Talk:Major depressive disorder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMajor depressive disorder is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2009.
Article milestones
July 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 31, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 3, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2009Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article

Other terms related to major depressive disorder/episodes.[edit]

I have found other terms related to major depressive disorder/episodes. I thought that they could be included in this article to increase the scope of MDD but somebody says that none of them belong here and that the article is already too long, even though there are articles that are even longer [1]. The list of other terms are:

Do you think these terms should be included in this article? zsteve21 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to @Zsteve21:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA review needed[edit]

These issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


... section is getting stubby ... lots of short paragraphs and information that needs to be merged or possibly removed. I see student editing here. (Also found info chunked in to the lead that was nowhere in the body, so fixed that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes! This is next on the to-do list Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This section looks also like it was chunked in as an afterthought. It duplicates some management information, which can be merged to Management or deleted, and the rest of it can go within the other sections as appropriate (prognosis or epidemiology?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: this and the chldren section that had been tacked on at the end have been incorporated and vague or reduplicated bits removed (easier than I thought it would be actually) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This section is not "terminology" and some of it looks undue; relevant content can be merged elsehwere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Out of whack, and looks like people are just chunking in random factoids here, rather than following WP:WIAFA. "There has been a continuing discussion of whether neurological disorders and mood disorders may be linked to creativity," has WHAT to do with stigma? The section is not very well written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh....I'll compare current with featured version in the first instance for structure etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That section dates right back to the FAC. I can see it there almost unchanged in December 2008. So I think I might be the guilty party on that one. :P - I do think we need to do something about the length of the article and updating etc. Am looking now.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are guilty, so am I;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resurrecting this from the archive, as this is now the longest standing medicine-related FA at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. Sandy and Casliber, how do you feel about the article's current state? If you're pleased with changes, I can remove it from the template. If not, I can try to whip up some volunteers to plug away at any deficiencies. All else fails, we can start the WP:FAR process. Thanks for all your work on this! -- and of course thanks to Casliber for doing the heavy lifting to bring this to FA condition almost 13 years ago. I hope you're both doing well. Ajpolino (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ajpolino: I think the article needs some cleanup. I've mostly been looking at unclear/inelegant prose today, but I intend look into Sandy's content concerns soon. Haven't gotten through the whole article yet, but the "Pathophysiology" section, for one, seems overly detailed. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh...on the "to do" list - will have a look later. Daytime here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks both. Take whatever time you need, of course. And let me know if there's anything I can do to be useful. Ajpolino (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I'm doing is comparing the current version to this which was soon after it was promoted and near time it was mainpaged. Just to compare the prose and scope mainly. However, the data needs to be updated to latest studies. I've begun adjusting the prose a bit. Work in progress....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic Problems of this Article[edit]

