Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was restarted.

Major depressive disorder

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs)

This can be considered a group nomination, although where to draw the line can be hazy. For some months, three editors (me, Cosmic Latte and Paul Gene) have been in a concerted effort to get this here, along with EverSince and others along the way. delldot gave a very thorough review, and orangemarlin, Tony and many others have chipped in with advice, including negotiating a way through alternative therapies and so forth. Do I think it is perfect? No, but I do honestly feel it is one of Wikipedia's best articles and stands up well with others I have been involved with. We didn't send it to GAN mainly as delldot did such a thorough workthrough and the size was such I sorta felt it was a big ask for one editor to read and judge. One final thing, the article stands at 51 kb readable prose, 1 kb more than the upper limit for FAC. However, I have been unable to figure out what the last little bit to lose, or whether folks felt ignoring the rules WRT article size was okay. I figured this may be the best venue for consensus on this, in the coal-face as it were. Anyway, lemme know how we can make it betterer. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the world map why are low sucide rates in red? and high rates in yellow & orange? I suggest switching to something more obvious such as green/blue, then yelow, then orange and red/black for worst. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I will ask on the commons page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, now a ghoulish green. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 1

Comment - Wording seems misleading in places. Examples:
 * (from lead) - "However, the relief of symptoms usually occurs several weeks or more after changes in neurotransmitter levels, which suggests that the precise role of neurotransmitter levels in depressive illness is still not fully understood." - That symptom relief may occur weeks after neurotransmitter levels change is not the only evidence "that the precise role of neurotransmitter levels in depressive illness is still not fully understood." - It is only one example. Perhaps rewording could generalize for a statement in the lead.
 * OK, good point - regarding detail in the lead, do you think just noting tehre are several factors is enough, or shall I add the facts that depletion in some people does not cause or worsen depression, and drugs which don't work on the pathway. How much detail you think we need there? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And you might have to explain "how" the mechanism might work (blocking reuptake receptors rather than increasing release, etc.). So, one suggestion would be to remove the specific example, so to read something like: "The neurotransmitters serotonin and norepinephrine have been implicated, and most antidepressants work to increase their active levels in the brain. However, the precise role of neurotransmitter levels in depressive illness is still not fully understood." &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it; done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could reword it. The last part is just a specific example of the first part. The reference given for the sentence does not say anything about "personality development" or "stress" but rather describes a study in which 78 subjects received 20 sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy for treatment of depression and gives specific examples of behaviors associated with subsequent relapse derived from questionnaire data. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah, need to fix that one. Will check some refs tonight. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, reworded and combined with following para, so there is general intro sentence followed by several more specific sentences. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the referencing seems off base, perhaps the result of so many people editing the article.
 * "The impact on functioning and well-being has been equated to that of congestive heart failure." - This type of referencing just makes me wonder about the relationship of information in the article to the references. The article abstract says, "Cross-sectional studies have found that depression is uniquely associated with limitations in well-being and functioning that were equal to or greater than those of chronic general medical conditions such as diabetes and arthritis. ... [We conducted a study of] 1790 adult outpatients with depression, diabetes, hypertension, recent myocardial infarction, and/or congestive heart failure. ... RESULTS: Over 2 years of follow-up, limitations in functioning and well-being improved somewhat for depressed patients; even so, at the end of 2 years, these limitations were similar to or worse than those attributed to chronic medical illnesses."
 * So what is the rationale for picking congestive heart failure specifically and singling it out?


 * Note: I fixed this one myself. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only speculate about the original rationale, although it certainly gets across the point that depression can be bad news. Anyway, I've modified it with this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The original article uses CCF as a particularly dramatic example WRT impact on functioning, for some reason not mentioned in the abstract. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes this book an appropriate source for this article? Surely you could have found a recognized historian of medicine/psychology/psychiatry reference in place of this one to source The Anatomy of Melancholy as the "seminal scholarly work of the 17th century".
 * ''Agree, not hugely fussed as it is historical, but I will look into it and see what I can find. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Agree, not hugely fussed as it is historical, but I will look into it and see what I can find. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Norepinephrine may be related to alertness and energy as well as anxiety, attention, and interest in life; [lack of] serotonin to anxiety, obsessions, and compulsions; and dopamine to attention, motivation, pleasure, and reward, as well as interest in life." - Is this direct quote from the reference at the end of the paragraph?
 * Yes Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (picked at random): "General population studies indicate around half those who have a major depressive episode (whether treated or not) will have at least one more and a minority experience chronic recurrence." - The reference to this is  one prospective study of subjects in East Baltimore, Maryland, an urban setting, a very specific subject group, and so does not support the sentence re "General population studies". Such a general statement, in my opinion, should be referenced by a minimum of one general review article covering multiple studies  that comes to this conclusion.
 * Prognosis varies according to population drawn from (eg data vary between general community, outpatient and inpatient populations etc.), and this is part of a larger paragraph with other sources. I can see your point and have been looking around. Agree an extra review article would be handy Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * done Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Garrondo

Support.(--Garrondo (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)) Comments. VERY IMPRESSIVE ARTICLE. It has great prose and explains everything in a very neat and undestandable way. Clearly one of the best articles recently seen in the medicine category for FAC. Congratulations to each one of the editors. If I had to vote right now I would clearly support it.


 * Tony1


 * Support—although I must disclose that I copy-edited the lead and first one or two sections last month. I hope that this is the first of a run of articles in a woefully undertreated part of WP (psychiatry and psychology) in which Casliber puts his considerable expertise to great public benefit. I'd like to return and make a few detailed comments. Here's one: " A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section "Psychological", and the Journal of Religion and Health, although published by Springer, is hardly a mainstream source in the field. The article is from 36 years ago; is it relevant nowadays? BTW, can you insert "causes" after the solely adjectival subtitles in the "Causes" section? They look strange, and I think MoS says titles should usually be nominal groups. Tony   (talk)  08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Thanks, I was trying to keep subheadings as succinct as possible, but agree above improvement sounds good. An opinion on whether a bracketed explanation of delusions and hallucinations (i.e. whether we should have them or not) would be appreciated, as I am torn/on the fence with this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cosmic Latte


 * Support as contributor. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin


 * Support as a minor contributor. I think it was well-written, and this process is great.  I must have read the article 5 times, and I didn't see half the points that have been pointed out.  I'm embarrassed that I missed the Alzheimer's EEG issue, since I helped write the Alzheimer's with Garrondo.  I'm kicking myself.  Anyways, excellent article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Colin

Support. A tough subject, thoroughly handled. It is not an easy read, partly due to the subject matter, but also the prose is quite demanding of the general reader. I couldn't get past the Causes section the first time I tried to read this. A few points:
 * "In such cases, clients may be especially unaffected by therapeutic intervention" The word "clients" is inappropriate here. (yep; changed to "patients")
 * The quotation beginning "a profoundly painful dejection" isn't verbatim. The quotation beginning "In mourning 'it is the world..." contains single quotes that aren't in the source.
 * (changed now)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lithium isn't wikilinked. (wikilinked now to Lithium)
 * The Efficacy subsection has a number of problems.
 * The "Two recent meta-analyses" suffers from WP:DATED and should state it looked at SSRIs. It can then be noted that this compares against the older tricyclic imipramine.
 * The "Despite obtaining similar results, the authors argued about their interpretation. One author concluded that.. The other author agreed that..He pointed out that" has problems because both meta analyses are multi-author papers and the comments attributed to the second "author" came from a later editorial by two of the five authors of the second meta-analysis. The reader wouldn't be interested in the opinion of (apparently) just two people here. It looks like the statement (which you quote) about "seems little evidence to support" has provoked discussion and is worth citing and attributing to the authors of the first study. My guess is the editorial was just one example of the debate that followed and so that debate should probably be described differently to how it is here. In particular, the glass half empty quote is pretty meaningless and remains so even when you know why glasses are mentioned.
 * What isn't clear to the reader (until they get to Prognosis) is what is meant by "improvement" wrt treating depression. With most diseases, folk want to be cured, and might regard treatment as making someone no longer depressed. But it looks like improvment can be regarded as being just a little bit less depressed, and the editorial focussed on how much less depressed is needed in order to judge clinical significance.
 * The terms "clinically significant" and "effect size" aren't defined wrt these treatments.
 * I'm not sure "their overall effect is low to moderate" is justified by the sources. I may be wrong but it looks more like "non-existent to low".
 * It is quite disconcernting to read the Psychotherapy and Medication sections and the discussion of X is "effective" and Y is "effective" and then discover the effect is minimal when you get to the "Efficacy" section. The spat between the two "authors" seems like "A: Drugs are a bit rubbish. B: Depends what you mean by rubbish. Oh and psychotherapy isn't any better."

Colin°Talk 23:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The more I look at the section - Major_depressive_disorder - the more I am unsure if its presence actually benefits the article. There are a whole heap of issues regarding antidepressants used in studies - higher effects due to nonpublication of negative results, and lower effects due to differing populations used (eg nonsuicidal patients in trials, whereas a large number do in clinical practice do (which suggests the population we treat are more severe anyway, and many have been depressed alot longer than those entering trials. Looking at it, it needs more material on studies of depressed people etc. to help the reader understand the results, and as it is, it may be too much depth for this general article, and better placed in Treatment for depression, where it can be done justice, with the section reduced to a couple of lines and added to Treatment section (at bottom). What do you reckon, or do you reckon the studies were too important not to be at least discussed here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Thanks for the support vote, I will see what I can do. You are welcome to substitute any plainer english word for more technical one without loss of meaning. I do sometimes forget which words are more jargony than others, being 'in the field' and all... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 2

*Comment on prose - The prose is rather dull and repetitious. For example, the overuse of "may", which is a weak, vague word, in the Biological causes section:
 * They may also enhance the levels of two other neurotransmitters, norepinephrine and dopamine.
 * Norepinephrine may be related to alertness and energy as well as anxiety, attention, and interest in life;
 * Serotonin may help regulate other neurotransmitter systems,
 * and decreased serotonin activity may allow these systems to act in unusual and erratic ways
 * Facets of depression may be emergent properties of this dysregulation
 * There may be a link between depression and neurogenesis of the hippocampus
 * Drugs may increase serotonin levels in the brain
 * This increase may help to restore mood and memor
 * Depression may also be caused in part by an overactive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
 * Depression may be affected by variations in the circadian rhythm.

Can this be worded better? There is one paragraph in this section that does not contain the word "may", starting with "In the past two decades, research has uncovered multiple limitations of the monoamine theory, and its inadequacy has been criticized within the psychiatric community..." and this paragraph is by far the clearest, most straightforward one in the section. And it does not use the passive voice which improves it. In general, so much use of the passive voice in this section makes for less interesting reading. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delldot noted lots of "may"s a while ago and I did a big sweep through; I ddid notice some more but you have pointed out a fair few. The issue is alot of the ideas in the paragraph are not definite but conjectural. Nevertheless, I will do a sweep-through and see if we can "mix up" the prose a little. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do better that "conjectural", can't you? "The evidence of .... indicates..."; The majority of recent literature supports the theory that..."; "There is evidence to support..."; Studies, including those of so-and-so, support the hypothesis that..." etc. Too tired now but I hope I am conveying the idea.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, I should have clarified - I wasn't going to use the word as such in the paragraph. Paul Gene added alot of those sources and he seems to be having a (hopefully temporary) wikibreak. Have to be wary of general "There is evidence.." type statements too, still mixing it up ain't a bad idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have been making multiple changes in parts I found a little inaccurate. I hope you don't mind. One suggestion I have is changing the paragraph order in Diagnosis > Clinical assessment. In the U.S., the first point of patient contact could be a general practitioner, psychologist, or other mental health professional who would conduct an assessment. A general pracitioner might prescribe antidepressants without referral to a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist would typically prescribe medication without a medical assessment as described a doctor would do. A psychologist, in those states where psychologists do not have prescribing privileges, would refer to a psychiatrist if a need for a medication assessment were deemed necessary. Without getting into all of this, I would suggest switching the first two paragraphs in the Clinical assessment section, as the complete assessment by a doctor is usually not the first step, in the U.S. at least.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have kept an eye on the changes and have been happy thus far - the two paragraphs currently underneath Clinical assessment to me are interchangeable - there is a valid case for either of them coming first. The more I think about it, Oz and the UK are not too different, as we can be alerted by social workers, etc. as well as GPs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression,". Are you saying in the U.S. or where? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think naming all these rating scales, many of which I have never heard of, adds to the article, especially since the Rating scales section starts out by saying that evidence indicates  rating scales are ineffective as diagnostic instruments for depression anyway.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the Beck and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent the other two) are highly notable and often-quoted. I even saw the Beck (BDI) parodied as 'beady-eye' in a comic skit by English comedian Jo Brand. The Hamilton has been the most widely used for about 30 years but I don't have a ref for it (got a ref saying it was the most widley used in the 80s and not been able to find a more recent one). I wasn't sure about italics or not, I guess I saw them as a "work" of some sort, and used the italics for emphasis mor than anything else as well. I think rewording Beck to "widely used" is better. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: They are the four most notable (by far) out of a large number of raiting scales, so my feeling was/is providing a note on them is good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. The Beck of course for historical reasons and because it is frequently used in research and because Beck is an important figure in depression research. And perhaps one or two others. But I question the statement for the rating scale "which is also valid in patients with mild to moderate dementia"; it has only a 1988 journal reference. I would like to see more than that one journal article. And two of the references in that section have invalid pmid numbers. Not to be hard on you. Sorry to freak out over rating scales!  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The PMIDs are good, there is something wrong with PubMed right now (or our template, I'm not sure yet). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This ref is probably very interesting: review article by Katz on the diagnosis of depression in dementia: it specifically talks about the GDS and the Hamilton scales and their good realiability. I have only read the abstract, but it may be enouth to address Mattisse doubts. Diagnosis and treatment of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. .--Garrondo (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to my original Question: I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression". The reference at the end of the sentence does not address the use of how widely it is used. Are you saying in the U.S. or where? There are so many general statements in this article that do not specify what country you are talking about. Regarding the rating scales, are you saying worldwide "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression"? What about the other scales? I think you should specify where these instruments are being used. One reference you gave stated the U.K. decided not to use them as they were not cost effective.  What are the dates of these sources on rating scales?  Many of the references to rating scales go back to the 1960s. The latest for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale seems to be 1980. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why they are so old is becouse the ref provided is for the original publication of the questionnaire, as it is common to cite in medical journals; which does not mean that an additional review article on them could be of use.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, primary sources should be used sparingly. When you want to refer to seminal primary sources or original publications, they can be worked into the text by referring both to the original source and a secondary review of that source, as in this sample sentence from Tourette syndrome:  A 1998 study published by Leckman et al of the Yale Child Study Center showed that the ages of highest tic severity are eight to twelve (average ten), with tics steadily declining for most patients as they pass through adolescence.  The statement is sourced to a secondary source review, but refers back to the primary source.  In this case, the primary source is included only because it was seminal research that altered the landscape of TS research and understanding.  See WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have finally added the Katz review to the article; I have also found this article, which says that 3 of the most common questionnaries are those of Hamilton, Beck and Montgomery: Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP study. .--Garrondo (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) needs a better reference than a 1979 study on a sample of British and Swedish subjects. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the original article, the very first primary source, where the questionnaire is explained. What else do you need? (My question is not ironic, I really want to know what other kind of ref are you looking for; since for any scientific journal that ref would be enough)--Garrondo (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS per SandyGeorgia's comment above. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would these one be enough?:A review of studies of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in controls: implications for the definition of remission in treatment studies of depression . I quote The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is one of the most commonly used symptom severity scales to evaluate the efficacy of antidepressant treatment. Similarly for the Hamilton scale: Rating scales in depression: limitations and pitfalls . Quote: Since the introduction of antidepressants to psychopharmacology in the 1960s, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) has been the most frequently used rating scale for depression. I could post both of them, and even look for similar articles for the others questionnaires, but I really think they are not really needed. What do you think Mattisse? --Garrondo (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. A huge improvement over the 1979 study currently referenced. However, the statement in the article should clarify its use in research and not only as a "screening tool", as it is under the section "Diagnosis" and so may be misleading to the general reader. The reference you propose is to a research study where it is used as an outcome measure.


 * This Major depression article does not explain that in the typical research methodology for drug efficacy studies, these rating scales are  used as a primary outcome measure.  Also, the article abstract cautions,  "A limitation of the review is that none of the studies was based on a randomly selected sample from the general population. In addition, the rigor of the screening used to exclude individuals with psychopathology in most studies is unknown; thus, some of the controls may have had diagnosable depression, thereby elevating the mean scores in the presumptively healthy control group." So is this appropriate in the "Diagnosis" section? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Their aim is to look for cut-off points for the questionnaire: defining the healthy controls answers to the questionnaire a cut-off point to diagnose an abnormal response can be found, so of course it should be in diagnosis.As I said I believe that wikipedia is asking here more than any peer-revied journal, and the ref provided should be more than enough to point out that the quesionnaire is widely used.--Garrondo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to 15101563, their "aim" was not to look for cut-off points for the questionnaire by defining a cut-off point in the healthy controls' answers to the questionnaire to diagnose an abnormal response. That was one of their methods in the study: to  determine the normal range of values on the scale so they could evaluate the efficacy of antidepressant treatment. The purpose was never to "diagnosis". The only time diagnose is mentioned in the abstract is in referring to the methodological problems in the study: "In addition, the rigor of the screening used to exclude individuals with psychopathology in most studies is unknown; thus, some of the controls may have had diagnosable depression, thereby elevating the mean scores in the presumptively healthy control group."


