Talk:Major depressive disorder/Archive 3

message: I've done a little bit of housecleaning on this article, moving the evolution section to its own article (Evolutionary advantages of clinical depression), and merging the info under medications into the article on antidepressants. 
The move of the evolution information was a straight copy-paste, so the new article could use a new introduction and some new bells and whistles to better be able to stand on its own.
In both sections I simply left behind the first paragraph - a freshly written brief description of each topic would have been better, but I simply don't have the expertise to give one. So if someone else could do that, it would help out a lot. 
The article also needs to be cleaned up some more. Many of the sections should be moved to their own pages, with more brief descriptions on this page. As it stands even with my cleanup, it is still far too long. As another wikipedian has stated though, this information is very important so it should not be deleted, just moved. - Uniqueuponhim 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: My wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor - and has consequently become clinically depressed - would adding in situational depression make sense?
(No.  According to the DSM, Major Depressive Disorder can not be caused by a medical condition.)
:: I disagree. I think there ought to be a section that addresses the fact that probably most depression IS situational and that the vast majority of medication for the problem is an inappropriate medical solution for various societal and technical failures. Using the typical weasel language that is necessary the § should probably be titled Controversy something. Lycurgus 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although actually it probably should be somewhere else maybe in a overmedication article as this one is already pretty big. And now that there's a TOC it can be seen that the current § 5.2 addresses appropriate for this article. I have to say though when did DSM become a holy bible? Lycurgus 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situational Depression 

message: It's odd that this article never mentions refractory depression, which is major depression that is resistant to the usual treatment methods. I'm not sure where it would be best to mention it, but it should be noted if not a small section of its own.--Gloriamarie 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refractory depression never mentioned? 

message: Clinical depression is a severe illness that won't necessarily go away if you remove the original cause. It can take antidepressants to get rid of the illness even if the cause has been removed. There are also depressions that aren't caused by circumstances, but come from within.
Sardaka 10:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really 

message: Given the current size of the article (61k), perhaps it some of it should be split away into a sub-article?  Maybe the treatment section? --Ronz 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: No offense, but someone "liking" the image is not a reason to keep it.  What does it contribute to the article?  Does it "illustrate" depression, no.  Does it add anything to the article at all?  No.  It should be removed. See Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement. AnmaFinotera 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The portrayal of depression in art is quite relevant and beneficial to the article in my view. 58.151.182.166 11:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this particular image provide any benefits to the article, or add relevance?  Do any other medical articles include paintings depicting someone suffering from mental illnesses (or any other disease)? I didn't find any. An image is good, but certainly there can be a more academic image used rather than a painting. AnmaFinotera 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the image here does conform with Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement in my view. The painting does illustrate depression. Its being a painting should not constitute a reason for its removal. Even serious magazines like New Scientist often use quite arty images to illustrate their articles. I am in favour of keeping it. --John 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm curious as to how it illustrates depression.  There are different kinds of depression and it certainly doesn't illustrate them all. It doesn't really illustrate any, IMHO, except perhaps the artist's own instance as depression manifests itself differently in different people depending on a variety of circumstances.  However, if others feel this actually somehow illustrates a mental illness, cool, let it stay.  The article has much bigger issues to worry about and much more major work needed than to worry too much about the image ;-) I did, however, move it down a little because it was covering some text in the intro in IE 6. AnmaFinotera 19:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you say. I don't feel that strongly about the image either. Let's make the article better. What would you say are its main failings? --John 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the top three right now are the need to merge in that natural remedies article,  lack of sufficient sources, and the strong need to redo the article to be more inline with the med article style guides.  The latter two seem to be primary reasons it got its rating dropped and it was not considered for featured article status.  A major undertaking, to be sure.  I keep trying to think of smaller pieces to break it into so it doesn't seem to overwhelming, because it is such a huge topic.  Any ideas? AnmaFinotera 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Gogh Image 

