 9 citations) is not even about this hypothesis. As flr the researchers themselves, Hendrie does not seem to pass WP:PROF (59 articles, 825 citations, highest count 96, h-index of 18), nor does Pickles (54, 561, 86, 14, respectively). For a very high-citation density field like neuroscience (and especially depression research), this is decidedly below the mean. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked more broadly at the source material, and here is what I find. There's a lot more literature for ventricular enlargement (not necessarily the third ventricle) in schizophrenia than in depression. Within the depression field, there are studies finding no effects on the third ventricle:, finding effects elsewhere than in the third ventricle: , or finding third ventricle effects in bipolar disorder and not in depression: . This is a good illustration of why WP:MEDMOS cautions against over-reliance on primary sources. I think the literature consensus may actually be in terms of hypotheses about losses of brain volume over a variety of anatomical areas, and not restricted to the vicinity of the third ventricle: , . Consequently, the issue here may not be one of brain tissue effects associated with cytokines, but one of unduly focusing specifically on the third ventricle and the brain regions adjacent to it, as opposed to various other anatomical regions of the brain. Thus, the "third ventricle hypothesis" is probably just a small part of a larger, and, for Wikipedia's purposes, more notable, hypothesis about ventricles collectively as representing possible changes in many places throughout the brain. And that leads me to conclude that the subject of this page is really just a subsection of Biology of depression. We could go to AfD, but I think a merge would save everyone a lot of time and drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could certainly live with such a merge. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Randykitty You clearly have personal issues with this - please refrain from using ad hominem arguments, that is not a dignified way to conduct any debate. Also please refrain from making up US-centric publication norms and applying them to people that are based elsewhere. Dr Hendrie is a former Council member of the British Association for Psychopharmacology and an Associate Professor in one the UK's elite Russell group of universities. His academic standing is not in question.
 * I'm sorry, but the kind of arguments I gave above are not intended to be ad hominem and are quite common during AFD debates. Whether the persons that formulated the hypothesis are notable (in the WP sense, see ||WP:N]], this has nothing to do with "meritorious" or something like that and does not imply anything about his qualities as a researcher) would be an important point in any debate on the notability of this hypothesis. And if you think that citation analysis is "US centric", then you're apparently not living in the same world as I do. Science, especially neuroscience, doesn't know any boundaries and as far as I know, there is no citation advantage of being based in the US. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TryptofishThe theory is based on the behavioural cluster associated with depression - it turns out that this cluster can be produced by an 'explosive' event (cyctokine release) into the third ventricle since all the structures are focused around that - but this isn't the same as ventricular enlargement in schizophrenia which is produced by a different set of events. I am also reluctant to concede that a theory that has been published in well respected peer reviewed journals and has been widely cited by others does not warrant a detailed description on Wikipedia - especially as I say, the now known to be wrong chemical imbalance theory gets its own page as does the rank theory of depression - I can accept the argument that all theories of depression go onto to one page but not that some are singled out for this treatment whilst others are not - consistency would be good practice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that Randykitty was making an ad hominem attack. The issue isn't about Dr. Hendrie personally, but about the extent to which other scholars have cited this particular series of papers. It's quite appropriate on Wikipedia to look at the extent to which secondary sources have taken up the subject matter from primary sources. As for your reply to me, I'm not saying that Wikipedia should not cover this material. I'm just questioning whether we should present it in a way that focuses on the third ventricle. If this page should end up at WP:AFD, you will find that editors will respond to what you said about those other articles by pointing you to WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The series of papers that introduced this theory were CA Hendrie, AR Pickles (2009) Depression as an evolutionary adaptation: Implications for the development of preclinical models, Medical Hypotheses (cited 18 times according to Google Scholar); CA Hendrie, AR Pickles (2010) Depression as an evolutionary adaptation: anatomical organisation around the third ventricle, Medical hypotheses, cited 5 times, C Hendrie, A Pickles (2013) The failure of the antidepressant drug discovery process is systemic J Psychopharmacology, cited twice. There have also been a handful of book chapters etc that don't appear in the citation counts. Finally, I have developed an animal model to test this theory if ever I can get funding to do so (Pickles et al (2012) Short-term individual housing induced social deficits in female Mongolian gerbils: Attenuation by chronic but not acute imipramine Neuropharmacology 62 (5), 1993-1998) and that has been cited twice. A new model was needed because existing models of 'depression' are in fact merely screens for monoamine activity and useless for the current purpose (see the 'failure of the antidepressant drug discovery process is systemic' cited above for fuller explanation) . The gerbil model is based on social manipulations only and this species are used because they share the same occasional need to remain in social groups that have become hostile to their presence, the trigger that according to the Third Ventricle Hypothesis leads to a species developing the behavioural cluster that we associate with depression in humans, as an adaptation.RiverMonkey (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what you said just now, please understand, with respect to "if I can get funding", that WP:NOR means that we cannot base this decision based upon editors' own theories; also WP:COI applies to the extent to which we might appear to promote the theory. If you knew Randykitty, Looie496, and myself in real life, you would know that each of us are also professional neuroscientists, but that we do not look to Wikipedia to provide coverage of our own scientific work, because that's the way that Wikipedia works. That said, you have my sympathy 100% with respect to the struggle for funding! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You may find it helpful to read WP:What Wikipedia is not to understand what I am talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - the 'if I ever get funding' comment is reference to preclinical psychopharmacology having been effectively dismantled in the UK over the past 10 years - Big Pharma has abandoned research into new psychiatric drugs and mostly left the UK. Government has also withdrawn funds into animal models of psychiatric disorders. This withdrawal of funding is entirely reasonable and Hendrie & Pickles have been at the forefront of showing that these models are logically flawed and not fit for purpose (Hendrie & Pickles, 2013). There is the additional problem that people that use these models know even less about the animals they work with than members of the public (Hendrie & Pickles, 2011). There has to be something to replace them however and in order for that to happen there is a process of education that needs to be done - to let people know that whilst the old theories have failed, there are new and importantly - testable - theories to replace them. This article was part of that process - but - with equal respect - it seems that even Wikipedia now no longer allows new theories to be discussed in detail. The 'now' is reference to this article having been posted for several months without issue - until 'now'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 08:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The term *hypothesis* is used in the context of 'Third Ventricle Hypothesis' because that is being used in its technical sense. The word 'theory' is being used in its everyday sense 'a belief or principle that guides action' because this is a conversation not a technical debate. As I say, I am more than happy to have this article merged with another - providing the same applies to the chemical imbalance page - which is a description of the mononamine hypothesis, that we now know for certain is wrong and the rank theory of depression that is not even testable and whose very name breaches the technical definitions you allude to. RiverMonkey (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you agree to this merge proposal? Anyone is free to initiate other merge discussions for other pages, but for now I'm asking specifically about this one. (And per WP:OTHERSTUFF, they should not be required to be linked.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, no - it means that I understand your arguments but I don't agree with them. I have provided examples where the issues you have raised about this article have not been applied to other similar articles and am therefore saying that the proposal to merge this page must be viewed in that context. You say that is not an issue whereas my concern is that this could look to others like something other than good editing RiverMonkey (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The crap is indeed piled high and deep - I encourage you to read this paper ( http://www.academia.edu/2240421/The_failure_of_the_antidepressant_drug_discovery_process_is_systemic). It explains how all animal models of psychiatric disorders that are defined as such solely on the basis of their sensitivity to drugs used to treat that disorder in the clinic (i.e. virtually very animal model currently being used) are logically flawed - and how that logical flaw has prevented us from making progress in this field for more than 60 years now. The conclusion is that we must throw these models away and begin again from scratch. Piled high and deep doesn't even begin to describe that mess. RiverMonkey (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you. However, WP is emphatically not the place to address this at this point. Like Tryptofish, I encourage you to read WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going ahead with the merge now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So I see - can you tell me what your position is with regard to Wikipedia - do you have some official status or are you just an interested member of the public? RiverMonkey (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from User:Jimbo Wales, I guess, nobody has an "official status" here. But there is a clear consensus in favor of a merge here (note that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity"). --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * RiverMonkey, I left a comment to you on your user talk page a couple of days ago. Until now, I didn't hear anything more from you, and I concluded that there was nothing to be gained by waiting any longer. If you would like me to point you to the venues where you can ask for more editors to scrutinize whether or not I had consensus to make the merge, I will do so, because I'm confident of what I did, but you are free to pursue it if you would like. But sincerely, I suggest that you take to heart what I told you on your talk page. (You might even want to notice that, in merging the content, I gave your publications a rather prominent place on the target page, relative to the competing hypotheses that you have said are discredited.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)