Hi, I was studying this article that I realized there were many sentences that do not have a reference. Also, the references were not added to the article alike, some one are sfn and others are not. Many parts need to be updated and the article is not comprehensive. I do not know how this article was Featured but must not be Featured now. Pereoptic Talk✉️   09:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find a single unsourced paragraph in this entire article, are they any concrete instances you can point out where a source would be needed but is lacking? I ask the same for what you think needs updating and what information is missing.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise, where is the specific uncited text? Every sentence does not need to be cited; the reference may after a subsequent sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Megaman en m:For example, the first paragraph of the management section, the second paragraph of Antidepressants.
@SandyGeorgia: The main problems I mentioned in the article were not the only one. To the things I mentioned above, add the short introduction of the article and Having a reference in the introduction.
Issues not covered in the article: [2], In the pathophysiology section, it is also possible to discuss the relationship between major depression and chronic diseases
Updates: [3][4][5]
Pereoptic Talk✉️   19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first paragraph of management clearly references the NICE guidelines, which are cited at the end of that para (including the bullet points). The second paragraph of antidepressants is cited, so I'm unsure if I'm looking somewhere different than you are ??
The size of the lead is fine, and citations in the lead are neither required nor discouraged; I see no problem there.
Could you please provide a PMID or description of what you consider not covered, so others don't have to click on each little bracketed number to see the concern? It would help, thanks.
Casliber I am wearying of being the only person maintaining this article. Can we get it updated or else move to the next step? I am swamped, and yet here I am, trying to click on little numbers to figure out what is wanted next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh joy. Updating medical articles. Ok, will have a look soon. Just got some other chores to attend to (long time since I looked at this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joyous it is not, and I'm really tired of it; we need committed FA-knowledgeable editors to keep this article updated. Are the 2004 NICE guidelines the latest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statistics presented in this reference to ==> Epidemiology (update)
Citation: "Major depression". U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). January 2022. Archived from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved 14 August 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but this may be overemphasizing one country (Wikipedia is global); I would not be surprised if someone deletes it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
«Structured psychotherapies» section in this reference to ==> Management (for reference update and article expansion)
PMID 34877271 is how you can easily reference a source on talk for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citation format: Karrouri R, Hammani Z, Benjelloun R, Otheman Y (November 2021). "Major depressive disorder: Validated treatments and future challenges". World J Clin Cases (Review). 9 (31): 9350–9367. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v9.i31.9350. PMC 8610877. PMID 34877271. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This reference to ==> Cause and Prognosis (for example generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and social anxiety disorder and poor treatment outcomes)
That is a news source, not a secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this reference is considered a secondary review, because at the end of it, the bibliography section is placed. In addition, its source is the American Psychiatric Association. Pereoptic Talk✉️   13:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not using a source like that in a Featured article; an alternate approach to adding whatever content you wish to include is to see if any of the sources listed at the end of that article are secondary reviews, and use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will mention the shortcomings of the article's introduction in the future. My written English grammar is a little weak, otherwise I would have added the required content to the article myself. Pereoptic Talk✉️   09:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm willing to help do the updates as I have time, but I can get to things faster if you provide MEDRS sources and if I don't have to do all the citation formatting (see above). Do you have the tool for citing PMIDs used in this article? Or you can use the PMID template followed by a bracket and the number for easier reference. For today, I have to finish work on another Featured article, so perhaps someone else will get to them faster. Spicy have you any interest in helping maintain this FA? I don't have time to get to it today, and two updates needed are identified above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Sandy, but this is pretty far out of my wheelhouse and I'm busy with other things at the moment. Spicy (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only one source remained:
Laishley EJ, Barrett AM, Isaac O, Thiemer K, Jariwalla R, Grossberg SE, Sedmak JJ, Anderson TR, Slotkin TA (November 1975). "Regulation and properties of an invertase from Clostridium pasteurianum". Can J Microbiol. 21 (11): 1711–8. doi:10.1139/m75-251. PMID 140. to ==> Cause Pereoptic Talk✉️   13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very dated primary source; the information should have been mentioned in a WP:MEDDATE compliant WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:It seems that I mention the wrong reference. Correct reference: PMID 34634250 Pereoptic Talk✉️   16:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better :) I can attempt to work on some of this over time, but for the next few days, I am up to my eyeballs at the Joan of Arc Featured article review, and must stay focused on getting that wrapped up. I'm hoping someone else will jump in here to help ... what is listed so far does not look insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you will be successful in improving the above article. There is no rush, we will improve the article as time permits. I will also try to add things to the article over time, although it needs to be checked grammatically by an English speaker. Sincerely Pereoptic Talk✉️   20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urgent FAR needed[edit]

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

Esketamine as treatment for MDD[edit]