message: I am removing PMDD from the list of other depressive disorders. It does not belong there, for example, see http://pmdd.factsforhealth.org/what/faq.asp: "
How does depression relate to PMDD?
Depression is one of the more common symptoms of PMDD.          Women often feel sad, blue, unhappy, down in the dumps, and/or hopeless          as part of the PMDD symptom complex. But remember, the depressive symptoms          of PMDD are linked to the menstrual cycle and must be absent at least          during the week following menses. Also, depression is not necessary for          the diagnosis of PMDD. Some women find anxiety and tension or anger and          irritability to be the most disturbing symptoms and do not consider themselves          depressed.
Women with PMDD also may have a coexisting depressive          illness such as Major Depressive Disorder or Bipolar (manic depressive)          Disorder. These conditions sometimes begin before the onset of PMDD and          sometimes follow it. They differ from PMDD in not being linked to the          menstrual cycle. While symptoms of these illnesses may worsen premenstrually,          they persist throughout the entire cycle." Paul gene 02:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense and agreed.  Thanks for catching that (and some other stuff).   AnmaFinotera 04:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMDD is not a depressive disorder 

message: The sentence in question:"Clinical depression is diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist after any potential physical causes have been ruled out.[1]"
I understand that it is based on the following paragraph from ref1 (NIMH pub): "The first step to getting appropriate treatment for depression is a
physical examination by a physician. Certain medications as well
as some medical conditions such as a viral infection can cause the
same symptoms as depression, and the physician should rule out
these possibilities through examination, interview, and lab tests. If
a physical cause for the depression is ruled out, a psychological
evaluation should be done, by the physician or by referral to a
psychiatrist or psychologist."
But the same NIMHpub states on p5: "In recent years, researchers have shown that physical changes in the body can be accompanied by mental changes as well.
Medical illnesses such as stroke, a heart attack, cancer, Parkinson's
disease, and hormonal disorders can cause depressive illness,
making the sick person apathetic and unwilling to care for his or
her physical needs, thus prolonging the recovery period."
The re-phrasing of the NIMHPub used in the lead paragraph appears to change the meaning of the NIMH quotation. What NIMH mean is that the physician should rule out certain medical conditions, not all physical causes. (NIMH still contradict itself, though.) Secondly, according to NIMH, clinical depression diagnosis does need to be carried out by psychiatrist or psychologist, and the physician himself can do that. (This actually happens quite often.) On the contrary, the lead paragraph of the article implies that only psychiatrist or psychologist can diagnose depression. Thirdly, the discussion of details, such as comorbid depression, does not probably belong to the lead paragraph, and should be done in the text of the article.
So, I propose to remove the sentence in question rather than correcting or expanding it. Paul gene 10:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I do see your point.  Should it perhaps be expanded and moved to the diagnosis section, then, or do you think the diagnosis section covers it well enough already? AnmaFinotera 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted it from the lead part, as we seem to agree on that. I think the diagnosis may need a different phrasing, but it is for the later. Paul gene 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical causes of depression 

message: Although not forbidden expressly, the use of the references in the lead part is generally discouraged. The lead part is a summary of the main article and all the necessary references should already be there. For example, Ref 1 is used multiple times in the Diagnosis section and so is not needed in the lead. Suicide should be addressed in more details later in the article, and ref 2 could be moved there. Paul gene 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to where you've seen that?  I've never seen anything about that in any of the style guides and stuff that I have looked at.  Considering the amount of info often included in the intro that is not included in the article, that seems odd to me. AnmaFinotera 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody pointed that out to me previously. But now I am looking at the MED FAs, and all of them have references in the lead. Sorry for the confusion Paul gene 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of references in the lead 