 * In addition, see the MoS guideline in Manual of Style (medicine-related article) - Citing medical sources and the content guideline in Reliable sources (medicine-related article) Definitions. In the latter it states: "In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Where primary sources are cited, they should be presented in a manner which hews closely to the interpretation given by the authors or by published, reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion which is not clearly adduced by the authors or by reliable secondary sources..." &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thaks for the non-asked for little speech...I have been writting medicine articles for two years, and I almost know MEDMOS word by word...Nevertheless Casliber has added a few refs that should fullfill your requirements regarding the questionnaires.--Garrondo (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 3


 * Comment Tony noted above his concerns about this statement: "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith."  Tony specifies his concerns: "I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section 'Psychological', and the Journal of Religion and Health, although published by Springer, is hardly a mainstream source in the field. The article is from 36 years ago; is it relevant nowadays?"
 * This statement noted by Tony as being from a questionable source is still in the article. I am concerned also that many of the sources in this article similarly are very old and/or reference a single study. I am trying to correct some of them, where the sources are accessible, to clarify the meaning in the article in the context of the reference. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why a loss of religious faith would be any less depressing now than it was 36 years ago, at least in individuals for whom faith had been their primary source of meaning. I do wonder which is more often the cause and which more often the effect (e.g., I can picture something like, X --> MDD --> blame/doubt God --> lose religious faith), but if "lose religious faith --> MDD" is sourced, then it at least jives with what I'd call common sense or intuition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is not what you or I think now, but rather that the reference to a statement given prominence in the section is from one questionable source, the Journal of Religion and Health, and is 36 years old.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the journal is still taken reasonably seriously, e.g.,, , . In any event, my point was that there is no reason to assume that the veracity of the referenced finding has changed in the past 36 years. Questioning the finding on account of its age raises the question, "why?"--and I, for one, don't see a reason why the finding would be dated. And as it's worded now, "A depressive episode may also be related to a loss of religious faith," without implying cause or effect, and placed after other components of MDD and directly before a statement that cause and effect are unclear, I certainly don't think it's being given any undue prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Tony's comment that the source is not mainstream in the field. The links you give are not reliable sources as to the mainstream importance of the journal. Further, the text in one of your links says: "The Journal of Religion and Health explores the most contemporary modes of religious thought with particular emphasis on their relevance to current medical and psychological research." Current medical and psychological research is not 36 years ago. In medically-related field, recency counts. References to such statements should be to recent review articles (within the last few years). Further discussion of this should move to the talk page. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Tis where I've moved it (Talk:Major_depressive_disorder). Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources - Primary sources should be used only with caution. See:   the MoS guideline in Manual of Style (medicine-related article) - Citing medical sources and the content guideline in Reliable sources (medicine-related article) Definitions.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I generally try to use reviews etc., if ones are used, I do so with caution. I am not fussed if we remove the religion bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. Just in the Rating scales section:
 * "The Beck Depression Inventory is a widely used tool in the diagnosis of depression" - there is no source for this except Beck's original description of the 2nd edition: http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/BDI2.html
 * This reference to the Hamilton Scale is probably a primary source, since its date is 1960: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14399272
 * This reference for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is a primary source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/444788).
 * This reference to the PHQ-2 is a primary source ( and its for an alternative self-administration of it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10568646
 * I believe I have these straight, as the references are confusing. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, got extra refs for Beck, Hamilton and MADRS, working on others. There is quite a bit online. I just have to hop off the keyboard for a bit as things are busy where I am.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The religion statement, which you said was O.K. to remove, has been added back with a primary source reference. On the talk page, a review article on the subject was suggested:  This review article abstract states its findings: "The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being ... Usually the positive impact of religious involvement on mental health is more robust among people under stressful circumstances (the elderly, and those with disability and medical illness)."

I suggest using this review article as a source, and changing the wording of the statement to be in accord with what the source actually says. The abstract does not mention depression nor the effects of a loss of religious faith. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll go along with that (although I think that primary material is used cautiously in the article--e.g., I don't see it being synthesized to advance any non-NPOV position--and don't see what harm the religious-alienation bit can do). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * Is this image sourced properly enough to add to the Sociocultural aspects section? "Someone during 19th century" isn't much of an attribution, but "Scanned by Infrogmation from copyright expired US book, 1890s volume 'The World's Great Classics'" looks promising. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the verdict on the religion issue? If there's consensus among, say, Cas, Mattisse, and Sandy to use the review article instead of the primary material, I'll be fine with that--but my "closing argument," again, is that the current use of primary material doesn't seem even close to being in violation of WP:SYN. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now - per too many inaccurate or misleading statements that are not congruent with a professional level article on this subject such as the use of "From a psychoanalytic perspective" - psychoanalysis is not a perspective; it is a theory or body of ideas that is more formal than a "perspective". Also, the quote within a quote in the line: "and a lowering of self-regarding feelings" that is more severe than mourning. "In mourning 'it is the world that has become poor and empty; in [depression] it is the ego itself.'"[44]. Here, apparently Freud is being quoted in a quotation by someone else in another work.


 * When used in practice, many theories get mixed and used together, hence "perspective" captures how it is used, however my preference is not strong, as yours appears to be on this one.  (therefore changed) I am also not too fussed about the Freud quote, as it seems to be more trouble than its worth Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, de-quoted now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(For the following, I am using the "Rating scale" section as an example as I have grown too discouraged to continue beyond it and I am tired of arguing about the misuse of primary sources.)
 * Per too many primary sources used in a misleading way. For example, "Milder depression has been associated with what has been called depressive realism, or the "sadder-but-wiser" effect, a view of the world that is relatively undistorted by positive biases,[38] or a more accurate assessment of their own abilities.[39]. The second source [39] is to a primary source study comparing "depressed students" with "nondepressed students" and does not say these students had "Milder depression".
 * Your edit was wordy and went into possibly more detail than what was warranted. We could probably just lose the second sentence source and all. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the inclusion of "rating scales" under "Diagnosis" when even the citations state that Beck's scale, for example, rates the severity of depression and was not designed to "diagnosis".
 * The primary use of rating scales as an outcome measure for drug studies is not explained. From reference source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12601223) in the rating scale section: "A large number of rating scales has been developed to assess depression severity and change during antidepressant therapy." This source goes on to say: "The most frequently used observer rating scales, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the most frequently used self-rating scale (the Beck Depression Inventory, or BDI) were developed more than 20 years ago. Their historical background is too often forgotten and they are reflections of their origin: the HDRS and the MADRS reflect antidepressant activity while the BDI reflects psychotherapy." Therefore, not only does the section misrepresent the use of rating scales and present them out of context, it misrepresents its sources. It has nothing to do with diagnosis but with antidepressant outcome studies. There is not a reference to backup the statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory is a widely used tool in the diagnosis of depression..." - and does this imply worldwide, in particular countries, or what?
 * diagnosis of depression changed to assessment of depressive symptoms - didn't see that. That is what they do period. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why I changed from "most widely to widely" as different sources say Hamilton or Beck. As I am familiar with the subject, in practice they are used as screening or in research, clinicians may use them as an adjunct to a clinicial exam (rarely), but are not used for diagnosis as such in clinical day-to-day practice. Also, the specificity with drugs vs therapy is not that evident when you read. I am trying to keep it simple. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Colin's objections to the "Causes" section (even though he registered his support) as the kind of confusion he describes seems to pervade the article. I have cleared up portions of the article, I don't know if Colin has done the same.
 * Yes, it is a verbally challenging section, and the key is to see what technical words can be replaced by plainer ones without losing meaning. I am too tired to do it further tonight but will have a look at this tomorrow.


 * Per the use of generalized, unqualified statements, without specifying to which countries the statements apply. The authors seem to assume that their statements apply to all, when practices in different countries vary. The same generalized, unqualified statements are sourced by references that often greatly qualify the statement by using specific subject sample, methodologies that are faulty, etc.
 * Erm..what? Can you give an example? Practice in the developed world doesn't vary too much, and practice in the third world is scant, which I hope I made clear. I will do my best to address this but please point out what/where you mean. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is slanted toward the Western world, more so than necessary. Perhaps the article should not pretend to be anything other than a British and American perspective.
 * I have tried to incorporate as much on global issues but it is tricky as much treatment outside first would population centres is meagre at best, a problem across all mental health, so tricky elaborating on issues not specific to major depression. I have tried to highlight differences in both diagnosis and treatment sections (and one mention in signs and symptoms). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to go through the article and check the accuracy and relevance to the article of the cited sources, as I have tried to do in a few sections. Judging from my experience, I have little faith of proper referencing all sections of the article. A random check shows that some sections are more accurately referenced than others.
 * Erm, a look through the history will see alot of detailed reviewing. Specifics are helpful here. The alternate therapies and drugs were gone through especially thoroughly but it is difficult at times trying to explain results within a paradigm of clincial significance, placebo effect etc Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone who knows the subject matter can go through the article and check for accuracy and relevancy of the cited sources. I hope that matter of the proper use of primary sources has been clarified, although as the example I gave ubove, even when the improper use is pointed out and attempts made to correct, there seems to be a general reluctance to respect this issue and insure that sources are reflected accurately by the article wording.

Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through.

This article needs to be accurate. There is no reason the problems cannot be fixed. Other than worrying about the format of citations etc., this article has elicited surprisingly few "eyes" to vet it. I would like to see this rectified. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although my support !vote remains, I agree with Mattisse that the article has a Western slant to it. It could do well with some more Eastern facts and figures. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: With this diff, I added information about religiosity from the secondary source that Sandy found. I've left the primary reference in there, but, as per my above statements, I won't protest if one of you would like to remove it. I do, however, wonder if it might be a bit of a challenge to fit in the secoundary source without the context that the primary-referenced material provides. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowmanradio

From the introduction: reasons to fail FA, if the rest of the article is written like this.
 * Comment
 * "electroconvulsive therapy is used in severe cases" is misleading. I think that this fails to indicate that ECT may be treatment of last resort, after drug medication has failed.

''Nope, two exceptions would be (1) a person with clear-cut psychotic depression refusing oral medication and actively suicidal and (2) a person in whom ECT has shown a good response and is (or their family) is requesting it knowing that it has worked more quickly than other methods. Both are severe, neither are last resort, hence the adjective severe''
 * That is obvious. In some people (especially elderly people, I think) ECT may be used, if it has worked well before. But for those who will take medication and most accept medication, ECT is not the first choice in severe depression, and so the introduction is missleading, I think. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, what about "electroconvulsive therapy is an option in severe cases."? unsigned by Casliber (talk) 1 November 2008
 * In would be helpful if you remembered to sign. I do not know why you tried to defend this point. There are simply too many misleading phrases (even for basic points) in the small portions of the article that I have looked at. So to me, it fails FA. Snowman (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops on the signing, I am getting a few edit conflicts on this page. I am defending this point because it is right, and your proposal does not capture how it is used. bland statements on failing are likely to be ignored, so focussing on specifics is prudent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of an typical reader becoming distressed discovering that ECT is the treatment for severe depression. It should say words to the effect that whenever possible medication is given as the first choice, but sometimes ECT is given when medications fails (or has failed previously). I have found a point that needs correcting, and this is not a bland statement. Snowman (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The text of the article says "ECT is most often used as a last resort treatment by hospital psychiatrists for severe major depression which has not responded to trials of antidepressant or, less often, psychotherapy or supportive interventions". The introduction should say the same. Currently the introduction is missleading and it fails to indicate the correct use of ECT. Snowman (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed "last resort" from body of text; I am not actually sure how it got there in the first place as this section seems to have changed since I looked at it last. The words are not used in the source. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hospitalization may be necessary in cases associated with self-neglect or a significant risk of suicide" is too narrow. I think that there are other reasons for admission: social reasons, the effects of delusions, bizarre dangerous behaviour, and many other factors. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will change to self or others - an admission to hopsital for homelessness as such is for a social not medical reason, and beyond the scope of teh article. Bizarre delusions for the most part are not part of depression. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mean purely social reasons. Where there is no one competent at home to do caring, shopping, and so on, the threshold for admission is lower. The presence of the delusions that occur in depression may cause the person to behave dangerously. I think sectioning should be briefly included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of a lead is a simple succicnt sumary, hence keeping it simple to harm to self or others which also includes delusions which may cause same (they are uncommon remember). I actually thought joining "hospitalisation" and "necessary" assumed the connotation of involuntary treatment, however if you missed it then I can assume others will to, so will think about how to add. Watch this space.
 * I think it is very difficult to write a good introduction for a medical article. "keeping it simple" is difficult too. After modifications, this sentence fragment reads a bit better now. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From the main text:
 * "Those older than 12 years may begin abusing drugs or alcohol, or exhibit disruptive behavior." This sounds like a different diagnosis rather than a simple diagnosis of depression. This is more likely to be found in mixed emotional disorder or a conduct disorder, which is not mentioned or explained. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree this one is tricky - combined with an atypical presentation of irritability, it is something to keep in mind with children. I was in a mind to remove it but can see its use in remaining. Yes adults use drugs sometimes with dperssion but the diagnosis is more clear-cut there generally. I will read it again and am not fussed whether it stays or goes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Drugs and alcohol in children is usually a conduct disorder, or a mixed disorder. I think that you are talking about a different diagnosis here. When added to disruptive behaviour it would be difficlut not to diagnose a conduct element to it. Behavoural problems are found in depression, but the axis of the symptomolgy in the article appears to be arround conduct disorder. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed it as it is more general and not specific to this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, misleading section has been removed. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "A mental state examination includes an assessment of the person's current mood and an exploration of thought content, in particular thoughts of hopelessness, self-harm or suicide." is too narrow. I think that the diagnostic process would be to look for the general absence of optimistic thoughts or plans, with negative thoughts.
 * Hang on, covered in "exploration of thought content" and "assessment of the person's current mood"- pessimism nihilism is more succinct than absence of optimism. I will add that word
 * Nevertheless, it is inadequate here. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about it, given that it is a central part of initial assessemnt, I now think elaborating a bit more is a good idea, so changed to broadened to "in particular the presence of themes of hopelessness or pessimism, self-harm or suicide, and an absence of future plans or optimistic thoughts'" Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can change "future plans" to "positive plans", as all plans are future. Snowman (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Testosterone levels may be used to diagnose hypogonadism, a cause of depression in men." Hormone levels are also important in women, with low hormone levels in menopausal or menopausal women being implicated in depression. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