@SandyGeorgia removed my edits concerning the use of esketamine as a treatment for depression (as well as a reference to an FDA press release stating that it had been approved) and stated that I needed to obtain a secondary source and discuss this on the talkpage. Spravato is an FDA-approved intranasal formulation of esketamine with an indication for treatment resistant depression when combined with an oral antidepressant. I think that this is an important treatment modality that should be listed with other treatments for depression. There are many high-quality, WP:MEDRS complaint sources that are about Spravato that are readily available. Examples of peer reviewed MEDRS sources include PMID 32729898 and PMID 32163257. While on the topic of ketamine for depression, I feel that it could be worthwhile to discuss racemic ketamine as a treatment like the management of depression has, although this is not currently FDA approved for this indication. In closing, I feel there should be a mention of esketamine in the treatment section of the article and possibly also about ketamine in general. Thanks. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very open to how it would be phrased. An example text might be: "A nasal spray formulation of the NMDA receptor antagonist esketamine, sold under the brand name Spravato, gained FDA approval in 2019 for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression when combined with an oral antidepressant.[1][2][3]" Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an updated version of proposed langue for ketamine. All sources are MEDRS complaint with each been peer reviewed and have cited multiple times in other publications. Please feel free to offer opinions or changes. "Ketamine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, has demonstrated rapid-acting antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.[4][5] A nasal spray formulation of esketamine (Spravato) received FDA approval in March 2019 for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression when used in combination with a conventional antidepressant.[6][7]" Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Jalloh, Mohamed (15 March 2020). "Esketamine (Spravato) for Treatment-Resistant Depression". American Family Physician. 101 (6): 339–340. ISSN 0002-838X. PMID 32163257.
  2. ^ Gastaldon, C.; Papola, D.; Ostuzzi, G.; Barbui, C. (16 December 2019). "Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors?". Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences. Cambridge University Press (CUP). 29. doi:10.1017/s2045796019000751. ISSN 2045-7960. PMC 8061126. PMID 31841104.
  3. ^ Sanders, Benjamin; Brula, Abdul Q. (2021). "Intranasal esketamine: From origins to future implications in treatment-resistant depression". Journal of Psychiatric Research. Elsevier BV. 137: 29–35. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.020. ISSN 0022-3956. PMID 33647726.
  4. ^ Krystal, John H.; Abdallah, Chadi G.; Sanacora, Gerard; Charney, Dennis S.; Duman, Ronald S. (2019). "Ketamine: A Paradigm Shift for Depression Research and Treatment". Neuron. Elsevier BV. 101 (5): 774–778. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.005. ISSN 0896-6273. PMID 30844397.
  5. ^ Corriger, Alexandrine; Pickering, Gisèle (2019). "Ketamine and depression: a narrative review". Drug Design, Development and Therapy. Informa UK Limited. 13: 3051–3067. doi:10.2147/dddt.s221437. ISSN 1177-8881. PMID 31695324.
  6. ^ McIntyre, Roger S.; Rosenblat, Joshua D.; Nemeroff, Charles B.; Sanacora, Gerard; Murrough, James W.; Berk, Michael; Brietzke, Elisa; Dodd, Seetal; Gorwood, Philip; Ho, Roger; Iosifescu, Dan V.; Lopez Jaramillo, Carlos; Kasper, Siegfried; Kratiuk, Kevin; Lee, Jung Goo; Lee, Yena; Lui, Leanna M.W.; Mansur, Rodrigo B.; Papakostas, George I.; Subramaniapillai, Mehala; Thase, Michael; Vieta, Eduard; Young, Allan H.; Zarate, Carlos A.; Stahl, Stephen (1 May 2021). "Synthesizing the Evidence for Ketamine and Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: An International Expert Opinion on the Available Evidence and Implementation". American Journal of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. 178 (5): 383–399. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20081251. ISSN 0002-953X. PMID 33726522.
  7. ^ Bahr, R; Lopez, A; Rey, JA (2019). "Intranasal Esketamine (SpravatoTM) for Use in Treatment-Resistant Depression In Conjunction With an Oral Antidepressant". Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 44 (6): 340–375. PMC 6534172. PMID 31160868.

Wikipedialuva first, thank you for using secondary literature reviews and for proposing your addition on talk. It would be helpful if you would use this template for generating a citation conforming with the WP:CITEVAR of this (and many medical) articles. It would also be helpful if you would wait for feedback, and when other editors are busy, ping if necessary.

More importantly, you are not a novice editor, and POV contributions to such a serious extent should not be happening. Please remember that changes to Wikipedia are immediately viewable by thousands of people every day, and we have a responsibility to get it right. The content you added grossly misrepresented the sources, and in a dangerous way—appearing to promote a treatment for which serious concerns exist. Using MEDRS sources is not sufficient; you also need to represent correctly what they say. Please do not do that again, anytime, anywhere on Wikipedia so that further intervention to prevent harm from your edits won't be necessary. You can wait longer than a week for others to weigh in, or ping others as needed, on proposed text if you are unsure how to write it yourself.