message: I think there is a lot of potential for biasedness and POV in how certain treatments are categorized and ordered on this page.  I am moving light therapy out of the "other methods" section as many recent studies have found it to be equally effective with many of the more mainstream forms of medication, and the studies are beginning to show a consensus.  I also think that one could argue for putting psychotherapy above medication because it is common to have psychotherapy in the absence of medication, but not vice-versa.
The "other methods" mixes too many different things: things like exercise which seem to be more of a supplemental treatment, and things like the "archaic methods" which aren't really treatments so much as they are historical background of what we did wrong in the past!  I may move "archaic methods" into the history section where I think it is more appropriate.  Cazort 12:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is potential bias, true, and the entire treatment section needs overhauling.  However, you're deciding to move light therapy out of the other methods section on the basis that you feel it is equally effective with other meds also reflects NPOV.  Such a major change should be discussed here first, and has been undone.  Light Therapy, even by your own additions and sources, is only effective in some forms of depression and is still under study.  It is not a primary method of treatment, hence it being in the other methods section.  The main section is for the mainstream forms, while the other section is for those that are less used, experimental, and still under study.  For now, please leave archaic where it is.  Why they are archaic, at least one is still used, even if rarely. AnmaFinotera 14:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently, there is only one reference in the medication section, and it is basically an educational brochure, not a primary source that can attest to the effectiveness of treatment by medication.  There are plenty of studies and articles out there that do this--far more studies than there are for light therapy (or any of the other alternative treatments mentioned).  But the actual results of these studies are not that different from the studies I added.  I think that this article would be greatly improved by citing and summarizing such primary sources.  Maybe doing that would help resolve this issue.  From my reading of the primary literature, there is at least as much uncertainty about antidepressant medication as about light therapy; the main difference I see is that there have been vastly more studies done on medication, which, taking the uncertainty into light, paints a very different picture.  Cazort 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to review primary literature on depression as it comprises tens of thousands of references, even secondary literature probably goes to more than a thousand titles. So for most purposes the NIMH brochures or consensus guidelines are just fine. If you are interested in working with primary sources you can contribute to the antidepressants article, or on articles on separate antidepressants or on light therapy for that matter. Paul gene 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other methods of Treatment 

message: Does anyone have objections to adding yoga, bibliotherapy and computer-assisted psychotherapy under "Other methods of treatment". Proposed text and references are under title "More methods of treatment" in (now in Archives, 26 September). Natural123 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any additional treatment information must be referenced with a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that exercise, socialization, and relaxation are all treatments that have been shown effective, they should be covered first.  Any mention of a treatment that is hard to distinguish from another should be presented in proper context. Eg what's commonly referred to as "yoga" is hard to distinguish from a combination of relaxation and mild exercise. --Ronz 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although yoga has something in common with both relaxation and exercise it is usually not classified under any of these. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_%28alternative_medicine%29)- "Yoga is a healing system of theory and practice, its a combination of breathing exercises, physical postures, and meditation, practiced for over 5,000 years." For differences between yoga and excercize you may see http://www.mandalayoga.net/index-newsletter-en-exephysi.html. Research I refer to is specifically about how yoga affects depression. Natural123 14:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objections so long as they are properly cited, as Ohnoitsjamie noted, and the information is placed in a proper context. I.e. the information is specifically for people diagnosed with clinical depression, not simply depressive mood and that you note the severity of the depression tested.  For example, the Yoga study mentioned seems to have been for patients with depressive mood, not actually diagnosed as having clinical depression, so it would not be appropriate here. AnmaFinotera 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; similarily, chocolate helps depressive mood but not clinical depression. Anarchist42 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a good distinction. These sources are about clinical (unipolar, major) depression
Yoga - Pilkington K, Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Richardson J. - Yoga for depression: the research evidence - 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16185770&dopt=Citation
Bibliotherapy - Cuijpers P - Bibliotherapy in unipolar depression: a meta-analysis - 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9194011&dopt=Abstract 
Computer-assisted psychotherapy - http://www.finddepressiontreatment.com/depression-software.html - This page is an overview of computer-assisted psychotherapy and it ranks number 1 on Google for "computer-assisted psychotherapy depression". It also contains links confirming efficiency of this therapy for clinical depression.
Natural123 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please review the WP:VERIFY policy and the reliable source guidelines to help you in determining what is or is not a good source.  While the two links from NIH are good, the one you give for Computer-assisted psychotherapy does not meet the requirements for use, nor does the one you gave earlier for the differences between yoga and exercise. AnmaFinotera  —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Computer-assisted psychotherapy link may not meet the requirements, but it is a good compilation of reliable sources. Natural123 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because MAOIs are already mentioned.  No need to repeat. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bupropion is not an MAOI or an SSRI.  It isn't mentioned at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.33.241 (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, and have added it :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More methods of treatment 

message: There's a massive lack of references in the psychotherapy section of this page.  I am adding a tag and recommend that people who know more about this stuff add appropriate references and delete material which you cannot find adequate references for. Cazort 12:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are aware of it.  The entire article is in need of clean up, which is being worked on by myself and at least one other editor, including rewrites and sourcing.  It is a huge article, however, so it is taking some time. AnmaFinotera 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Lack of References 

message: Statements of probability based on personal judgment do not hold up to scientific scrutiny, and thus should be omitted from any article that attempts to be 'objective'. Also, I edited the 'neurological' section to depict what experts believe; views that have not been scientifically proven should not be stated ad nauseum. It is far more accurate to state that most experts accept a certain view.
ShadowCreatorII (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed phrase 'probably influenced by a combination of genetic and biological factors'. 