''I haven't seen that - if I can find it in a review article on depression I will add it. Have you a reference?'' Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be under endocrinology or gynaecology. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen some bits and pieces online, and alot of vagueness, and studies here and there. Personally I do believe the field is underresearched and gender may have something to do with it, also a very difficult area to study as childbearing and menopause are such big events with huge psychological implications it is very hard to tease out what is biological. I will ask a few colleagues, very tricky as I'd rather a review article here. It certainly hasn't been on the radar in summaries I have read thus far (but they were written by men :p) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall, when HRT was in fashion, the presence of depression is an indication for giving oestrogens in a higher dose, as the depression does not respond with lower doses. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, upon thinking about it, while I emotionally agree - depression relateed to female hormones does not crop up on consensus statements in the field, though experts admit more reseach is needed. Wikipedia is here to report a subject, not reseach or change importance, I have looked at alotta depression material and not seen it, so the onus is on you to provide a resonably review-type article snowman. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, there may be some material to incorporate after all, see Talk:Major_depressive_disorder'' Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks up those two words in an dictionary. Nihilism is not a more succinct form of "absence of optimism" or "pessimism". &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:Hang on, covered in "exploration of thought content" and "assessment of the person's current mood"- pessimism nihilism is more succinct than absence of optimism. I will add that word
 * OK, was hasty in editing above - ok pessimism as nihilism too esoteric and latter word is more synonymous with hopelssness which is already mentioned. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "This includes a complete history of the person's current circumstances." Does this mean a complete account of the patient's current circumstances. How can it be history if it is current? Snowman (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In medicine, taking a history is slightly different to the lay defnition, it means taking a person's history up to and including the present. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the English language one finds out about the patient's current circumstances and discover if they live in a flat or a house, and who they live with, and so on. It is possible to take a history of how the circumstances arose, but not a history of the circumstances. Snowman (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in a medical (or psychiatric) history, that is why it is bluelinked Snowman - are you a doctor or do you work in health? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Er...yeah, strange objection, Snowman. Please see medical history. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "medical history" page says the clinician then documents the social circumstances of the patient, which sounds correct. Gelder, Gath, Mayou, and Cowen's book "Oxford textbook of Psychiatry. 3rd edition. p. 31. ISBN 0192625012 says: Present circumstances: questions about housing finances, and the composition of the household help the interviewer to understand the patients circumstances. There is no awkward grammar here. Snowman (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Snowman
 * Yes, a medical history takes into account "present circumstances." So I take it that you've answered your own question, "How can it be history if it is current?" to your satisfaction? Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article just says "complete history" and not "medical history", and I do not think it would be easier to read if is said "medical history". The article should make it as easy to read as possible and this is awkward wording, which my book and the "medial history" page avoids. Snowman (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say "complete history"; it says "complete history." There is a difference: As Casliber pointed out, the latter contains a wikilink, and wikilinks exist to help us avoid the very sort of confusion that you're talking about. If the word "history" seems unclear in that context, then click on it, and it'll suddenly become clear. Anywho, how do you propose that it be worded? Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, a doctor takes a history, and tehn documents circumstances etc. I suppose one could call it an 'interview' but we don't, we call it a 'history', plain and simple. I will ask at the medical page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Gelder, Gath, Mayou, and Cowen's book "Oxford textbook of Psychiatry. 3rd edition. p. 25. ISBN 0192625012 has a section headed "The diagnostic interview", in a chapter called "Interviewing, clinical examination, and record keeping." In the UK the term "clerking the patient" is often used which includes taking the history and collecting information, as well as the examination. I also think that taking a collateral history from someone who knows the patient is significant enough to be mentioned in the article. I do not know why you and another editor of the article are deffending awkward grammar in the line "taking a complete history of the circumstances". It reads the same with or without wikilinks. Also, the word "complete" may not be appropriate, as I would have thought that any history taking process needs to be somewhat selective owing to time constraints. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowman, it looks strange. The link does not make a difference, it should be just as understandable to someone who is reading a print-out. This is similar to what is described as "easter egg" links at WP:MOSLINK. How about something like "This includes a record of the person's circumstances..."? /skagedal... 09:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - ok, I see a possibility, "record" is a good choice and one I hadn't thought of, and I have used it as a verb, ".. will record the person's current circumstances, biographical history and current symptoms, and a family medical history to see if other family members have suffered from a mood disorder, and discuss the person's alcohol and drug use." This also reduces one "history", as I see we had three in a row.'' Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose : there seems to be inaccuracies and misleading wording almost everywhere I look. This is a terrible flaw for a medical article for which it must fail FA, in my opinion. Snowman (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ''I will try to do what I can point by point, but what I meant about "bland statement" above was meant to refer to this, making hyperbolic statements and generalisations, especially after you were unhappy with the name change could be seen as pointy and hence ignored in an effort to gain consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have liked to have found a first class article, and if it was a first class article, I would say so. I do not know why you dismiss my comments as bland, expecially, as I seem to share the same sort of concerns as those of User:Mattisse, and  I have pointed out multiple problems being as objective as I can. Quite frankly, I think the section about disruptive children with depression going on drugs and alcohol was out of context at best and nonsense and misleading at worst, without mentioning a conduct disorder or mixed disorder element, and I am glad that you have removed it. I would have liked to help with the page more over the months, but when I was editing this page several months ago, I found it difficult to get anything done as my all my edits were reverted, and it subsequently took me many edits on the talk page before I could get any agreement from the maim editors to get a few steps forward. I guess that other new editors to the page would have also found it difficult to get anything done on the page. It is a difficult complex article, and being a medical article it should not be missleading. Perhaps it should have gone to GA, where more people could have objectively made comments on it. I do not think I will watch this page, and I do not plan to edit this page for a while. Nevertheless, my oppose decision is made for good reasons based on the current state of the article. Snowman (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowman, I am sorry that you were reverted by someone, and it is very hard to please everyone on such a big, complciated article. You pointed out some other material which is good to work on above but you were wrong about ECT as a last resort, you have an interpretation about medical history that no-one else hasa problem with, so sorry, but I don't have faith that what you see as misleading is what other people see. So, you need to list items you see as misleading for them to be improved. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Well, the article says "ECT is most often used as a last resort treatment by hospital psychiatrists for severe major depression which has not responded to trials of antidepressant or, less often, psychotherapy or supportive interventions", which seems to me to support what I am saying about the introduction giving the wrong impression. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. I may not be right every time I raise a concern about the article for discussion, and I welcome learning points; nevertheless, I have found many points that needed amending in a short space of time in the sections of the article that I have quickly looked at, and I think that the article needs more reviewers and copyeditors, and it is not ready for FA at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Neutral to attaining FA status, so strike through used over oppose . See below. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 4

Comment - Snowman's comment directly above ("the article needs more reviewers and copyeditors, and it is not ready for FA at this juncture") is my view also. I found so many inaccurate points in just the small parts of the article I addressed that I am not confident of the accuracy of the remainder. I also agree with him that simple wording is often misleading and sometimes a few more words are needed for accuracy, rather than dismissing such as "wordiness".

I made 85 edits (according to the edit counter) in the last few days trying to correct inaccuracies in a small portion of the article. But now I am not confident in my edits, as when they were made I was working under the assumption that the article was basically factually accurate. Now I see the article as permeated with inaccurate wording.

Making constructive suggestions here takes a great deal of effort. Many of the responses to suggestions made for changes in the article further my feeling that some editors and supporters of this article are not well informed about the subject. I have grown tired of the arguments on this page, where the essence of my comments have often not been addressed.

For example, my repeated question has been ignored or followed by complaints about italics: where is reference that the Beck is the most widely used rating scale. I add, is it used for "diagnosis" or a measure in drug outcome studies? And if it is primarily used as an outcome measure, as it is in my experience, why is it under "Diagnosis"? If the editor can use as his evidence "I am familiar with the subject" for the claim that the Beck is widely used, then why can I not use my "experience" to say, maybe, but not for diagnosis.

Another example is my repeated concerns urging discretion in the use of primary sources, which at that point were ignored by the article editors,  and was responded to with the comment, "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech" by an editor supporting the use of primary sources as the first resort.

It is also discouraging that the "Supports" come from co-editors of the article, or are accompanied by comments like "VERY IMPRESSIVE ARTICLE", or "although I must disclose that I copy-edited the lead and first one or two sections last month". (I will note also, the complaint made by this editor in his "Support" were not addressed until I repeatedly made a big deal out of it.) This article is not being taken seriously. I am glad that the images and citations and italics are correct. In my view it is more important that the article content is accurate.

Sorry, but the resistance to attempts to improve this article makes continued involvement no longer worth my effort. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the issues concerning Beck Depression scale in the article already WRT "most widely" to "widely" and the mention of diagnosis; they were good pickups. I will try to work on the prose. The "Now I see the article as permeated with inaccurate wording" is a big call without supplying examples - different sections have had different inputs. Agree the article content needs to be correct. Many of those who have commented have been involved in fairly lengthy and through discussion and criticism on the article's talk page as it has evolved. I have left notes at other places now on WP where people with some knowledge of the material may get involved. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A Nobody


 * I support making Major depressive disorder a featured article. Great work!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowmanradio 2


 * Additional comment: The introduction has benefited from more than a dozen modifying edits today by a number of editors, with revealed a number of misleading sections, badly written sections, and omissions: there were two inconsistent different definitions of "depression" - one in the first paragraph and a different one in the third paragraph; that patients were given antidepressant medication was not included; there were significant changes in emphasis - such as from "often" to "generally"; difficult to read sections were made easier to read; extra wikilinks were added; information was prioritised and reorganised; an seemingly unnecessary mention to an Australian physician was taken out. Every one of the former four paragraphs in the introduction were modified. I do not know what "change in diagnostic standards" was meant to mean or imply. I guess that the examination that the introduction has had today gives yet more examples of the inaccurate wording that seems to me to be nearly everywhere I look in the article, and I think that the "support" given much earlier by the editors of this article in this review above can be disregarded. I think the introduction is worthy now, although not perfect. I hope the rest of the article can be carefully copy edited, and I am sure a collective wish to get to FA is out there. It is not one of my priorities to copy edit the entire article. I am not watching this page. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there have been 48 edits to the article today as of now. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree the intro flows much nicer now with the paragraphs, though I am unsure we need to specify that ECT is done under GA particularly. I only removed the "overdiagnosis" segment temporarily as it didn't fit in with the flow and it is a hard statement to phrase exactly - previous discussion on the topic had left it as best attributed to a specific authority, as it is definitely not a universal opinion, though widely discussed. A vast proportion of material is still the same Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 5


 * Followup comment - Note that the  issues I complained about above have not been addressed. As stated above, I have only examined a small part of the article for accuracy in wording and sources. There is no point in doing more, given the lack of responses that actually address issues I raised. Given this, I remain skeptical about the accuracy of the rest of the article.
 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Beck Depression Inventory is a widely used tool in the diagnosis of depression" - where is the reference to this other than your experience? Are you talking about worldwide or your country or what? You only say, "As I am familiar with the subject..."
 * My complaint has not been remedied regarding the placement of the statement on religion, which echoes the objection of User:Tony1 (" A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section "Psychological",) and User:Delldot's statement (I think it is his - hard to tell with all the interruptions and diversions) objecting to the inclusion of the religious statement in the first paragraph of "Psychological causes". To quote User:Delldot (or whomever) "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith. -  non-sequitur there, maybe would fit in with a list of events that can precipitate it (e.g. Vulnerability factors—namely early maternal loss...)."
 * The religious statement has now been changed to "Depression may also be connected to feelings of religious alienation..." The first part of the religious statement is referenced by a primary source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/75503053/abstract. The religious alienation statement reflects the source inaccurately. The source uses the words "religious strain". Feelings of "alienation" as such  do not necessarily reflect alienation from God, but can be non religious in nature, e.g. existential, Social alienation,  etc.
 * The source states, "Depression was associated with feelings of alienation from God." While I certainly agree that alienation needn't be religious in nature, I'm not sure how "religious alienation" is an inaccurate reflection of the source. Even so, I'm completely open to suggestions as to how it could be better phrased. As for the use of the primary material at all, see User_talk:Casliber. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You still have not addressed the location of the religious statement per my objection, as well as that of User:Tony1 and User:Delldot (or whomever). Nor the use of a primary source there when review articles are available. Is your use of a primary source justified here  per WP:MEDRS? Your link to User talk:Casliber is just Casliber's opinion, nothing more.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Among other things, WP:MEDRS states that a citation of a primary source "should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors." Because I'm citing the abstract--i.e., the authors' summary/interpretation of their own work--I don't see any problems there. It also says, "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." As it's worded now, a primary source and a secondary source are complementing one another--i.e., depression up, religious alienation up (primary); depression down, religious involvement up (secondary): no debunking or contradicting there. WP:MEDRS is saying to be careful with primary sources, and I haven't seen any demonstration of a lack of care. As for the location, I thought your objection was based on the use of a 36-year-old source and therefore a potential WP:WEIGHT concern. That source has not been cited ever since you removed it from the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It is confusing. But to be clear, I have also objected per the objections of User:Tony1 (" A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section "Psychological",) and User:Delldot's statement (I think it is his - hard to tell with all the interruptions and diversions) objecting to the inclusion of the religious statement in the first paragraph of "Psychological causes". To quote User:Delldot (or whomever) " A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith. -  non-sequitur there, maybe would fit in with a list of events that can precipitate it (e.g. Vulnerability factors—namely early maternal loss...)."


 * Also, I do not think "religious alienation" statement can be generalized to the entire population by citing one study using "a nonclinical sample of 200 college students and a clinical sample of 54 persons seeking outpatient psychotherapy". That is the problem with using primary sources. If you had a review article saying the same thing, then your primary source could be used as an example to amplify the point. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, although subtle aspects of the wording already seem to assign greater weight to the secondary source: "Depression may also be connected to feelings of religious alienation [primary source]; conversely, depression is less likely to occur among those with high levels of religious involvement [secondary source]" (emphasis added). Those subtleties are accidental, but they nonetheless seem to imply that we should accept the primary source somewhat more tentatively (and this is the point that seems to underlie WP:MEDRS). I think the major issue regarding generalizability, though, is one you brought up earlier: It's unclear how well the entire article applies to non-Western cultures. The discussion in Major_depressive_disorder leads me to think that much of it might not apply very well (although the presence of that discussion is reason enough for me, at least, not to oppose FA status on account of the Western slant). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Mattisse continues from above interuptions)
 * Further, objections raised above by all parties are almost impossible to follow because of the constant interruption by other editors, either responsive or off topic, so it is impossible to determine who said what. Objections about content are replied to with objections about italics or references and such so there is no continuity. Therefore, it is very hard to identify what objections have or have not been addressed, especially with the constant rewording of the article by many editors. The article appears to be influx.
 * I echo Snowman's comment above for the reasons he gives: "I think that the "support" given much earlier by the editors of this article in this review above can be disregarded." &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Beck questionnaire: In the following reference (Meta-analysis of the factor structures of four depression questionnaires: Beck, CES-D, Hamilton, and Zung. ): The Beck Depression Inventory or BDI (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) is probably the best known and most widely used depression scale. Reviews of the Beck Depression Inventory are available elsewhere (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988; Richter, Werner, Heerlein, Kraus, & Sauer, 1998). Is it enough? I'll try to access also those reviews.-Garrondo (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This one is the definitive one, althought a bit old: Over the years the BDI has become one of the most widely used instruments not only for assessing the intensity of depression in psychiatrically diagnosed patients (Piotrowski, Sherry,& Keller, 1985), but also for detecting depression in normal populations (Steer,Beck, & Garrison, 1986). (PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY:TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF EVALUATION; Clinical Psychology review;8; 77-100; 1988). I'll add it to the article tomorrow if nobody objects.--Garrondo (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is 20 years ago, a long way from today's practices which have changed radically since then. How about a more recent review? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by User:Casliber moved by someone to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart
 * I know, I'll try to look for more (recent) refs. It is hard to look for psychology articles since I do not have access to many of them. I have found many saying explicitely that is one of the most used questionnaries but not saying that it is used for diagnosis... I am sure it has to be there, but I can not find a more recent one for the moment. I will keep trying. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One more: I can not find the perfect one: This one is a primary source; however it could be of use due to three facts: 1- The sentence extracted is from the review of the article; 2- it is a descriptive article in the sense that its main aim is to try to describe the psychometric characteristics of the BDI. I'll continue searching if reviewers feel it is not yet enough. 3-It if from this same year. The article is: Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) among community-dwelling older adults. . The quote is: The Beck Depression Inventory–II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) is an immensely popular screening instrument for depression among adults and adolescents--Garrondo (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After a lot of search I have finally foundet a secondary source, and with it fully rewritten the section. Most important change is to point that screening is not diagnosis. Take a look at it. Apart from the probably needed copy-edit I am very happy with it, and I think that you will probably also be. Bests regards. --Garrondo (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Colin 2


 * Comment Snowmanradio and Mattisse have made some comments that the article has radically changed (especially the lead), the article is in flux and that early supportive reviews should be disregarded. A few observations:
 * The article has changed from when I reviewed it to now. See this diff. Looking at that diff, you'd think the lead had been totally rewritten along with a number of other paragraphs.
 * However, analysing the 400 or so sentences of body text show that only 25% have been altered at all. Most of those changes appear to be copyedits though some do affect meaning and a small amount of new material has been added (but not much). You can see a sentence-level diff here (I've moved some sentences around to match the original, but otherwise the text is unchanged). Even the lead looks to have had just a copyedit.
 * In my experience (not as extensive as some here) the lead is always a fertile ground for review comments. Everyone has their own idea about what to emphasise in those few paragraphs. Writing a good lead is hard but worth expending much effort on because that's all many readers will consume. It is also the playground of the uninformed -- well-meaning copyedits and additions that end up distancing the text from its sources.
 * Similary, the Causes section is the most difficult in this article, and has also seen a higher number of edits.
 * An awful lot of FAC discussion concerns the religious sentence and the Beck questionnaire. Improvements to both of these are probably better handled on the article talk page than FAC IMO.
 * Not all reviewers are subject experts or have access to the sources used, but they may be experienced in other areas that are also important for FAC.
 * I don't feel the article has changed substantially enough for me to revise my earlier opinion (made after spending several hours reading the text closely).
 * I respect the expert opinions being made by all parties. I really hope that any tension can be dissipated and you guys can improve this important topic.

Colin°Talk 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments were directed at only the editors of the article who were very early supporter of the article, and not to yourself actually. These people has declared an interest in the article with their support opinion. No one, has suggested that your "support" should be disregarded. Being a medical article, I think that errors in it are a fatal flaw. I think that some copy edits can change the emphasis significantly, and the initial problem may only be apparent to people who know a bit about the subject matter. I think an assessment of the overall change will need to include an examination of each individual correction to make an informed opinion of the recent changes that perhaps you were not anticipating. I would have thought that most of this changes are concentrated in the sections that have been under the microscope, and I expect that more errors will be repaired. How important is the factual content of a medical article?  Are you saying that it is fine for a FA to have an problem in 1 in 4 sentences? Snowman (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WIAFA: "1(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not a FA. It is currently a B, having missed out the GA step. Snowman (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Anyway, change does not necessarily mean factual correction, much has been done to make it more widely accessible to a wider audience, as I realised above, just about everyone who has reviewed so far has some familiarity with the material, which means we may be blind to words which are not directly understood (e.g. medical history debate above etc), and here Snowman your contributions are very important. I have seen cirticism levelled at articles for being too technical elsewhere.