@Casliber, Ajpolino, Colin, Spicy, and Graham Beards: this content stood for five days before I found time to address it; I suspect we need to proceed to WP:FAR as this article is not adequately watchlisted, and trying to keep up with these declining (to the point of dangerous) medical FAs is demoralizing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medications and treatments for MDD a bit less clear cut than for schizophrenia, with some treatments coming into use more quickly and dynamically. Not sure what and how some newer ones are discussed in review articles. Part of checking process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I want to genuinely thank you for both giving me advice about improving my references in the future and improving my edits regarding ketamine. I do, however, object to several of your statements you made. I will address point by point.
“It would also be helpful if you would wait for feedback, and when other editors are busy, ping if necessary” and “you can wait longer than a week for others to weigh in, or ping others as needed, on proposed text if you are unsure how to write it yourself.”
I did ping you in my original post and then I waited for several days for anyone to comment on my proposed edits. No one responded, asked me to wait for comment, or said that they had any intention of ever commenting on my proposed edits. In 2019, an editor discussing ketamine took months before anyone commented back (discussed more below). So I was bold, and went ahead and edited.
“More importantly, you are not a novice editor, and POV contributions to such a serious extent should not be happening.”
First, I feel I do have a neutral POV concerning ketamine and assuming I lack a NPOV fails to AGF. I do not have any disclosures regarding ketamine. I do not and have never had any financial interest in any business that manufactures or sells ketamine. I am not and have never been employed by a facility that uses ketamine to treat any mental health condition. Neither I, nor any of my immediate family or close friends, have ever been treated with ketamine for any mental health condition. I have nothing to gain and no reason to support or not support ketamine or esketamine for depression. I added ketamine to the article not because I lack a neutral point of view, but because esketamine is FDA approved for the treatment of treatment-resistant MDD and, for better or worse, ketamine is becoming increasingly popular as a treatment. They deserve to be mentioned in the article in which treatments for MDD are discussed. I am also not the only one that feels this way. The overall topic of ketamine has been discussed at least twice on this article’s talk page. The first discussion was in 2019 when two editors (Asmageddon and SSyntaxin) agreed that esketamine and ketamine should be included in the article. The latter was in 2022, when Cosmic Latte proposed adding ketamine and your response suggested that they post the proposed text (which I did).
“Please remember that changes to Wikipedia are immediately viewable by thousands of people every day, and we have a responsibility to get it right.”
I agree with this statement completely. As editors, we do have a responsibility to get it right. I feel that part of that includes ensuring that approved treatments or treatments that are increasingly becoming popular (once again, for better or worse) are discussed in the article.
“The content you added grossly misrepresented the sources, and in a dangerous way—appearing to promote a treatment for which serious concerns exist. Using MEDRS sources is not sufficient; you also need to represent correctly what they say. Please do not do that again, anytime, anywhere on Wikipedia so that further intervention to prevent harm from your edits won't be necessary.”
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with this characterization of my edits, especially with implying that my edits were going to cause “harm”. Both of my statements were factual and nowhere did they promote anyone doing anything. The first sentence in my edits was: “Ketamine has been shown to have rapid antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant major depression.” This sentence was mostly based on the abstract of PMID 30844397 (a MEDRS source which you have retained after revising my edits), which, in entirety, states: “Ketamine is the first exemplar of a rapid-acting antidepressant with efficacy for treatment-resistant symptoms of mood disorders. Its discovery emerged from a reconceptualization of the biology of depression. Neurobiological insights into ketamine efficacy shed new light on the mechanisms underlying antidepressant efficacy. The rapid, profound, and sustainable antidepressant effects of ketamine seem poised to transform the treatment of depression, while mechanisms through which it may work are overturning the received wisdom regarding the underlying neurobiology.” Frankly, I feel my edit is much more neutral in tone of voice than this MEDRS abstract and do not feel like I mischaracterized that article. Second, I based discussion, or lack thereof, of side effects and how detailed my edit was with how other treatments were being discussed, and also tried to ensure that my edit was trying to keep with the style of the section. The article in general has stuck to single sentences for a variety of depressive treatments without giving a list of possible issues with them or the risks they carry. Take for example: “Limited evidence suggests stimulants, such as amphetamine and modafinil, may be effective in the short term, or as adjuvant therapy.” Let’s examine the two references for this. First, PMID 26906078 states in the abstract that: “the use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness,” “traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived,” “research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants' mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression,“ “until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.” PMID 25295426 notes that “one study was stopped prematurely due to safety concerns of increased suicidality.” This is not even beginning to discuss that amphetamine is not FDA approved for treatment of MDD, is more controlled than ketamine (CII vs CIII), and the fact that amphetamine carries black box warnings about life-threating risks. This edit has stood since 2017, and to my knowledge, no one objected to the edit or updated the statement to discuss the risks, lack of studies, or accused the editor that posted it of grossly misrepresenting facts. The article also states that: “there is tentative evidence for benefit from testosterone in males.” This edit also fails to go in-depth about possible abuse risks/controlled substance status, or discuss the significant risks associated with this unapproved treatment (including, but not, limited to effects related to hormone-sensitive cancers and blood clots). In summary, I feel my edit (which I admit could be improved as you did) was in line with how other treatments have been and are described in the article and that my edits have been singled out.
In conclusion, I genuinely appreciate the constructive feedback about references, and I also appreciate that you are working to keep such an important article accurate. I also honestly feel like you improved my edits regarding ketamine and included information that is helpful. I also, however, feel that your response accusing me of not having a NPOV and that my edits were misrepresenting research more than other article content and were out of line with the article, and most of all, that they were causing harm and were dangerous, is inaccurate and unnecessarily harsh. Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedialuva thank you for clarifying, and thank you again for using secondary reviews, and proposing your content on talk. I'll place my much-needed apology on your talk page,[6] and address only the content issues here.
The portions of your edit that made it seem driven by POV were a) the mention of a specific brand name product, and b) the information from the reviews that you left out. (Your edit was: Ketamine has been shown to have rapid antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant major depression. A nasal spray form of esketamine, sold under the brand name Spravato, gained FDA approval in March 2019 for use in treatment-resistant depression when combined with an oral antidepressant. That sounds quite promising -- in a way not supported by a full read of the sources. It might even make one want to go out and get some Spravato!) In your penultimate paragraph above, you have understandably explained what led you to so briefly summarize the reviews and leave out some information.
Going forward:
  1. Please do not insert content based only on the abstract: for example, this review was specifically published to address the popularity of the treatment and raise concerns about it. The very reason the review was done, with the seriousness of the concerns, is overlooked by reading only the abstract, leaving a rosy impression that the sources do not support. There are limited instances when one might be able to add content from the abstract only, but this is not one of those situations.
  2. The issues you raise about other content in the article now are very good examples of why I have been expressing concerns about this article for almost two years (and why I became so frustrated that no one else addressed your proposal, which you raised correctly). You can scan down this page to see when I gave up.
  3. I can't speak to content that was inserted – or not updated – between 2014 and 2020 when I had given up and was not watching the article; until there is a top-down rewrite and update of this article, I can only address what I see going in now. That is, there's bad content now, but let's not make it worse. That much cleanup is needed is just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and we should not be guided by faulty current content.
  4. A broad overview of this magnitude should be using summary style, and reflecting generally (with limited exceptions) that which is mentioned in general reviews of the topic. Until someone has looked at recent reviews, and rewritten the article to them, it's hard to say whether your addition belongs in this article at all, or would be better placed at management of depression. There's a good chance that a lot of that content needs to be cut to sub-articles and summarized back to here, depending on what weight is given in broader secondary reviews.
Thanks for pitching in ... off to your talk page I go next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation 283 is mis-linked[edit]