message: Hello, in the latest revision (as of this one), there is a problem with the references that I can't figure out. Try looking at "References", #28, and there is a table of contents and numerous lines that look like source citations. I can't find where the source of this problem is. Could someone who is better versed at ref tags please fix this? Thank you. --Kyoko 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  There was an open ref tag at the end of the sentence with no content and no closing ref, so it was basically attempting to throw the whole rest of the article into a footnote :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References problem 

message: I believe we should highlight two works:
Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness, William Styron, a classic and extraodinary book, by someone who is a master of words, about the descent into the hell of depression.
The Noonday Demon, Andrew Solomon, National Book Award, 2001, Finalist Pulitzer, extraordinary self-account, history, social analysis, etc. http://www.noondaydemon.com/
Neither of these books are by "psychiatrists or psychologists," but deserve (as do others I presume, but none as important as these, in particular Styron) a citation not buried in "references."
Best, Shlishke (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we put Styron, Solomon 

message: Depression and natural therapies is a povfork, and contains little if anything not already in this article (other than unsourced and poorly sourced information with NPOV problems). It should be merged into this article. --Ronz 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  No reason to have that seperate at all. AnmaFinotera 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep these articles separate but have them interlink better. Currently, Clinical depression doesn't link to this article, for instance. There seems to be enough info here to justify having a separate article. That being said, Depression and natural therapies should be expanded perhaps to discuss in greater detail the history behind using natural therapies to treat depression. I think that would certainly make the article even more encyclopedic. (Based on the thread just above, this article already seems to be pushing the file size threshhold. Merging would certainly cause a size issue.) -- Levine2112 discuss 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If going with separate articles, then wouldn't it better to have the entire treatment section as a separate interlined article rather than just the natural therapies aspect? AnmaFinotera 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Then we don't have the povfork issues. --Ronz 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Absolutely no need for merge as page is already 63k long! We should be looking to split articles off this one not merging it... Johnfos (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three months have passed and there is no consensus to merge, so I'm removing the tag... Johnfos (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Depression and natural therapies]] 

message: I'm a research assistant for a study that is working to determine the causes of depression by looking for genes that contribute.  Is it appropriate to link to our study on this page, either in the links at the bottom or in the "Genetic predisposition" section?  The link in question would be to: http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/
Thanks in advance for any input.  171.65.2.53 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would not be appropriate. We do not link current or on-going medical studies.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Can I ask why not? 171.65.2.53 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit the external link guidelines, and it would go against Wikipedia's neutrality policy.  Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a collection of links nor an advertisement service.  Study results, published in reliable, notable media can be used as references for articles, but an active study seeking participants does not add to the encyclopedic value of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Research Study 

message: I understand there are reasons for this, and there's that handy link, but this section, as it stands, conveys almost no information to the reader, what so ever. I think perhaps some example is in order, perhaps the least disputed? Kimbits (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right.  I tried before, but I found it hard to even summarize the main article.  It seems like a fringe theory and someone personal essay with sections tossed it.  I debated whether it belonged at all (and am still debating AfDing it as a fringe and being unnotable).AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have added an example - psychic pain - and cited how such theories may be useful in counselling. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Advantages... 