 * Much of the changes still strike me as fine tuning, (bets sources, fine grammatical tuning etc.) so we are getting there. colin has added his input, and hopefully others are still keeping an eye on it too.'' Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cosmic Latte


 * Comment: Earlier delldot stated, "I would get rid of the first para under 'Efficacy of medication and psychotherapy' (or leave one sentence of summary) and merge the second into the medication section"; other editors have also voiced concerns about this section. I fully agree with delldot's idea. For one thing, even though this may be a minor issue here (because the comparative efficacy of these things is a legitimate and active academic topic), we want to avoid being too original in our synthesis of findings. Second, the first paragraph of the efficacy section, while well-researched and well-written, leaves me scratching my head a bit. Because it essentially informs us that antidepressants may be better than placebo, but they're still nothing to celebrate--and neither is psychotherapy. My problem isn't that this is grim--the findings are what they are--but that it's just not much, and that this not-muchness has taken a fairly long passage to articulate. Additionally, the efficacy section seems to ignore or gloss over a lot of things, such as publication bias (as Casliber mentioned) and what is actually meant by "psychotherapy" and "antidepressants" (given that there are multitudes of psychotherapies and antidepressants, several of which the article already discusses independently). Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Colin too found that section an issue and I have been pondering that section's removal, although those metaanalyses did hit the popular press in a big way. I was tempted to reduce it two 2-3 sentences (will take this to article talk). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We know that the popular press will, seemingly arbitrarily, seize on a particular study (because it was put forward by interested parties?) and promote the heck out of it, generally misrepresenting it. So I don't think the fact "those metaanalyses did hit the popular press in a big way" is particularly meaningful for the purposes of this article.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Garrondo 2

I want to state that I had never read the article before my review: I had some problems with the article that were solved and then I gave my support. Only afterwards I have got involved with the article (and not really so much)... so I had no COI when I voted. Some comments above almost seem accusive.--Garrondo (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not said anything inaccurate, as far as I know. I would like to know what is an unstable article, and if the article has been unstable during this FA given the number edits, and it starting as a B Class. As my comment above indicates, I was not implying that your surrort should be disregarded, as you were not an main editor of the article at the time you gave your support opinion. I respect you opinion, but for me, the article is not quite at FA yet. I would like to see what becomes of my copy edits mainly of two sections that I have made this morning. To me, provisionally, the latter half of the article looks good enough. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already answered above: edits made in response to the FAC process are not considered contributing to instability. (Also, GA is not a requisite step to FA.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've made a deal of progress down the page, I would like your opinion on Talk:Major_depressive_disorder beofre I hop into bed (it is after midnoght here and I will thus not be editing for a while). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the stability issue: As far as I know stability has nothing to do with not being GA before the FAC proccess, and neither with the number of edits during the FAC proccess: most of this editions have come due to the FAC (We could ask Casliber the number of editors and editions before it entered the FAC but I doubt that there were many), and probably as soon as the article does or does not get the star they would rapidly decrease; so from my point of view there is no problem regarding the stability criterium. Much more important is the fact that you and other reviewers think that there are factual innacuracies, (but even that is just an opinion). However much effort is being held by Casliber to address all points and even more important, to stay calm and polite in this maremagnum of comments and contracomments. Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no longer sufficent reasons for me to actively appose FA status, based on the sections of the article that I am most interested in, so I withdraw my appose and I have put a strike thouth my oppose made on 2 November 2008. My active current postion is Neutral. If the article was to eventually pass as FA, I would be pleased. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still finding things to fix in the sections I am interested in. I need to check a few things with websites and text books (to list souses), as there is a few more repairs and additions I would like to do, which might take a bit longer. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fvasconcellos


 * I think there is a typo in the tl;tr bit or whatever it is. Anyway, to add to this; I do not understand "Classification has favored a single disorder since the creation of the term major depressive disorder in 1980", although I think I partially know what it is trying to say. I think that the ratios of male to female would be easy to add to the introduction, instead of saying females a have more depression than males. Some other qualitative statements might also be changed to quantitative ones. Snowman (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, since 1920 (well, since Kraepelin really) there has been arguments over whether there is a single entity or distinct biological and psycho-social entities (i.e. endogenous and reactive depression), but this has largely ended with the creation of MDD in DSMIII in 1980. The note on women is at the bottom of para 2 in the introduction. I was thinking of moving the segment starting "The course of the disorder varies widely,... to the end of para 2 onto the end of para 1, then combining what was left of para 2 and 3 as assessment segues into treatment Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes quite, and that is obvious. MDD is the cluster combining endogenous and reactive depression. It really says classification favoued a single disorder since two disorders were lumped together under a single label. So it says it is a single disorder since it was called a single disorder. It might add that there was no significant difference between the two former groups as well, which is the nitty gritty. I will improve the line and it might take a few edits and perhaps others will look in. Sometimes, new visitors to an article can different problems than those close to it. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana


 * Comment. I would like to see a little more about medieval diagnosis/treatment and details about the social attitudes towards depression that fuel (or are part of) the social stigma, but the lack of additional detail on these points would not prevent me from supporting the article. Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note. Some of the citations are incomplete, missing page numbers and/or ISBN/ISSN/PMID/OCI numbers. Vassyana (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Missing book page numbers has been insanely frustrating as it wasn't me who put the books in; some articles are not indexed on pmid, and I did try to search with pmid added to article name in google. Any help in this area much appreciated, I will see what I can do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. My primary concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Some of the references need reference numbers (DOI, ISBN, etc) and need to placed in a consistant format (cite journal, etc), but that is minor work (that I am helping with) and does not negate my support for this otherwise comprehensive and well-written article. Vassyana (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 6


 * Comment - Is this article about depression in general or Major depression? The word "depression" is used through out, but most of the references (especially primary sources) do not specify what type of depression is being discussed or mention dysthymia or just "depression". Other points, on briefly scanning the article.
 * Bias and undue weight to certain countries and western world. Example: Is Samuel Johnson so important to the history and theory of Major depression that he needs three wikilinks and two mentions in two separate sections, plus a photo?
 * I have reduced overlinking in Samuel Johnson but left the picture.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it the "German physician Johann Christian Heinroth", "German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin" and "English psychiatrist Henry Maudsley" when the nationality and occupation of most other names are not mentioned?
 * I did not feel really bad at saying nationalities and occupation, however I have eliminated most of them in the sociocultural section. I will take a similar look at history.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done also for history.--Garrondo (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikilink to Gordon Parker is not of FA quality. What is the point of the link if the article does not even reference that he is notable and does not contain any info relevant to his mention in this article?
 * Well: I feel it's better to leave it... It probably is one of the best ways of improving wikipedia; and nevertheless is better than nothing.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Section "Efficacy of medication and psychotherapy" is confusing.
 * the over effect of antidepressants often does not exceed National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence criteria for a clinically significant effect - does this mean it met but did not exceed?
 * "In particular, the effect size was very small for moderate depression although did increase with severity and reach clinical significance for very severe depression" - are you talking about moderate Major depression and very severe Major depression?
 * "These results were consistent with the earlier clinical studies in which only patients with severe depression benefited from either psychotherapy or treatment with an antidepressant, imipramine, more than from the placebo treatment." But then in the next paragraph: "Antidepressants in general are as effective as psychotherapy for major depression, and this conclusion holds true for both severe and mild forms of major depression." - however, you have not given much evidence of the effectiveness of psychotherapy, so what is this statement saying?
 * "In contrast, medication gives better results for dysthymia" - why mention this as it is not Major depression? Does it not just confuse the general reader?
 * "Successful psychotherapy appears to prevent the recurrence of depression" - is this Major depression here? Or other types of depression, or what?
 * The only references give for the effectiveness of psychotherapy are to two very specific types, Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (which from the wikilink, seems a very specific type) and a meta-analysis of three controlled trials of Short Psychodynamic Supportive Psychotherapy, again a very specific type of psychotherapy.
 * Agreed. A pretty good consensus has developed at Talk:Major_depressive_disorder that this section needs to go. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Andidepressant is wikilinked twice plus a reference to the main article, Perhaps this is O.K.
 * Why is "despite the prologed antidepressant treatment" piped in Easter egg fashion to Tachyphylaxis, a poor, uninformative article?
 * Confusing quote within a quote remains (noted 3 times above): "Such loss results in "a profoundly painful dejection, cessation of interest in the outside world, loss of the capacity to love, inhibition of all activity, and a lowering of self-regarding feelings" that is more severe than mourning. - In mourning 'it is the world that has become poor and empty; in [depression] it is the ego itself.'"
 * Aaron T. Beck is mentioned and wikilinked in two different sections of the article. Perhaps these mentions should be tied together, so the second mention does not seem as if this is a first mention. Allude to the first mention or something.
 * If loneliness is a differential diagnosis, then I think there are many others that could be added, social alienation, poverty, religious alienation, and others that are mentioned in the "Social causes".
 * I agree. Anonymaus voiced a similar concern on the talk page, and I've moved and modified the loneliness bit in response. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevant discussion at Talk:Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (loneliness segment now removed - for reasons I agree with on talk WRT negative emotions, also does not appear in review articles. ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Style issue: Many of the sections suffer from choppiness - containing a monotonous series of short paragraphs. Such sections as "Psychological causes" have a monotonous series of same-sized paragraphs. Some copy editing for paragraph variety and continuity would improve the article.
 * (minor pick) Calling Abraham Maslow the "father of humanistic psychology" seems a trite and overused term. Even the referenced PDF uses quotes for "father". Why not be more accurate about his relationship to humanistic psychology? The wikilinked article on Humanistic psychology does not support this simplistic accreditation.
 * Hope I am being clear. I can clarify more if needed. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Agree, changed to his nationality and occupation, was considering 'Proponent' as it comes straight after sentence containing humanistic psychology) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I would not favor the elimination of nationality and occupation for persons mentioned. I would favor the addition to all names. I would give a clearer view of the breathe and width of names mentioned in the article (world bias), without having to resort to the wikilinks, which in many cases are poor. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ''(Agree with the last, my own preference is as above, "The German psychiatrist x" etc as I feel the two words help enlighten in an instant who someone is and why/how they might be important. Any selective use of descriptors was an accidental oversight and not intended. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Suggest renaming article for reasons given: Major depressive disorder is wrong name for this article &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I refer you some archived discussion at Name of page, and keep a neutral position on the name of the page myself, at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Page traffic, Depression outweighs Major depressive disorder. Compare Schizophrenia &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do the page stats indicate for May? Did you choose May because of any page name changes or changes of redirects? Snowman (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. But that is a good point. I am aware that most depression-related articles redirect to Major depressive disorder. I used May because the tool did not bog down. But now I am able to get September, but not October. Here is September: Depression, Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia. You are right. Major depressive disorder is not that much under depression any more, only 15,000 less. Still way under Schizophrenia, which you would think in the public mind would not be more popular. I don't know when all those redirects were put in. The depression disambig page only gives the two choices. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had noticed the jump before and I wondered whether it was because of the last few months of active editing, but could that be responsible for that many extra hits?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When did the forced choice disambig page go in?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this accounts for it. The disambig page used to have 7 choices for depression - now it has only two. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I still feel that you should qualify statements by country per world bias. In the lead: "These two sub-groups have shown identical clinical courses, and in 1980 the term major depressive disorder was coined for the combined continuum, and has become widely used." Add in Europe and United States, or wherever (per talk page) you say it has been adopted. In South America? India? Bangladesh? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you have got something there. I have already invited others to look at it with a view to further modification (see above), but my version seems to have lasted about a whole day. I think that you suggestions are entirely logical and follows-on from what I have suggested, and perhaps you or others can follow-on from what you have just suggested. It needs to be very brief for the introduction. Presumably something can be summaried from the "DSM IV-TR and ICD-10 criteria" section, or is it enough that more is in this section? Snowman (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think the emphasis on English/British/Australian people, institutes, etc. contributes to a biased presentation and is not world wide. The repeated emphasis on "black dog" is a reflection of this narrow view and the Australian "Black Dog Institute", as is emphasis on Australian Gordon Parker with no ref showing the importance of these over other noted institutions and researchers. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

* Comment one: Need reference for this statement: "The term Major depressive disorder was introduced by a group of US psychiatrists in the mid-1970s as part of proposals for diagnostic criteria based on patterns of symptoms (called the "Research Diagnostic Criteria", building on earlier Feighner Criteria)"  - Specifically for "building on earlier Feighner Criteria" -  My  is removed but no source provided. The reference given does not support the statement.
 * Further comments -
 * It's already cited: Major_depressive_disorder, i.e., : "This first paper presents a descriptive comparison of the definitions given in the Feighner Diagnostic Criteria, the Research Diagnostic Criteria, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition and third edition, revised, and in two developmental drafts of the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for research."
 * You are misreading the reference. It is comparison study: "We will therefore present a series of studies, describing six different operational definitions of major depression according to their content and construction and empirically comparing them in large inpatient and outpatient samples." &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a book ref I can add tonight when I get home and have time free (12 hours away). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment two: Need more sourced info on developments of versions of DSM since the article is based on the diagnostic manual terminology and criteria. e.g. what went into the decision-making in determining the criteria and format (axes etc.) and why was it adopted world wide? This is passed over and barely mentioned although article is based on it. There is no sense of the collaborative effort entailed in determining format and criteria. Saying "introduced by a group of US psychiatrists" does not cover it. Psychologists, researcher, others are part of the work groups that develop  editions of DSM, not just psychiatrists.
 * The APA (American Psychiatric Association) was responsible, hence most of the working group I suspect were psychiatrists. Need to keep on topic and much of this may be better embellished on DSM page rather than this one, as alot or DSM was changed. Anyway, I will see if anything specific to MDD needs to be added. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably most were but not all. I know Theodore Millon was involved because I have a book on the DSM process by him. Their working groups were multidisciplinary, but probably dominated by psychiatrists. (Too lazy to look it up but I will if I have to resort to his book to quell misperceptions in this article.) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful and I would be very grateful for some stuff specific to MDD in DSM III. thanks :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no point, as the article is not really about Major depressive disorder as defined by DSM. It appears to be about various forms of depression in general. Many of not most of the references do not use the term Major depressive disorder. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment three: Undue weight: Samuel Johnson is given more article space than the developers of DSM. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is but a single sentence devoted to Johnson, and multiple paragraphs about the DSM. The DSM is put together by committee--few individuals, with notable exceptions like Robert Spitzer, really stand out. But if Spitzer has said something interesting about depression, then by all means feel free to include it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Example of your bias. Many names stand out to me e.g. Theodore Millon who was a member of DSM work groups. Curious that the persons actually responsible for DSM do not warrant mention. American psychologist/psychiatrist/institutions are neglected in this article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No one claims that individuals responsible for the DSM do not warrant mention; I simply claim that Johnson and Parker do. References to others' contributions to our understanding of depression would be most welcomed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Samuel Johnson is mentioned twice in the article, in two different article sections, plus a photo with more explanation in caption. And he had nothing to do with the history of the development of the concept of depression as used in mental health. He has a literary history in England but is of little relevance to the study of psychology or psychiatry or DSM.
 * ...hence his mention in the more historically-oriented rather than more clinically-oriented part of the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That diff shows the problem of the article name. You are saying you can choose in the social and cultural section to throw in irrelevant material because the article title really means "depression" and not Major depressive disorder. If so, then this section is the equivalent of a Trivia section, in my opinion.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WRT names and scope, there is no perfect answer to this question. I figured on major depressive disorder as that is the DSM IV name which most research etc is done under and hence figures for epidemiology, treatment etc. It more or less corresponds to the older endogenous depression, and to melancholia before that, though there have been shifts in diagnostic yardsticks, and to what is commonly termed depression (i.e. condtion of pervasive low mood impacting on function) in the community. Psych books etc. will talk about all these entities connected with each other when talking about impact/history/public perception etc. I agree the term major depression is commonly seen and repeat my frustration that DSM IV went with major depressive disorder but go with it they did. Now, as I said I am frustrated by a lack of solid material confirming that DSM IV is lingua franca and I will be chuffed if something turns up, but that is somewhat beuyond the scope of the article and more an issue for a DSM or ICD page, or mental health classification etc.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not perfect but as far as I can see is the best fit with all the literature, research and data at hand for the most internally and externally coherent article on the subject. I have seen the term clinical depression about half a dozen terms in my professional life and I work in mental health - no one in mental health calls it that, and outside of mental health it is often shortened to simply depression (as it is in lots of journal articles too). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article name is a tad problematic, but as long as we're talking about folks with serious depression--not those who just "had the blues" some afternoon--then I think we're pretty much on track. Everyone from Galen to Coleridge to Mill to Johnson to Churchill to the DSM authors seems to have been doing pretty much the same thing, namely describing a distinctive type of human experience to the best of their ability. I think it's a mistake to view the DSM as some gold standard against which all other views of depression can be weighed--the DSM is flawed, of course, and open to revision--and thereby (to echo Mattisse) to view trivially varying perspectives as trivia. If I were King of Wikipedia, I'd probably merge Major depressive disorder with Depression (mood) and just call the article "Depression," but I think that as long as we clarify in the beginning that MDD is known by different names, then variation from the DSM term shouldn't cause much confusion, and certainly won't cause any harm. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole issue is what is the definition of depression? Hence attempts at diagnostic criteria. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of opinion, and retrospective diagnoses of historical figures. This article's title is a specific diagnosis, justified by someone's word that this diagnostic term and the manual from which it comes is the lingua franca around the world. I do not know if the world wide use is true. But it does dilute the meaning of the specific term, which has very specific meaning in the US, to a general term meaning depression. The article consequently lacks focus, as it has no anchoring point. Anything pertaining to the word depression can be added.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This "very specific meaning" is presented in Major_depressive_disorder, which also happens to point out that specificity may be overrated: "In addition, some studies have found little empirical support for the DSM-IV cut-off criteria, indicating they are a diagnostic convention imposed on a continuum of depressive symptoms of varying severity and duration." Because Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we can stray a bit from the specifics (without getting too tangential) and discuss generalities, socio-historical contexts, etc. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide references that the diagnostic term, Major depressive disorder, and the manual from which it comes is the lingua franca around the world. Numerous searches do not support that the term Major depressive disorder is wide use. Many different searches, including PMID, support that "depression", "clinical depression" etc. are more common terms in research articles. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment four: Need reliable secondary source for interesting statements made by Gordon Parker on Major depressive disorder or any reference as to his notability regarding Major depressive disorder. His mention is currently not reliably sourced in the article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments from Mattisse - Since the term Major depressive disorder is attributed originally to DSM and is stated to be the lingua franca worldwide, it should be clarified in the beginning of the article that this article is not about the DSM term but rather is being used as a general term to mean depression. Then you could go on to explain what the article means by depression, whatever definition(s) of depression the article thinks is valid. If you remove the pretense that the article is based on the DSM, perhaps the article's lack of continuity and focus could be remedied.
 * DSM is agnostic as to cause. This should be stated if the article purports to be based on the DSM term.
 * Bit of an issue. I wouldn't want to emphasise that too much as DSM is inconsistent on that point, it has numerous conditions where a cause is implied - eg. several disorders due to a a General Medical Condition, the Adjustment Disorders, PTSD and more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These are proximate causes only, used for diagnosis. They do not imply etiology nor explain why one person has an adjustment disorder or PTSD, for example, and another does not. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Parts of the article (90%) have nothing to do with the DSM Major depressive disorder. This needs to be clarified for accuracy
 * The way the article reads now, it is clear that different sections were written by different editors with different emphases and views. Hope this is remedied, as it affects continuity and is jarring.
 * Need reference justifying title that DSM is lingua frana world wide, thus justifying title of article.
 * Need justification for naming article after DSM Major depressive disorder when article is primarily about the generalized term of depression'. Need proof that term is used in most journal articles, as this is not true of article references.
 * Article reflects sexual biases. One example, the mention of male hormones but not female.
 * Reviewers above tend to focus only on the article sections of interest to them, rather than evaluating the flow and continuity of the article as a whole. Encourage reviewers to read entire article before judging.
 * The emphasis of different sections on a restricted range of a world wide view. For example, one section mentions mostly American psychologists/psychiatrists. The social cultural section is almost exclusively English. The Rating Scale section seems to be of most interest to British/Australians. Other sections do not mention any nationalities so are implicitly worldwide, but the actual content is  exclusively Western world. Looking at the references, they reflect articles from only a few countries.
 * Consequently, the article lacks focus and continuity and is biased to the Western world.
 * Do not think http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20001207/suicide-rates-due-to-depression-lower-than-thought is a reliable source. WebMD has to be evaluated carefully. This is a general news article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's peer-reviewed, though, and it summarizes a Mayo Clinic study--the actual text of which, I assume, would support what the article says. But if an even stronger reference comes along, then I'd be all for it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Psychological" section includes social psychologists. Should it be renamed "Psychosocial"? Or moved to "Social" where "psychosocial" is mentioned without explanation?