It should be linked to Fairthomas (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dated text removed for improvement[edit]

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

The diagnosis is less common in some countries, such as China. It has been argued that the Chinese traditionally deny or somatize emotional depression (although since the early 1980s, the Chinese denial of depression may have modified).[1] Alternatively, it may be that Western cultures reframe and elevate some expressions of human distress to disorder status. Australian professor Gordon Parker and others have argued that the Western concept of depression medicalizes sadness or misery.[2][3] Similarly, Hungarian-American psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and others argue that depression is a metaphorical illness that is inappropriately regarded as an actual disease.[4] There has also been concern that the DSM, as well as the field of descriptive psychiatry that employs it, tends to reify abstract phenomena such as depression, which may in fact be social constructs.[5] American archetypal psychologist James Hillman writes that depression can be healthy for the soul, insofar as "it brings refuge, limitation, focus, gravity, weight, and humble powerlessness."[6] Hillman argues that therapeutic attempts to eliminate depression echo the Christian theme of resurrection, but have the unfortunate effect of demonizing a soulful state of being.



  1. ^ Parker G, Gladstone G, Chee KT (June 2001). "Depression in the planet's largest ethnic group: the Chinese". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 158 (6): 857–64. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.857. PMID 11384889.
  2. ^ Parker G (August 2007). "Is depression overdiagnosed? Yes". BMJ. 335 (7615): 328. doi:10.1136/bmj.39268.475799.AD. PMC 1949440. PMID 17703040.
  3. ^ Pilgrim D, Bentall R (1999). "The medicalisation of misery: A critical realist analysis of the concept of depression". Journal of Mental Health. 8 (3): 261–74. doi:10.1080/09638239917427.
  4. ^ Steibel W (Producer) (1998). "Is depression a disease?". Debatesdebates. Archived from the original on 28 December 2008. Retrieved 16 November 2008.
  5. ^ Blazer DG (2005). The age of melancholy: 'Major depression' and its social origins. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-95188-3.
  6. ^ Hillman J (1989). Moore T (ed.). A blue fire: Selected writings by James Hillman. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 152–53. ISBN 978-0-06-016132-3.

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