message: I propose that we add the following passage written by me:
One etiological theory of depression is the Aaron Beck cognitive theory of depression. His theory is regarded as the most verified psychological theory of depression. His theory states that depressed people think the way they do because their thinking is biased towards negative interpretations. According to Beck’s theory of the etiology of depression, depressed people acquire a negative schema of the world in childhood and adolescence. (Children and adolescents who suffer from depression acquire this negative schema earlier.)  Depressed people acquire such schemas through a loss of a parent, rejection of peers, criticism from teachers or parents, the depressive attitude of a parent and other negative events. When the person with such schemas encounter a situation that resembles in some way, even remotely, the conditions in which the original schema was learnt learned, the negative schemas of the person are activated.
Beck also included a negative triad in his theory. A negative triad is made up of the negative schemas and cognitive biases of the person. A cognitive bias is a view of the world. Depressed people, according to this theory, have views such as “I never do a good job.” A negative schema helps give rise to the cognitive bias, and the cognitive bias helps fuel the negative schema. This in the negative triad. Also, Beck proposed that depressed people often have the following cognitive biases: arbitrary inference, selective abstraction, overgeneralization, magnification and minimization. These cognitive biases are quick to make negative, generalized, and personal inferences of the self, thus fueling the negative schema.
Another cognitive theory of depression is the hopelessness theory of depression. This is the latest theory of the helpless/hopeless theories of depression. According to this theory, hopelessness depression is caused by a state of hopelessness. A state of hopelessness is when the person believes that no good outcomes will happen and that bad ones will happen instead. Also, the person feels that he or she has no ability to change the situation so that good things will happen. Stressors (negative life events) are thought to interact with a diathesis (in this case, a predisposing factor to depression) to create a sense of hopelessness.
Some proposed diathesis’s are attributing negative events to stable and global factors, low self-esteem, and a tendency to believe that negative life events will have severe negative consequences. Theses diathesis increase the chance that a person will have hopelessness depression.
If it's ok with you all, I will add the passage in a few weeks, with complete references. Thanks. --Luke (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be an appropriate addition.  It reads very much like a term paper, and seems to be based primarily around a single person's research.  Are the references  you mentioned all from his own work or do others in the medical community back up his theories?  Also can you post the references here as well so it can be properly evaluated? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Where are the references? --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the reference: Gerald C. Davison, John M. Neale, Abnormal Psychology, 8th edition, pages 247-250. 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.--Luke (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think that it will be a good addition, because it tells some more about the causes. If no one says no, I will add it by January 12 --Luke (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already had one no and one asking for a reference.  Do not add unless you have a consensus of support. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AnmaFinotera, no one said no. You asked me some questions, and I have rewritten the passage to address your concerns. And why shouldn't it be added? Is their any good reason, or simply your whims? --Luke (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...let me clarify.  In saying I didn't think it was appropriate, I was saying no it should not be added.  It is not an appropriate addition. It reads like a term paper (which from our earlier conversations, I presume is at least part of), not an encyclopedic reporting of neutral, verifiable information from reliable sources. I also don't see what new information it would be adding to the existing causes section. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research or writing. It has nothing to do with "my whim" but Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not an original research paper, chap. All the material came out from the book I referenced. And none is my individual and original research; I'm 17, in high school, and cannot possibly find new theories in psychology. The book is very verifiable and accurate. My passage will surly add information; the current article does not include any such information. Your argument makes no sense because none of it is true. Thanks. --Luke (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a rather large causes section.  What specifically in your piece is not already covered there?  As I said, it reads just like a high school a term paper and is not of an appropriate tone for a Wikipedia article. You never answered my earlier question as to whether the author's theories have been supported by other researchers or in other reliable sources?  If not, it is a WP:FRINGE theory, and doesn't really need such a lengthy mention.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: May I suggest a compromise? Beck's theory is certainly not a fringe theory, and it actually served as a basis for development of cognitive behaviour therapy, which as we know works. However, in keeping with the general summary style of the article, it would help to simplify the theory description, and to keep it to 100-150 words. (Nice work on that has already been done in the CBT article. Maybe you could just extract information from there?). What would also be interesting to see is the link to practical applications (CBT) and experimental work which has been done to confirm the theory (another 100-150 words, perhaps). If your textbook does not have any references to that you should probably dump it. Paul gene (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How about this? Let's stop focusing on THEORIES and focus more on FACTS.  Prowikipedians (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: Should nutritional therapies be included from quality articles and studies (i.e. peer reviewed, double-blind, randomized, controlled-trials)? I think, absolutely. If there is general agreement, will do... Gnif global (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREED. Nutrition and such factors DO play a role in Clinical Depression. Must be mentioned. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: Please DO NOT make the bullet points any more confusing. One point per line please. See article for more details. Prowikipedians (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing bulletpoints