 * Colonel Warden

1. I have made some edits of this article in the past. I share the concern about its title, as discussed above. Another point, which seems not to have been made, is about the map of suicide rates. This seems inappropriate in that it suggests a direct link between depression and suicide. This is not the case, as suicide may be due to other factors - drug use, shame, cultural factors, opportunity and so on. Japan seems a good counter-example since its rate of depression is stated to be low. We ought to have a map which shows rates of depression directly, not indirectly. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2. While browsing sources, I see the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale being described as the gold standard. Our article gives prominence to another scale: The Beck Depression Inventory is one of the most widely used tools. Our treatment should be more balanced. (BTW, I am making a section for my comments to make editing more convenient.) Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh) agree, I have found some older sources saying Hamilton, others saying Beck, and then if you look at Ref 89, there may be an easy way out of it that I should have realised before as blindingly obvious (Ham and MADRS are observer scales, Beck (and others) are self-rated). I will get onto it. I have reworded it as per the 2003 ref which sums it nicely Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! - I had given up on my Rating Scale complaints. Hopefully Rating Scale section will become more accurate and better referenced.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jbmurray


 * Comment. I haven't read this long article in sufficient detail to support wholeheartedly, but my briefer reading doesn't in general reveal the problems that typically afflict such articles, so you may want to think of this as a qualified support.
 * However, the one area in which I feel I know something is psychoanalysis, and I'm a little unsure about the paragraph about Freud. First, is the article equating "major depressive disorder" with melancholia?  (It doesn't help that the only citation from Freud doesn't make it clear the specific work cited; rather than simply putting Standard Edition vol. 22, please put the name of the essay itself.)  It's probably more or less justifiable to equate major depressive disorder with melancholia, but of course there are very many other forms of neurosis according to Freud.  The specific equation should be clarified, at least.
 * Actually, a quick google suggests that it's not "Mourning and Melancholia" that's been cited, as that essay is in vol. 14 of the Standard Edition. Hmmm.  That does complicate things further.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, it's not particularly helpful to say that psychoanalysis analyzes depression in terms of "self-criticism" (and the linked article is even more unhelpful) as, of course, the nature and identity of the "self" is always to some extent in doubt in psychoanalysis: specifically, the super-ego is not exactly the self, and nor is the ego. The next two sentences are more accurate (though "libidinal cathexis of the ego" is both obscure and vague; isn't the key term here "introjection," as far as I remember), precisely reflecting the fact that in melancholia the self is now up for grabs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a flow of Melancholia --> endogenous depression --> MDD (which has a melancholic subset/modifier within), the boundaries have ebbed and flowed over time. will add some more on the above in a moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Major depressive disorder, as defined by DSM, is not necessarily endogenous depression. You present a flow that is not accepted by the DSM which is agnostic as to cause. I believe it is an open question as to the degree Major depressive disorder reflects endogenous factors, depending on how  you are using the term "endogenous" (the older application of the term, or the wider interpretation sometimes given it today).  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My reading of Casliber's point is the way in which terminology has evolved; he's not talking about causes, but the fact that what was first caused melancholia was later called endogenous depression, and now is called MDD. (Of course, presumably the boundaries of these terms shifts over time, too.)  Am I right, Cas?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More or less, bit like the history of Poland, the borders have shifted a bit :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, by definition, endogenous means internally caused (however you want to define that) and not caused by external factors. That is the problem with the flow. DSM is agnostic as to cause. (Of course, we are not really using the formal meaning of Major depressive disorder but using it to mean "depression" in general in this article.) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any fine-tuning of the Freud paragraph would be most appreciated. And, like you, Casliber, and these authors, I'm not too worried about treating melancholia and depression more or less interchangeably, though I'd certainly welcome additional clarification, even beyond what the history section, the Freud picture caption, and the "Such loss results in severe melancholic symptoms" sentence provide. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "libidinal cathexis of the ego," I have in mind the following passage from those same authors: "To summarise the key processes involved in depression as outlined by Freud: the illness is triggered by the loss of an object imbued with a particularly intense level of libidinal cathexis, there is a forced withdrawal of cathexis, a regression of libido into the ego, a critical judgement of the ego based on its failure to live up to ideals, and a simultaneous attacking of the ego by repressed emotions felt towards the lost object." Yet introjection also sounds right--maybe that's the simpler term? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a stab at a bit of fine-tuning, if I can get hold of my copy of the Freud. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I now have a copy of Freud's Mourning and melancholia, with a commentary, as well as another primer of Freudian psychology by Calvin S. Hall and will update the passage soon. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Skagedal
 * I support this FAC. Some of the issues discussed above I agree with, some I don't agree with, and then I have some issues of my own, but since I don't see any of them as "not good enough for FA", I'd rather discuss them on the talk page. Great work on this article! /skagedal... 13:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated ! Thanks for your input as you came up witha few very helpful suggestions :)))  Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Eusebeus
 * I am happy to support the promotion of this article. None of the objections raised above appears to disqualify it from being an FA. Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of objections - Summary of my current objections, as suggested by Sandy:
 * Mattisse 7
 * I object to the misuse of sources in this article. For example, I object to the use of a philosopher Martin Heidegger as reference under "Causes - Psychological " to support scientifically derived data per WP:MEDRS It is dated evidence in addition to being the opinion of a philosopher. My objections are removed with the edit summary that proof is in a book.
 * I'll try to adress some of your problems with sources as stated in inline notes or comments those that I do not agree with.First of all I want to say that it is an easy way of making points for improval, and will proably render in this page being cleanear and adressing points faster.--Garrondo (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Causes section: WHAT IS POINT OF TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE REFERENCES TO TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES IN THE SAME YEAR BY THE SAME AUTHOR IN SAME JOURNAL: Reduced to only one. Enough to make point.--Garrondo (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Causes/Biological section:TWO REFERENCES IN A ROW TO SAME ARTICLE THAT COVERS OVER HALF OF PARAGRAGH ON IMPORTANT THEORY-VARIETY IN SOURCES WOULD BE BETTER: I do not feel this is a problem if the source is of quality; it only means that somebody has used the ref to writte the section and adds it twice so it is hardert to misplace it. (My case for example: I give a ref every sentence, so it is easier to attribute its corresponding source after many editions)--Garrondo (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Causes/Biological section: ISSN NUMBER GOES TO PAGE NOT FOUND: Changed to free access article in pubmed central by same authors and title: The new ref is: Cutter WJ, Norbury R, Murphy DG (July 2003). "Oestrogen, brain function, and neuropsychiatric disorders". J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 74 (7): 837–40. . . --Garrondo (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary source reference to religion in the lead para of "Psychological causes" has not been fixed. Further, there is still no justification provided to include religion in the first para of this section to exclusion of other purported causes, per Tony1 and Delldot above.
 * What "other purported causes" do you have in mind? I don't think that anyone would object to more causes being mentioned there, but the prevalence of religiosity among the human population surely affords it some prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per User:Delldot and User:Tony1 above. Tony said "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section "Psychological". Delldot said, "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith. - non-sequitur there, maybe would fit in with a list of events that can precipitate it (e.g. Vulnerability factors—namely early maternal loss...)." I think these comments still apply. I agree that the inclusion of religion here in the first para of that section is inappropriate and is a non-sequitur. It should be grouped with a discussion of events or factors that may precipitate depression.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per examples in my inline notes, the material of many sources is misrepresented in the article's statements. Many refer to a specific study in a specific geographical area of the world but are presented as general fact. Many state they have substantial methodological flaws that render the data questionable, yet they also reference statements of fact.   WP:MEDRS states that a citation of a primary source "should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors."
 * Primary sources are over used in this article, per examples in my inline examples.
 * Inline examples or Primary or unrelaible sources all addressed by removing sentences or replacing with Review Articles or reworded to reflect the studies Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DSM is agnostic as to cause. This should be stated if the article purports to be based on the DSM term.
 * Parts of the article (90%) have nothing to do with the DSM Major depressive disorder. This needs to be clarified for accuracy
 * I have no idea where you pulled that figure from and strikes me as very different from what I see when I break the article down into sections Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The way the article reads now, it is clear that different sections were written by different editors with different emphases and views. Hope this is remedied, as it affects continuity and is jarring.
 * Need reference justifying title that DSM is lingua franca world wide, thus justifying title of article.
 * Extraneous to topic at hand - is a WP:MEDMOS issue Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Need justification for naming article after DSM Major depressive disorder when article is primarily about the generalized term of depression'. Need proof that term is used in most journal articles, as this is not true of article references, as 90% do not mention Major depressive disorder.
 * Repeated your point above, which is incorrect anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Article reflects sexual biases. One example, the mention of male hormones but not female.
 * (addressed. found ample reviews - interesting how they do not appear im much of the mainstream epidemiology of depression) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The emphasis of different sections on a restricted range of a world wide view. For example, one section mentions mostly American psychologists/psychiatrists. The social cultural section is almost exclusively English.  Other sections do not mention any nationalities so are implicitly worldwide, but the actual content is  exclusively Western world. Looking at the references, they reflect articles from only a few countries.
 * Bulk of research and assessment is carried on in western world, some material has already incorporated from developing world, which reflects weight, i.e. meagre research and treatment there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You should state the country the research is from. For example, some statements appear to apply to the UK and related countries only but are made in a way that implies global use. I agree that this as improved somewhat in the article but is still a problem, but it is a lingering concern. When I question something on the talk page, I often get the answer that this is the case in the UK or Australia, so therefore the global statement is justified. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Consequently, the article lacks focus and continuity and is biased to the Western world.
 * Again, reflects weight WRT research/treatment etc. Many of the overviews (eg WHO) have global scope. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know what WRT means. (I have been wondering.) Again, please state country producing the research. Often the references are limited to a narrow scope. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WRT is an acronym for With Respect To... Many articles are now review articles. I am in the process of reviewing the remaining primary sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to Samuel Johnson's photo as irrelevant. I object to his mention in two separate sections of the article, as I do not believe he had a major impact on the history and development of our concept of depression.
 *  It is a painting, and images have been hard to find to adorn the article. I would welcome more free/public domain images if they could be found. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Removed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is decorative in nature, which is not a justification for an image. This necessitates having to mention Samuel Johnson again in a second section in order to justify using his pix. Samuel Johnson is given more emphasis (mention in 2 different sections + photo) than issues and people actually related to the history and development of the concept of Major depressive disorder.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am happy to go with consensus on the Johnson painting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go with consensus, too, although I currently see only one person objecting to the image. Who says that decorativeness can't be a justification for decorating? Sometimes it's nice to liven things up a bit. I'm no fan of colour-for-colour's-sake, but neither am I fond of making mountains out of molehills. The article isn't so splashy as to distract one from the text. If we can find more images of folks who helped to develop the DSM and such, then great, but until then, the wise words of Sir Paul come to mind. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead should clarify the terminology being used; that is, this is the DSM version and not the World Health Organizations's definition in ICD-10 of Recurrent depressive disorder (http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf30.htm+f33) so to be clear to readers from countries or organizations not using DSM.
 * I would have added it. I am not sure what version of DSM, so I put something brief in hidden text for others to pick off. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DSM and APA have been added to the introduction in a steps by three editors. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1989/A1989U309700001.pdf documents that psychologists as well as psychiatrists were involved in the original development of DSM, not just "group of US psychiatrists" as the article suggests.
 * Changed from " was introduced by a group of US psychiatrists" to  "a group of US psychiatrists and psychologists". No new ref added. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

- Why is  tachyphylaxis is hidden within this link?
 * (removed) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From the lead: "The most common time of onset is between the ages of 30 and 40 years, with a later peak between 50 and 60 years." Is there a reference for this, as the article body does not discuss age of onset? It mentions "people under the age of 18 years" three times, but otherwise age is not addressed, except for "older people with depression" and some emphasis on "children".
 * (this is in para 2 of epidemiology section) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But why is there so much emphasis in the article on "children" and "people under 18", when by definition in the lead "The most common time of onset is between the ages of 30 and 40 years, with a later peak between 50 and 60 years."? Are we talking about the same type of depression here? What is the incidence of children diagnosed with "Major depressive disorder" compared to those ages 30 and over?
 * I have no idea where you get the impression children and adolescents are overemphasised. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the lead: "Depressed individuals have a shorter life expectancy than those without depression." This is not referenced in the lead and is not mentioned in the article.
 * Added ref in the lead and added to the prognosis section .--Garrondo (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there references for these overlapping explanatory concepts of the Biopsychosocial model and the Diathesis–stress model? The wikilinks are very poor articles and do not help to explain.
 * Fixed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this statement is not quite correct: "Learned helplessness and depression may be related to what American psychologist Julian Rotter, a social learning theorist, called an external locus of control, a tendency to attribute outcomes to events outside of personal control." - I do not believe Rotter ever made the connection. Although they can appear related, to actually connect them I believe is WP:SYN. Social learning theory is quite different from operant conditioning.
 * Standardize USA and US. The use is not consistent throughout the article. Also spelling. Are you using American or British spelling ? Aetiology vs. etiology?
 * Should all be US spelling. I think we've got them all now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This statement is contradictory, saying the results were significant, then saying the result could not be separated from placebo. Furthermore, it arbitrarily selects a form of psychotherapy that is not widely practiced and does not give a reference as to its popularity or why it was singled out for mention: "Two randomized, controlled trials of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, which includes elements of meditation, have been reviewed. It was significantly more effective than usual care for the prevention of recurrent depression in patients who had had three or more depressive episodes. According to the review, the usual care did not include antidepressant treatment or any psychotherapy, and the improvement observed may have reflected the non-specific or placebo effects. "
 * Agree that the efficacy doesn't look astounding from that ref, but both cognitive therapy and meditation are widely practiced, so I'd say that the intersection of the two, while necessarily less common than either in isolation, meets WP:N, especially given that it is sourced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that forms of cognitive therapy is practiced and most  especially cognitive behavioral therapy is widely practiced but meditation therapy? That I have not seen, except maybe in new age oriented centers with yoga exercise classes. And the specific Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy that you wikilink to, I have never heard of. It seems like one of the many specific programs practitioners come up with to package and promote. Why do you single it out?
 * I'm not sure who added that one--I think it was in there before I started getting involved with the article--but I'd say that, of all the non-mainstream approaches that could be mentioned, a variation of a mainstream approach might be among the most appropriate. It has also gotten a glowing review by Daniel Goleman, who is a rather well-respected psychologist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you look at where that link comes from? It is an Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy company web site advertizing Daniel Goleman's book called The Mindful Way Through Depression. Of course it is "glowing". Just as I thought. It is a program that is promoted for private gain. From the website:
 * "'Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) was developed by Zindel Segal, Mark Williams and John Teasdale, based on Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction programme. The MBCT programme was designed specifically to help people who suffer repeated bouts of depression.'"
 * It is a sales site, promoting the sales of training, CDs, 8 weeks of classes! Besides, it does not pretend to treat Major depressive disorder. I am giving up. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Er...no, Goleman is not giving his own book a good review. The book is by the creators of the therapy. Goleman, who is perhaps second in prominence only to Howard Gardner when it comes to alternative theories of intelligence--and who, therefore, would not appear to have any vested interest in promoting any form of psychotherapy for depression--is giving their book a glowing review. This, along with WP:GNG (see also here), would seem to qualify it for inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the book he is "glowingly" reviewing is on a sales site for Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy. We all know that some professionals profit from promoting certain for-profit therapies, and that seem very much to be what is going on here. A "glowing review" is not a professional view. Further, the article on Goleman says he was a reporter for the NYTimes. (May not be true as little in that article seems accurate.) One journal article does not prove that Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy is more than a for-profit program. This reminds me of the unremitting insistence on Gordon Parker and the "Black Dog Institute". Why do you guys have such an investment in these questionable additions to the article? Please do not refer me to amazon.com for any kind of verification. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why do you guys have such an investment in these questionable additions to the article?" One could just as well ask, "Why do you have such an investment in restricting the article to mainstream views?" Some of us just take a more inclusionistic approach to the article than others; I suppose it's largely a matter of personal taste (and as Dweller points out above, WP:FAC isn't suppoed to be about personal taste), but we're adhering to WP:GNG and WP:V; we're not violating anything. I actually consider myself a bit more of an exclusionist overall, but because mainstream approaches to mental health have been subjected to so much criticism, I feel it is important to present some alternative perspectives, within reason. In this case, the reason stems from A) the fact that MBCT is a variation of an unquestionably notable practice (cognitive therapy), and B) the fact that it is unilaterally endorsed by Goleman, to whom I don't feel some need to ascribe ulterior motives. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is saturated with non mainstream view in psychology. Also, the title of this article, Major depressive disorder, is very mainstream. So how much leeway do you have to wander into your pet theories here? I get back to my original question, is Major depressive disorder the correct name for this article. Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy does not purport to treat Major depressive disorder in its adverts. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd opt for renaming, although Casliber raises a good objection. Either way, the sources I provided refer to "repeated bouts of depression" and "recurrent depression", which seem to be in the ballpark. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I take "bouts of depression" to be aimed at middle class dissatisfied persons "with bouts"  who  are willing to spend money for 8-week classes, take meditation classes and buy books and CDs&mdash;not a genuinely depressed person, in the sense of Major depressive disorder, as that sort of person is not out shopping on the internet and buying books from amazon.com.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The previous account suggests that risk of relapse and recurrence in recurrent major depression will be reduced if patients can learn to be aware of negative thinking patterns reactivated during dysphoria and disengage from those ruminative depressive cycles (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). MBCT was designed to achieve these aims (Segal et al., 2002)" (emphasis happily added). Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note from quote above: "Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) was developed by Zindel Segal, Mark Williams and John Teasdale, based on Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction programme." This is a proprietary program. One of the two authors of that article is John Teasdale, one of the developers of the packaged program for sale at the promotional sales site you linked to above. This is like drug outcome research supported by the company selling the drug. Please, find some reliable, second party source evaluations, that is, sources unconnected with the development, promotion, and sales of this proprietary program.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the creators are involved here or here or here or here or here. In fact, none of them were involved with the very first ref I showed you--I just happened to end up citing one of them to demonstrate that "major depression" was being addressed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those references are to some other type of therapy than the Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy glowingly reviewed by Daniel Goleman which its reference in the article says specifically that it is not psychotherapy but rather "class-based". Besides, you should specify that it is UK as in the USA nothing like that has a wide following. I have never heard of it. I know meditation classes are popular but are not remotely considered psychotherapy.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The ref says that it is "class-based," but nowhere does it say that it's not a form of psychotherapy. Last I knew, a therapy (even a group or "class-based" therapy) designed to treat a mental disorder is "psychotherapy", and I don't see how this fails to qualify. It's basically CBT + meditation; CBT is psychotherapy; and I don't suppose some chemical reaction occurs when you combine the two, such that there's no longer any psychotherapy in the mixture. By the way, this ref and this ref above do mention MBCT explicitly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) is Cognitive behavioral therapy + meditation? (Please don't quote dictionary definitions to support your view). The full reference to the article sourcing that section says the "usual care" excluded antidepressant and psychotherapy, and that was one of the methodological problems with the database review of studies of (MBCT). &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mindfulness cognitive therapy (or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, MBCT) is a blend of two very different approaches — cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)...and the meditative practice of mindfulness...This is a newer (1979) add-on approach to traditional cognitive behavioral therapy". And "Some of the key ideas in mindfulness based psychotherapy and research are radically different from our cultural (and perhaps human) assumptions". I don't know what the full text of the ref cited in the article says, but all I see is that "the usual care" did not include pyschotherapy; nowhere I do see any indication that the alternative approach, namely MBCT, is not psychotherapy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that does address Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) which is a class-based program per : "The MBCT programme takes the form of 8 weekly classes, plus an all-day session held at around week 6. A set of 5 CDs accompany the programme, so that participants can practise at home once a day throughout the course." Per, MBCT classes: "In MBCT programmes, participants meet together as a class (with a mindfulness teacher) two hours a week for eight weeks, plus one all day session between weeks 5 and 7. The main ‘work’ is done at home between classes. There is a set of CDs to accompany the programme, which you use to practise on your own at home once a day. In the classes, there is an opportunity to talk about your experiences with the home practices, the obstacles that inevitably arise, and how to deal with them skilfully." A "teacher" is not a psychotherapist. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already provided a source that calls MBCT "psychotherapy." Care to provide one that restricts psychotherapy to dyads? Given the existence of "group psychotherapy," I imagine this will be a bit of a challenge. Actually, so we don't get too creative here, how about a source that says MBCT in particular isn't psychotherapy? Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Below is a signature of mine that got detached from its comment, I have no idea where.
 * &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy said all my objections should be in one place, Hence I will list them all here.

Supression of scientific evidence and despicable tactics
 * Psychotropic sentence

I've added a well-known scientific study, on the cognitive effects of ECT by Sackheim, and corrected a misleading interpretation of another PLOS study on anti-depressants that was widely publicized. My changes were repeatedly reverted by some of you that keep "reviewing" this article, whatever that means around here.

The 2007 Sackeim study is the first large, well controlled study on cognitive effects of ECT. The cognitive effects were already mentioned in the article three days ago, when I first looked at it, but no reference was provied, so I've added the Sackheim study. Mind you, this was alredy discussed on the article on ECT, even in the lead section, so I assume it had been reviewed here. Nevertherless, this edit of mine to the article on depression were reverted three times already, and replaced with an inferior subjective study on memory.

The 2008 Kirsch study on the effectiveness of anti-depressants was widely-publicized, and the conclusions, both from the study abstract and press reports were quite different from what was written in Major depressive disorder. I simply copied the summary of this study from the SSRI article, where it is correct. Again my changes to Major depressive disorder were reverted two times today.

It is odd that this Wikipedia article presents a different perspective on treatment, both on ECT and anti-depressants, compared to the specialized articles on ECT and SSRI. I don't have much else to say other than to observe this strage "consensus" has really odd results around here: inferior scientific results displace the well-controlled studies, and well-know studies get distorted compared to what the press reported. Considering the direction that these distortions take, it's not hard for me to imagine who is behind this, and has time for these endless pages of debates. Good night. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sackeim study is a primary source. I note there has been a review article published since, which I will look at am now looking at. It has also referenced the study article and acknowledges variabilities in outcome and difficulties of testing cognition in depressed patients. Found another which also referenced sackeim 2007 and added it. The antidepressant material is discussed in undue depth and used newspaper articles as references as well. I agree there needs to be a note on the issue of moderate depression and will endeavour to add. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A review of issues


 * Dubious phrases in the lead like "communication between nerves", which links to neuron. Since when does nerve mean neuron?
 * (nerve --> nerve cell (shoulda seen that one))
 * Fine. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The attempts to present the diagnostic process in common language aren't terribly convincing either.
 * (o-kay...erm, too much jargon? not enough? lack of accuracy? if you elaborate that would be helpful as converting jargon into plain english and satsifying as many punters as possible would be good.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the purported difference between "supportive counselling" and psychotherapy?
 * (more inclusive, though I get your drift as we have supportive psychotherapy these days - counselling includes talking to those not trained to be psychotherapists)
 * In treatment undertaken outside of secondary care in primary care. in the UK the therapists are generally not trained in formal psychotherapy, but trained in patient care. "Supportive counselling" can by given by a number CPN nurses, doctors (GPs), of occasionally specialist social workers. It is something to do with; improving problem solving skills, improving negotiating skills, questioning assumptions, monitoring mental state. "Supportive counselling" might be called something else outside the UK, so if there is a better name for it then that is fine with me. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not clear what "supportive counselling" is. What you describe above is very general, as "improving problem solving skills, improving negotiating skills, questioning assumptions, monitoring mental state" probably occurs to some degree in all psychotherapy, even if not formally addressed as such. If you mean specifically addressing these issues in a more or less didactic manner, then in the USA that would be called "skills training". &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it is a term that is used in the UK. It is not in depth analysis. I think that it does not concentrate on skill training. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Symptoms and signs? Is this astrology?
 * (no, it was changed around from "signs and symptoms" but still means the same - symptoms is wahat one reports, signs (eg psychomotor retardation) are what the doctor sees)
 * It is the correct term, although a medical term. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Old and obsolete ref 12 (1979) is about Lithium, not SSRI, and the currently accepted mechanism of action for Li isn't that anymore anyway.
 * Fixed here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An introduction is needed for the biology section: main theories, and state that none of the is conclusive; this is a science writing, not a thriller, you need to state the facts, not let the reader wade through theory after theory to come to this conclusion.
 * ( agree. This is a good idea mixed feelings - one has to descibe the theories before rebuttal, of which there is some in the text. I am not sure that an intro sentence listing the theories in hte followin paragraphs would actually be that helpful, and may be a bit too repetitive) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dopamine agonists are mentioned several times, but no examples are give; you probably want bupropion in this context.
 * Need to mention that the serotonin hypothesis is supported by knockout models; this is the "hard" evidence in this area, although the latter sentences discussing the not so convincing results on humans are okay.
 * Valium should be mentioned as historic treatment.
 * (as an anxiolytic yes, but as an antidepressant?? I have not heard this, if you have a reference I would be grateful)
 * Valium is not an antidepressant. It is a sedative and for anxiety. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it isn't effective in treating depression. Nevertheless it was widely prescribed: Christopher M. Callahan, G. E. Berrios, Reinventing Depression: A History of the Treatment of Depression in Primary Care, 1940-2004, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0195165233. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.164.26 (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That book page 107 says it is widely used for mile to moderate emotional problems. I have not read much of the book. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * VNS treatment needs a brief mention; it's FDA approved. (done)
 * The FDA has cleared one rTMS device for depression; the Wikipedia article states the opposite.
 * (missed that update. thanks for the heads up)


 * Over-reliance on citations from a book, especially for statistics, which hides the actual source of information, e.g. the 60% number in the lead.
 * The same observation applies to using numbers indirectly from papers addressed to primary care doctors, like that from Journal of Family Practice. Why not cite the original paper from N Engl J Med, which is a far more prestigious venue? (good idea, read and done)
 * The selection of studies on which some number are based isn't that great; I'd prefer to see numbers from large studies like STAR*D, which is mentioned only for some augmentation (Li I think).
 * As style comment, the article mixes US and British guidelines, and presents them as general facts. Guidelines can differ, for instance in Canada ECT is preferred way more often that it is in the U.S., at least on paper. The article needs to give a very brief intro as to what APA and NICE guidelines are, and properly attribute statements to these sources, or at least specify the country.
 * (for the most part, guidelines are pretty similar, although interpreted differently by clinicians from hospital to hospital or practice to practice, nevertheless I see what you mean and will think about how to do this)


 * No mention of the suicide controversy surrounding SSRI. This is fairly significant: it led to FDA black box label, various studies then tried to determine if the label affected prescription/use etc. I don't expect a full history in this article, but some mention of the controversy seem warranted.
 * Yes, I agree it is brief, particularly with regard to treatment in children. Also withdrawal of SSRI is brief. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (agree a 1-2 sentence heads up is a good idea on both) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Vague language "authorities... " used in the ECT section. While NICE may be a state authority, APA isn't, and the FDA never approved any ECT equipment.


 * (removed last few sentences and left ECT remains a controversial treatment and debate on the extent of cognitive effects and safety continue as the ECT page needs to be the place this is discussed in sufficient detail to d o it justice. Tehre is simply too much argy bargy to go here, so I have left the above as the best factual middle-ground. Funnily enough Sackeim is speaking in Sydney this week :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted.--Garrondo (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also here, a meta-analysis of (subjective) autobiographical memory deficits is not the same as a controlled study of cognitive deficits, which included a wide range of tests. (see preceding)
 * The absolute worst part to me is citing the APA guidelines on childhood symptoms as uncontested facts. First, these criteria are pretty much U.S.-only. Second, thanks to Joe Biederman, kids matching that criteria can now declared bipolar as well, and even the FDA agrees that childhood bipolar exists and it's more or less equivalent to irritability. So, some attribution and explaining are in order in that section, assuming the latter is even possible.
 * (somewhat off topic here; the reference is the DSM and we ar talking MDD not BD. The DSM IV criteria are what they are, and are authored by the APA. I do personally agree there is a problem with more and more categorisation of spectrum and milder diagnoses, but this is also somewhat outside DSM) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side:
 * The introduction to the causes section is very well written. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte


 * This FAC has become considerably longer than the considerably long article it's about. Allow me to echo User:Dweller above in suggesting that, unless further concerns deal with the article's ability to pass WP:WIAFA, they be brought up on the article's talk page rather than here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mattisse has multiple sections, which I consolidated earlier this week to six sections. None of Mattisse's past sections have been struck.  If she will confirm that her 7th section summarized all previous and ongoing concerns, I will move the earlier six to talk and leave a link.  Also, reviewers should strike or cap resolved concerns.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As samples for the regular editors, I have gone through and resolved some of the remaining inline queries myself: more to be done.  Please search on <! to locate remaining inlines: I did the first few as samples only.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse 8
 * Continue to oppose - I am sick of all the arguing regarding my comments here and on the talk page. I will let them stand to address, argue about, or not address and dismiss (as mostly seems to have happened). I will not repeat anything anymore. I am done attempting to deal with this article. I cannot support this article as is. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How incredibly spiteful. You won't even strike anything done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am being accused of spitefulness because my Oppose for now on November 1, per Casliber on talk page to me: "You complain about acrimony yet you were the one who brought acrimony into this.") If on November 1, my entry was considered spiteful, then no wonder my work on this article was treated with hostility. I can no longer follow this page, I cannot find all my comments to see if they have been addressed. Further, the article is in flux with whole sections being removed and returned in the last 24 hours. I am incapable of dealing with this any longer. I am sorry. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Mattisse, this was really a tad outrageous. Your contributions and suggestions are most welcome, but for heaven's sake, show some WP:WIKILOVE every now and then. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. This talk page became chaos because, unlike other FACs, comments were not responded to promptly (if at all) or were argued with, like the argument over WP:MEDRS. Comments became lost with further comments being added and also not responded to, until it was impossible to tell, for days at a time, if anyone was monitoring the comments. If a contributor does not have the time or inclination to respond promptly to FAC comments, that is a problem. People lose interest and do not follow up to see if their comments have finally been addressed. I think that accounts for the large number of editors commenting who did not follow up with a "Support" or at least a "Neutral" (to avoid being attacked, as I was repeatedly). &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496
 * Support -- This article has been ready for some time, and the changes are not really improving it. Wrong to hold it up for one person who clearly is never going to support it. looie496 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to wrap this up. There are, by my count, 11 in support, 2 opposed, a couple ambiguous.  It is unlikely that anything realistically possible is going to change those oppose votes into support votes.  This page has stabilized, and the article has only undergone minor changes over the past few days. looie496 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you see two opposes ? (Admittedly, the page is hard to sort; perhaps I missed something?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matisse is one oppose. Snowman is "officially" neutral, but I read the tenor of the comments as negative and thought it fairest to consider this an oppose. looie496 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He has specifically said he is neutral, so the fairest thing is to consider him for what he has stated unless he changes opinion: if in an article I said neutral and somebody interpreted my comments as oppose I would be mad. The truth is that only Matisse has opposed one time and another. Regarding ambiguous: are people who have not stated any vote; probably because they have not come back to look if their comments have been ammended: From my point of view 11 supports and 1 oppose who has not shown much intention of being flexible (also this is my point of view) its a fair consensus that this article should be FA. --Garrondo (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowman started as oppose, did a huge amount of much-needed work making the article more accessible and left it as neutral-but-happy-to-see-pass above IIR (near bottom of Garrondo 2 above). There are some houskeeping headaches whcih require a trip to the library. Had a look for the Seligman book at work to no avail (grr). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 9
 * Comment - I am not so much inflexible as disillusioned with this FAC. I started out with a cheerful attitude and I have put a great deal of effort into improving the article, much more than even Snowradio (who is said to have contributed a "huge amount of much-needed work" by Casliber).  I am the fourth highest contributor to the article overall, almost all of it rewording for clarity and accuracy which has been retained in the article.   Many of the original "Supports" have a vested interest in the article, in my opinion, or have not reviewed the article recently.  I was the one who attempted to go through the article and put inline notes highlighting inadequate references, a grueling task which I did not finish because of the general negative attitude of the nominator toward me. Much material has been added and changed recently with the referencing changed. jmurray never redid the psychoanalytic section as he said he would, although he expressed dissatisfaction with it in his "Support". In fact, many of the "Support"s who were not the vested contributors to the article had complaints. At the very least, before this article is passed, someone needs to go through the article and vet the sources to ensure some minimum quality. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I am curious as to why this article is listed for October 19 when the article history shows it was listed October 14.. Also, SandyGeorgia is the sixth highest contributor to this article - 90 edits, more than major contributor, User:EverSince. This shows how much additional help this article has required, even as the "Support"s were being registered. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See response below in Restart notes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically you're just confirming that you are never going to support this. The idea that somebody is going to step up and systematically go through all 278 sources to "vet them for quality" is absurd.  I really don't even know what it means. looie496 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I exhausted myself trying to fix the article previously and am no longer willing to deal with it. I was the one who was systematically going  "through all 278 sources to 'vet them for quality'", until I was grew tired of being attacked. Those that were identified as inadequate were identified by me. I do not think it is too much to require an FAC to have the references correct and accurately reflecting the article content—also keeping in mind that sections of the content have changed recently. But I can see those in charge of the article care less about this issue of accurate referencing. This is why I cannot support it. I do not trust those in charge of the article that it is accurate, unbiased and well referenced. At the very least it has a British/Australian bias and incorrectly reflects the field of psychology.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're setting the bar too high. I doubt that the world's top experts could write an article on this topic that would 100% pass this sort of examination.  The question is not whether the article is perfect but whether it can be seen as an example of Wikipedia's best.  It is important not to make the FA sourcing criteria so stringent that only articles on small topics—as the great majority of FA's seem to be—can pass muster. looie496 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect the article not to misrepresent the reference sources it uses and to follow WP:MEDRS. This has been accomplished on medical topics, such as Tourette's syndrome and difficult science-related topics   such as History of evolutionary thought.  However,  you are right that this is too high a bar for this article. Perhaps the use of 278 sources reflects a scattered, shotgun approach and  a lack of references to adequate review articles.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is too high a bar, but it is more challenging with this subject than some others I can think of. Certainly one of the downsides of a (largish) group approach is the vetting of material added by well-intentioned helpers, especially after copyediting to ensure the meaning is not unintentionally altered. Large sections which required tweaking I had not entered some of the data and not checked as closely as I should have, however I am pretty sure we have addressed all the sourcing now and limited to appropiate Reviews and secondary sources, and the few if any remaining primaries are noted as such. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Casliber, not a particularly largish group! Snowradio, SandyGeorgia, and me plus you and Cosmic Latte account for almost all of the activity since the nomination—99%. Look: Paul Gene hasn't edited since  before the nomination.  Except for SandyGeorgia, the rest of us haven't edited for a week or more.  It has been you and Cosmic Latte. I think that is the problem. Too few eyes and too little input from others. The two of you have been scrambling, rewriting, etc. with 276 references! So it is not surprising the refs need vetting.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was may when the push to develop the article really began, and it was already sizeable then. Different people focussed on different bits, Paul, Eversince and others. it has been a busy period on and off since then. Even > 3 can be large,as it is essentially everyone checking each others' references. This article has had a huge amount of input from a variety of people. See how many the average FA gets. Please stop with the vague and misleading generalisations. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I was checking, several weeks into the nomination, I found almost every reference faulty and most of them misrepresenting the source. I rewrote many and flagged many. However, I did not complete the job because you drove me off. I notice Snowradio said below:
 * I did not check the contents of many refs; however, I was disappointed to find that one line in the article did not say what was in the abstract in the external link (the full ref was not available to me), and I made an amending edit with the edit summary "This is what the ref says" (or something like that). When I find this in articles, I think that a systematic check of more refs (or all of the refs) would be logical; although I guess that it might become tedious.
 * Since many sentences have been rewritten and shifted since then, and at least one whole section replaced, I maintain that, tedious or not, for a FA checking the 276 references should be done if this article is indeed supposed to be "representative of our finest work.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I found another line (in one of the sections that I am interested in) that did not fully represent the ref at the end of the line today, which tends to supports the need to check all references. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue to oppose this as a huge waste of editor time, whose practical consequence, at this point, would be that the article never reaches FA. The question is not whether the article is perfect but whether it crosses the threshold.  Even if the article is marked as FA, nothing prevents continued efforts to improve it. looie496 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your standards are lower than mine and Snowradio's. Maybe accurate referencing doesn't matter to FAC. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters, but the requirement can't be for perfection. Do you have an estimate of the fraction of refs that don't support the statements that cite them? looie496 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I agree with looie496. I appreciate Mattisse's overall efforts to polish the article, but I think that he (she?) is being too meticulous within the FAC process; in fact, I'd say that Mattisse is subjecting the article to considerably more scrutiny than most submissions to peer-reviewed academic journals receive. Indeed, imperfection is what keeps academia (and Wikipedia talk pages) alive: Person X reaches a questionable conclusion, or has a questionable interpretation of a source; Person Y responds to Person X; Person Z responds to Persons X and Y, etc. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, folks. The page is about as good as we mere mortals can make it, for the time being anyway. Methinks it is time to wrap up this nomination before even the most recent sources get outdated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who says we are "subjecting the article to considerably more scrutiny than most submissions to peer-reviewed academic journals receive" obviously has never submitted an academic journal article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I say it, and I've submitted a bunch, and reviewed a bunch. I don't want to make a fuss about that, though:  academic reviewers are busy and unpaid for reviewing, so lots of reviews are pretty cursory.  Academic reviewers do pay attention to refs, but it tends to be a hit-and-miss process.  It would be more appropriate to compare with the reviewing done for an encyclopedia article or textbook, which I believe is a bit more thorough usually. looie496 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you not go over it with a fine-toothed comb before you submit it? And don't the reviewers take into consideration your reputation for accuracy and your prior work? Would you ever have submitted this haphazardly referenced hodge podge under your own name? Besides, this is not a journal, it is an encyclopedia and should be reviewed thoroughly. Its reputation does not rest on a journal author's name. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I am currently questioning another ref on the talk page. I do not have access to the full ref at the end of the line in question, but two text books I have looked at indicatate that the line is faulty. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See response below in Restart notes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above problem has received consideration and resulted in at least two edits. I think I have found another problem with information being over simplified and no longer reflecting the contents of the ref in the same section, which I have also raised on the talk page. How many times is the content of references misrepresented in the article? Snowman (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my concern also. The content has been rewritten without regard for the references. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Language is a funny thing; quoting verbatim is not on, so different words must be chosen. There are times when expressions used by one person do not equate with how another sees it, and thus by only by highlighting them can we see what is meant and deal with them. Obviously faithfulness to the refs takes priority and then making it easily readable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And there are times when a ref is quoted after different words have been chosen and the result is not compatible with what is stated in the reference, nor stadard text books. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not check the contents of many refs; however, I was disappointed to find that one line in the article did not say what was in the abstract in the external link (the full ref was not available to me), and I made an amending edit with the edit summary "This is what the ref says" (or something like that). When I find this in articles, I think that a systematic check of more refs (or all of the refs) would be logical; although I guess that it might become tedious. I am surprised to find that I am the 5th highest contributor to this article in terms of DIY edit counts. Snowman (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My position is neutral on FA. May I bring my exact quote down from earlier in this page: "If the article was to eventually pass as FA, I would be pleased." I said this, after bad gaffs in the areas that I am interested were repaired, when I thought that it would no longer be a travesty of the FAC process if a series of early "support" votes from the editors of this page visibly carried it though, but when it still needed some more improvement to eventually get to a truly worthy FA. Coming back to the article after a while on other pages, I am pleasantly surprised with the improvement of some portions of the article that I am interested in, and I admire the determination of all the editors to make or inspire improvements. Snowman (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, I object (per WP:MEDRS) that the following sentence, in the lead of the section on "Psychological", is referenced by a primary source invovling comparing 200 college students with 54 outpatients: "Depression may also be connected to feelings of religious alienation;" Reference: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/75503053/abstract. When I removed it, it was instantly returned to the article. This particular example has been repeatedly discussed in this FAC, and Cosmic Latte claimed previously that he had removed the use of a primary source in this way. Tony1 and Delldot objected to religion being mentioned at all in the lead of "Psychological". &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know; we've been through this. WP:MEDRS still contains no proscription against using primary sources; it still just says to avoid giving them undue weight against secondary sources or non-minority opinions. The way it is cited, it is still complementing, not contradicting, a secondary source; it therefore still does not violate WP:MEDRS or WP:DUE. This sort of absolutism is still unwarranted, and in any event it has nothing to do with WP:WIAFA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)
 * Journal articles reporting on a research study are considered a primary source, and therefore OR. From WP:MEDRS:

Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Neutral Point of View.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NEvermind Cosmic, the issue is (well, was as I found a Review Article) that a primary source has to be represented as such, thus a finding X in a study has to reported as "a study found X" rather than "X". But I found a review articel after juggling a few terms in google a few different ways after all (elsuive that was too). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. And the review article looks good to me. Thanks for finding that! Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why is the "Biological" causes section up-to-date with recent references, whereas the "Psychological" causes section contains basically historical information and does not refer to recent psychological research? Psychologists are very active researchers. The theories of people in the 1970's and earlier have been updated, just as biological theories from that time period have been. This article presents the field of psychology as not having evolved beyond the historical figures mentioned in the "Psychological" section. This would be fine in a "historical" section. However, this is 40 years after the 1970's. Are you saying nothing has happened in the field of psychology since then? This whole section is very dated. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Freud was not a psychologist, and psychoanalysis does not represent the field of psychology today. Humanistic and existential psychology are fine as historical references, but you will not find recent research in psychology focusing on these subjects, nor will you find graduate programs in psychology focusing on much of the material in this section "Psychological", other than in a course on "History of Psychology". &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, all your references to recent research in psychology are to other sections of the article, and not to the section "Psychological". Why is that? Can you not put all that historical stuff in that section "Psychological" into the "History" section? It does not represent current thinking in the field. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic theories behind current practice of currently used therapies such as CBT and IPT arose in the last 30-40 years, and as such are described in the first 4 paragraphs. Likewise, although Freud is definitely historical, much of the foundation still exists in psychodynamic psychotherapy which is still practised widely today (para 5), especially in the private sector. The very last para is probably the least directly applicable but the May reference is from 1994. I agree there is lot of material about practice and application which is more current. Much of the newer reasearch material on therapy is for areas like attachment theory which work in a slightly different paradigm. If there are more recent key advances on theories of currently used therapies you'd like to share then a heads up on the talk page is ok and we can go from there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true at all in the USA. Freud went by the wayside quite a while ago. I have spent years in both public and private section. Insurance will not reimburse that kind of therapy  in the USA.  Where are you talking about? Is psychoanalysis popular in Australia? In the USA, psychotherapy is very time-limited CBT driven. Insurance will not pay for anything not research-based.  Also, you have made it very clear my suggestions are not welcome. All I can do is repeated try to point things out. Today I removed the primary reference to religion, and it was immediately reverted. Now you have finally removed that primary reference to religion, after almost a month after I originally raised the issue. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide some references for what you state when you say "still practised widely". Also, why does Freud have to be mentioned twice, once in the history section and again under "Psychological" causes. Do you really believe Freud's theories are widely accepted today as a "psychological cause for depression?" Perhaps in Australia. Please provide references. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Plenty of people here in Oz and in the USA still have some form of long term psychotherapy (usually psychodynamic) which is often not covered very well or reimbursed in the Public Sector or by insurance as such. Yes, IPT and CBT are much more widely used, and that is why they occupy the bulk of the section. True, many of Freud's theories verbatim are not used, but many have form the foundations of long term therapy still used today. It is a controversial field, and yes there psychiatrists and psychologists who are more firmly in a cognitive camp so to speak who would be highly dismissive of much of Freud's work, but this view is not universal. Managed Care and service rationalisation worlwide have changed practice in many places but this is not ubiquitous and often there is a thriving private sector. You specific suggestions are welcome, but many have been hard to address, still we do what we can do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide some references for what you say. Also, that section barely mentions the theory behind CBT treatment of depression. Rather, it wanders on about existential and humanistic 1970's theories, really not too relevant now (except for those over 80 years old and still in practice with a specialized clientele perhaps) and ending with a completely unintelligible explanation of "self-actualization" that could only make sense to someone who already knew what it means.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I do not believe it is a "controversial" field. Please provide references for that statement also. In the USA, it is not a topic of discussion, never mind controversy. Plese do not make universal statements, but rather provide the country in which you are describing the practice. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ahem - Psychological causes section - para 1 - general (distorted thinking rel to CBT), all refs newer than 2000, para 2 CBT related, para 3, related to CBT a bit and moving to more social too, para 4 IPT related, para 5 psychodynamic related, para 6 existential/humanistic. CBT is prominent and mentioned at top, less used theories at bottom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly--more WP:WEIGHT is given to the more dominant approaches. Mattisse, this is one of the most thoroughly-sourced articles I've seen on Wikipedia; hence my FAC support. Must we really provide a new source every time we state on FAC (or, more appropriately, the talk page) that the sky is blue, or that Person X probably deserves mention, or that a transition sentence leading into the next paragraph might be nice, or whatever? Or can we just WP:UCS every now and then? Believe it or not, some of us do know what we're talking about. WP:RS's are required in the article, of course, but unless your own education/experience/expertise seriously conflicts with ours, trusting us on talk pages might be seen as an extension of WP:AGF. But anywho, weight is given where it is WP:DUE, so I see no problems here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that I have found (in sections of the article that I am interested) that the article contained information, presumably drawn from refs, that is badly written or distorted away from the meaning as originally given in the ref. I would say that, this was one of the worst articles I have seen for misrepresenting so many sources. However, it seems to me to be gradually improving. I am keeping my neutral, partly because my interest extends to some sections, but not to all of the article. I think that there is no longer any reason for me to actively oppose, based on the sections of the article that I am interested in (even though I am still working on amendments). Reference interpretation (or whatever you call making a bit of a mess of using sources) appears to be a general problem with the article, and I would support anyone else in opposing the article, if their opposition or part of their opposition was based soundly around this issue. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point, interpreatation of references is always worth discussing, especially where changing language is obligatory, all I can do is try and address or explain specific one which come up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have had the same problem in the sections about which I am knowledgeable. I has been very frustrating. I have become the fourth highest contributor in an attempt to fix glaring mistakes. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have become the fifth highest contributor in attempts to fix glaring mistakes. The saving grace is that the wiki gives the disclaimer "if you need to know anything important, do not rely on the wiki". See General disclaimer. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have become the fourth highest contributor in the same attempt. Yes, it is good there is a general disclaimer. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: treatment section covers what is used, and again CBT and IPT are at the top. There is controversy in terms of what is coverd by reimbursement. This has been an issue with Managed Care in the US, and elsewhere under Medicare or NHS in Australia nad the UK respectively. The controversial nature is best ocvered in those articles as it is somewhat extraneous to this topic Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Psychological causes is out of whack. As you say, it covers old theories, naming theorist from the 1970s and older, including Freud, whose theories may be used by an unknown number of practitioners in an  unknown number of countries. The "psychological" gives little if any recent data on "psychological" causes, and references no recent psychological data. However, the "Biological" and "Social" sections are not structured this way. They name no "theorists", do not go back into 1970s history and prior for biological and social theories, and give only recent data. In fact, much in the "Psychological" section references old "social psychology" studies and is not "psychological" anyway. Why is the "Psychological" causes section treated so differently from the other two?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Addendum - Why do you not offer any data in the "Psychological" causes section but merely old theories. Give some figures on the large numbers of applications currently of "existential" psychological treatment. I believe this section should be under "History". Why do you not do the same for "Biological", repeating old famous figures and old biological treatments from the past?  There is much recent science-based research on "psychological" causes, all of which is neglected in favor of a trip down memory lane out of old textbooks, ones I read in graduate school.  Why do you neglect current science-based date? The section should not be about what therapists use in their therapies, unless you have recent factual data supporting this claim and the effectiveness of this therapy on depression. It should be, as the biological section is, on recent scientific findings on "psychological" causes.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting the same comments on the talk page and FAC? Kindly, if it pertains to WP:WIAFA, then post it here. If not, then save it for the talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it took me a month of posting on both to get any attention on the primary source for the religion statement. I do not know how to get responses from you that address my complaints. I am frustrated.
 * As this has nothing to do with WP:WIAFA; as I don't suppose that my own arguments grow stronger with repetition; and as this is a team effort wherein no voice needs to rise above the rest, I shall confine my discussion of this issue to the talk page, and I recommend that you do the same. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
 * Support. Yes, this makes me a liar for actually coming back in and responding. But I felt as if I owed Casliber this one. Why? Because this is a damn fine article and I should be on record saying that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Commentary and commentary on the commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are we?

The real problem here is that people are getting frustrated because they can't see the endpoint of this process. Sandy, in your view what needs to happen in order for this article to be promoted? looie496 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just my input into this FAC that I have not been a part of. Either make it about the issues in the article or do not participate. This extended discussion about our personal grievances is pointless. Make it actionable, and make it about the article. If you have a comment about someone in particular for an offense, take it to their talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This month-old FAC has wandered all over the place, and considerably far from WP:WIAFA. There appears to be a pretty good consensus to promote the article, and I, too, would like to know what it'll take to get this wrapped up. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to sort through this. In terms of precedents, the last time I saw a FAC like this, I restarted to get some clarity, but I'm not convinced that restarting a FAC with overwhelming support consensus is the best path forward here.  It would certainly be helpful if reviewers would consolidate comments in one place and strike issues as they are completed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowradio and I agree that there are continued inaccuracies in the references, as those we have randomly checked are inaccurate, and that the references should be vetted before passing. If I could believe that the references accurately reflect the content they reference, I would feel much better about the article. I also feel that "Psychological" causes, being written at huge variance in content and style with the other two sections on "Causes", "Biological" and "Social", needs to be rewritten to include current researched-based date on psychological causes. I believe the discursions on 1970s era and older "theories" that are not science-based needs to be moved to the "History" section. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concise recap. Since the practical effect of these requirements would be to deny FA for the current submission, I think it is necessary to know Sandy's attitude. looie496 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The FAR on Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1 went on for just over three months and that article started as a FA. I do not understand the hurry to "get it rapped up"; it is more important to correct the article. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CON would be a swell reason to get this (w)rapped up, and the consensus does not appear to be leaning in the direction of "inaccuracies in the references." Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. For me, the main actionable objection is that the extraction of information needs to be checked from more references. Do not worry, I anticipate that more references will be checked and then the article will become FA eventually. The article covers a broad area, and it appears that Mattisse in interested in different sections of the article that I am interested in (perhaps I am being presumptive here), and is seems that me and Mattisee have independently found problems all over the article related to extraction of information from references. At the present time the reference checking process appears to be active and still finding problems. I have put four actionable objections on the talk page today, three have been resolved by amending edits. I believe, the fourth one is quite a serious problem and I am waiting to get a reply. I will not change my neutral position for this one problem, as I expect I will fix it myself in a few days. What is surprising is that all four problems came from one of the smaller sections, and perhaps this tends to give some indication of the size of the reference checking process under way, and it does tend to be a slow gradual process. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse 10
 * This is almost the year 2009. I do not think there are any current psychological theories that do not consider both biological and social factors.
 * Per SandyGeorgia, this article should follow WP:MEDRS which states: In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see No original research).


 * General textbooks and encyclopedias are tertiary sources.
 * A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources.
 * See Restart notes on tertiary sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting list of incorrect, outdated, irrelevant and WP:UNDUE references in "Psychological causes" here along with undue use of tertiary sources: &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref #39 http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Treatments_and_Supports&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7952 - incorrectly listed as by Warman DM, Beck AT. It is a short article written for an advocacy group that was reviewed by Debbie M. Warman, Ph.D. and Aaron T. Beck, M.D. - That is not the same as a scholarly article written by these individuals.
 * Why is a six year old general textbook by psychiatrists listed under "Psychological causes" for two references in the lead?
 * Why is a 1978 article used as a reference #42? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/649856 (changed to key book)
 * The next reference is a 1975 book by Seligman
 * The next reference #43 is a 1995 book.
 * The next reference #44 is a 1988 journal article.
 * Reference #46 is an undated article from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/allen.html
 * Reference #47 is a 1993 primary research article: "This study examined the relationship between self-reported depression and cognitive style in adolescent inpatients."
 * Reference #48 is a 1994 article: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html
 * Reference #49 is a 1991 book (i.e. 18 years old)
 * Reference #50 is from a book on psychiatric disorders in women in Great Britain, but it is used to reference a global statement: "A large body of research has documented the importance of interpersonal factors, including strained or critical personal relationships, in the onset of depressive symptoms and depression in young and middle-aged adults. Vulnerability factors—such as early maternal loss, lack of a confiding relationship, responsibility for the care of several young children at home, and unemployment—can interact with life stressors to increase the risk of depression in women."
 * Reference #51 is a 1991 journal article.
 * References #53 and #54 reference Freud's papers.
 * Reference #55 is a 1987 book.
 * References #59 and #60 are to a 1994 book.
 * References #61 and #62 (which has 2 references) are all on Maslow. WP:UNDUE
 * Reference #63 is to a 2000 psychiatric book: Unmet Need in Psychiatry:Problems, Resources, Response
 * Reference #64 is to a primary study of 2003
 * Reference #65 is to a primary study of 2002
 * Reference #67 is back to the six year old general textbook by psychiatrists already referenced twice in the lead.
 * Reference #68 is to a 1993 journal review article.
 * Reference #72 is to BBC news - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7268496.stm


 * I maintain that these references do not represent the current research-based findings on "Psychological causes" the way the "Biological causes" section does. Freud and other outdated theories should go in the history section. The field of psychology has moved way beyond these views. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn. More absolutistic rehashing of WP:MEDRS. WP is not an absolutistic project, as per WP:IAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say Yawn? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reason I say, "More absolutistic rehashing of WP:MEDRS." Emphasis on "more": There's nothing new, surprising, or particularly interesting about your overstated deference to that guideline and its "rules of thumb." I say "overstated," not simply because you state it so frequently, but because your absolutistic attitude contravenes the fact that rules on Wikipedia are tempered by WP:IAR and WP:UCS (both official policies, by the way). The question in our minds should not be, "Are we following WP:MEDRS," but rather, "To what extent should we adhere to WP:MEDRS and/or other guidelines in order to improve the article and encyclopedia?" Or, put differently, our article work should not be a means to upholding the rules; rather, our following the rules should be a means to doing excellent article work. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, Freud is already in the history section. Why does he have to be repeated here when he has little to no current relevance? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DSM, however faulty, does utilize current research findings, not old time theories described in the section "Psychological causes". &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy crow. How many novels' length will this section become until some lucky treasure hunter uncovers looie's long-lost request for Sandy's input? Your assertion that Freud "has little to no current relevance" flies in the face of what Casliber said about psychodynamic psychotherapy, and it flies in the face of the WP:CONSENSUS reached in the talk archives. Thanks, but no thanks. And once again, would you kindly reserve non-WP:WIAFA-related opinions for the talk page, rather than making this FAC even more unwieldy? Let's see what Sandy has to say. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please put such discussions on talk page. Thank you. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am in no hurry - actionable issues can be discussed and either addressed or explained. Starting with above. The reason psychological theory seems to concentrate more on the authors such as Freud initially, then Klein, Bowlby, Beck etc. is that is how it is reflected in the literature. For the most part, biological and medical advances have often been alot more 'anonymous' and less focussed on the researchers who conducted the study (eg Star D study, CATIE most recently in psychiatry). The article thus reflects the literature. Marlow is a braod textbook, as is Kaplan (now Sadock) and Sadock, the 1975 Seligman book is a seminal text. I will check #70 as soon as I can as that is the most serious issue above. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are talking about relatively old psychiatric textbooks. Please read what WP:MEDRS says. Such tertiary sources are not desirable. I am glad that you are not in a hurry, as when I look in other sections I have not previously checked, I see the same reliance on primary and tertiary sources with few secondary sources. Secondary sources are preferable. Perhaps, with time, we can reduce the reliance on a few psychiatric textbooks and get more secondary sources. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref #47 is prefaced "According to one study.." - hence appropriately labelled. 1 out of 250 odd isn't a preponderance. And how is #70 misrepresenting (maybe take to talk page)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I clarified wording for #47, as it referred to hospitalized adolescences with self-reported depression, not people in general with diagnoses with Major depressive disorder. #70 I took to the talk page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also as a specialist textbook is a secondary source. Barlow would definitely qualify for that, Sadock I am not sure, but certainly not as 'tertiary' as a general encyclopedia, which is the other example given. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tertiary, as defined by WP:MEDRS is any textbook. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not Sadock, for sure! Of that I am positive. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trite is an interesting word, succinct would be another. in any case it is saturday day here and i will be free in several hours.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Freud, had a long, hard look at the bit on mourning/melancholia and have placed it into history after much deliberation, mainly because (I concede) the vast majority of psychotherapists wouldn't talk about it in these terms anymore; it is still influential thinking but has evolved. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My own preference would still be to keep it in the causes section, but psychoanalytic/psychodynamic thinking has certainly had a rich post-Freudian history--so, I can appreciate this rationale. Still, I should note that even Paul, who isn't the least bit fond of Freud as far as I can tell, eventually conceded that "psychoanalysis...is [still] used by its practitioners to treat clients presenting with major depression" (he's the one who added that to the article). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The general textbook Sadock is used for some general observations that may even be too general for review articles. Nevertheless I will see what I can find. Listing dates only obfuscates the importance of some of the above works. As I said before, this is the causes section, the theories of which predate current practice. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing theories is not the same as reporting "Causes" as currently understood. Theories go back at least to Aristotle. You have not discussed "humours" and other biological  theories that predate current practice under "Biological". Why list out dated theories under "Psychological" when you have a "History" section for that? I am requesting you use parallel content in the sections under "Causes". "Psychological" is the only section you concentration on historical persons and neglect current theories. You do not mention any persons or past theories under "Biological" or "Social". &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, there's a slight difference in the way biological and psychological knowledge develop. Biological knowledge changes and grows with changes and growths in technology, which happens to be growing and changing rapidly, itself; psychological knowledge, except where it directly reflects and complements biology, tends to shift a bit more slowly, as it is more Zeitgeist-dependent (although the current emphasis on cognitivism, with mind-as-information-processor metaphors, certainly reflects a technology-saturated Zeitgeist). New information about the biological substrates of depression is uncovered all the time, whereas monumental breakthroughs in the psychology of depression tend not to be so forthcoming. Take a look at Psychology: cognitive approaches, despite their origins in the 60s and 70s, are dominant today. Before that, you have existentialism and humanism (although I should disclose that I wrote a good chunk of that section). Before that, there's behaviourism--which, combined with cognitivism, gives you cognitive-behaviourism, from which today's most dominant school of psychotherapy is derived. And before that, you have psychoanalysis, which, as Casliber has pointed out, remains highly influential in modified form. It is wholly appropriate to rely on recent sources insofar as you are citing strictly medical information; but because non-medical psychological information develops more with the slow-moving Zeitgeist than with fast-paced technology, such reliance easily amounts to counterproductive WP:RECENTISM. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "Erm" mean? What does "yawn" mean, that you use frequently? Please define these terms and their point. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The object of the section on "Causes" is not to counteract WP:RECENTISM. Please read WP:MEDRS regarding recentism. Also, regarding your comments above, please provide a rationale why "Psychological" should be treated differently than "Biological" and "Social" regarding WP:RECENTISM or anything else you mention. Please provide references for your comments above that you allege are facts. Please provide references that 21rst century psychotherapy is focused on the id, ego and superego in the Freudian sense. Under "History" it can be mentioned that the "psychodynamic" treatments, popular in the last century, are off shoots of Freudian analysis. However, not much of what he specifically theorized is taken literally today. He is a forefather. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Casliber already moved the Freud stuff, and I didn't object. If you want to know about psychology and Zeitgeists, read the Hergenhahn book cited in the article. And "erm" is an interjection. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not responsive to my questions and comments above, except for your explanation of "erm". Please addresss the rest. Also, explain yawn. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I already explained why information about psychological causes is different from information about biological ones. It doesn't date in the same way that biological information does, because biological knowledge changes rapidly as technology changes rapidly, whereas psychological ideas, relatively speaking, slowly come and go with the prevailing Zeitgeist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That only seems true because the article does not contain recent references to research on "Psychological" causes. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Other references I feel need to be examined and/or replaced:
 * Ref 121 (cited twice) appears to misrepresent the article which is on the effect of unpublished drug studies on the conclusion drawn on drug effectiveness. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/3/252 It is used to cite the following: Successful psychotherapy appears to prevent the recurrence of depression even after it has been terminated or replaced by occasional booster sessions. The same degree of prevention can be achieved by continuing antidepressant treatment.
 * It is also used as a reference to Antidepressants in general are as effective as psychotherapy; their benefits increase with the severity of the depression.
 * Are these accurate references? They appear to misrepresent the article because they focus on a small subset of the article and does not disclose the tenure. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ok, 2nd instance moved to appropriate place, to replace ref which was a succinct commentary by the authors on their own study. I concede I do need to re-read teh first instance as that does look weird. I think I must have gotten refs confused. Need to sleep but can fix that easily tomorrow) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref #89 is a 1988 journal article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3249773
 * (that is where the GDS was first published; the 1998 review article which you removed and I replaced discusses it) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref #87 and #88 reference: The Beck Depression Inventory is the most commonly used tool completed by patients, although scales completed by observers are more common.appears to fail to reflect the statement you reference. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
 * The statement this references is the following: The Beck Depression Inventory is the most commonly used tool completed by patients, although scales completed by observers are more common. These are referenced by a 1990 book and a link to the Beck scale itself. http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/BDI2.html Further, they do not say if this means worldwide, in Australia and the UK or where? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have struck my objections above that have been remedied. Some became enmeshed in arguments but still have not be addressed. I refuse to keep repeating them, as the list I started per SandyGeorgia's instructions has disappeared. I am giving up on that idea, as none of the objections in my list for SandyGeorgia were addressed anyway, before it disappeared. However, all my objections that have not been fixed or addressed remain. For example, I still object to the singling out Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) without adequate references as to notability, enmeshed in a long string of arguments and irrelevant responses. I still note that the Rating scale section is not adequately referenced. I still object to the pop history reference, that Calisber said he would replace. I still object to all the misleading, outdated, and inappropriate  references per WP:MEDRS, the ones I have noted and those that may be in sections I have not vetted. I do not think textbooks, or introductory psychology texts are appropriate, for the most part. I object to the section "Psychological" per my comments above. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No commentary has disappeared, see Restart notes below. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum - several Casliber said he would get back to (e.g. on November 6) but he never did.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how you say, "I refuse to keep repeating them," and then proceed to repeat them beginning three sentences later. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify if WP:MEDRS applies to this article or if WP:IAR applies as Cosmic Latte maintains. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go with the absolutism again. This "or" that. I believe my comment was considerably more nuanced than you are implying. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would clarify the issue if WP:IAR or WP:MEDRS is the standard. I have wasted a lot of time if a popular vote overrules a medical article. But apparently that is the case. I humbly appeal that you change the name of the article from an offical diagnostic category. Please state whether or not there are standards for psychology/psychiatric articles. Or does popular vote trump standards for medical articles. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You just posted that very same comment to the FAC talk page. Where else will it end up? Well...at least your copy-paste enabled you conveniently to ignore my remark here about the nuance in my comment about IAR/MEDRS. While I know as well as anyone with an IQ of more than about 70 that majority doesn't necessarily equal right, I find it rather belittling of you to regard your fellow editors' participation in this FAC as a "popular vote." We aren't walking up naively to the voting booth and punching the chad beside the candidate with the cutest name. We have read this article carefully, and with WP:WIAFA in mind. You appear to have read it with some additional set of standards in mind. Perhaps that's a good thing, but it doesn't reduce the rest of us to a mere head count. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have saved me and other people a lot of grief if the issue of whether WP:IAR or WP:MEDRS is the standard. I was misled into thinking WP:MEDRS was the standard for an official diagnosis. If I am wrong, please tell me so that I will know in the future. Please! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Restart notes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that WP rules, such as WP:MEDRS, are meant to be used with discretion. The rules are one of several means to the end of high-quality encyclopedic material; the encylopedia is not a means to some end of demonstrating our ability to abide by rules. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did look at the time for a better ref than Kent and it has eluded me since. I do have couple of ideas though. I have trouble with your arbitrarily strict concept of "dated", especially WRT theoretical underpinnings. commented out in the article was the easiest way to address them.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick note the suicide rate map should probably use a red scale rather than a green one. Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Off-topic commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restart notes
I am restarting this FAC. If the personalization of issues continues, I will be asking for admin intervention. Please keep all personal issues off of FAC pages. Multiple editors have now weighed in to make this request, and I hope we don't have to ask for stronger enforcement.

Several responses to issues raised above:
 * 1)  WP:NPA is very clear on what is never acceptable (Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor.) Please do not use this page to make unsubstantiated allegations about any editor.
 * Re: this query and this query about MEDRS. Neither WP:MEDRS, WP:V nor WP:NOR state that primary or tertiary sources should never be used; they discuss general guidelines under what circumstances they can be used. Neither does MEDRS exclude the popular press: it provides a guideline for when/how to utilize the popular press in relation to other sources. If a reviewer has an issue about a specific source, that concern should be specific to the appropriate policy at WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:MEDRS guideline, and address why that particular source is inappropriately used in relation to the specific text being cited.
 * 1) WP:MEDMOS specifically endorses DSM naming of articles.
 * 2) Editors should not rely on convenience links to PubMed abstracts only in evaluating a source: preferably the full text of a journal article is consulted or a quote is requested before rejecting a source.
 * 3) List of refs by numbers are not useful in the dynamic environment of a Wiki: by the time another editor views the article, the ref number may have changed.
 * 4) Articles are improved at FAC: that is the nature of the process; editcountitis is not always a valid measure of article contributions or improvement. I am among the highest contributors of numerous articles that have appeared at FAC (examples Ronald Reagan, Roman Catholic Church, Hispanic Americans in World War II) without ever having made a substantial contribution or text addition or change to any of them.  I usually prefer adjusting commas, periods, dashes and citations myself than to clutter a FAC with commentary about these trivial and easily fixed issues. It would be hard to construe my contributions to these articles as anything substantive or representative of the overall quality of an article. MoS fixes and citation cleanup are tedious edits that chunk up editcount; it would be ideal if other editors and reviewers addressed these items, but I don't mind doing it myself when they don't.  In this article, I have had to engage deeper because some of the commentary referred to was buried inline.
 * 5) Mattisse stated that comments had disappeared: this is not correct, as a review of the page history shows. The only comments moved to talk have been off-topic, personal and inappropriate commentary unrelated to WIAFA.  The list Mattisse refers to is under Mattisse 7.
 * 6) If it is hard for an editor to sort and track their own comments and responses, an option is to instead start a section on FAC talk where multiple levels of sub-headings can be created. Creating more than a dozen sections on this page (which I've already consolidated once) is difficult for everyone to follow.  Reviewers are expected to update and track progress and strike objections as they are addressed.

It is unfortunate that a FAC has to be restarted because commentary has degenerated to a personal level, but this page is now over 300 KB and basically unreadable. I encourage better use of the talk page if long lists of items are needed, and I will be more aggressively removing any further off-topic commentary. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.