Talk:Demystifying Depression

Jump to: navigation, search

I am male, and in Australia. I have had depression for 45 years, but I still don't take an hour and a half to get up in the morning. I am sure that what Name of Feather has written agrees with his experience, and no doubt, what he has written is what a psychiatrist would say to him. It is good if it gets men to acknowledge that they can be depressed, too. But it is not of general application. On the ordinary Wikipedia, it would be labelled "weasel words" - putting the author's views forward as general knowledge (although I hate the expression itself.) How does he know that a modern psychiatrist would not disagree with his advice? Is he a psychiatrist, or so familiar with psychiatric thought generally? He hasn't quoted the basis of this statement, just as with any of his others. I have already mentioned one area where I would receive different advice.

What worries me is that advice to wrap oneself in cotton wool, as he recommends, is exactly the wrong treatment for depression. It depends on the depth of depression involved, and I was lucky enough to keep working. But so many depressed people are sitting patiently waiting for a cure, and doing nothing with their lives in the meantime. Depression is an interaction of brain chemistry, circumstances and attitude. Change any one, and you change the other two. Although "positive thinking" or "counting our blessings" often achieves nothing against depression, nevertheless attitude is still within our control. Depression practically wipes me out for about 3 days every month, but like a woman with periods that are just as disabling, I don't let it stop me the rest of the time. I try to look on it as a disability, rather than an illness.

I find the term "a depression" strange. I suppose that it is legitimate like "a cancer" or "an AIDS". It must be a local thing. We don't use it here. - Douglaid

[edit] Sources suck because....

His sources suck, and here's why -- The author has only supported his statements with the following references:

• created a few haphazard links to a "science news" website, and a page which reprints a "science news" magazine. Where "science news" refers to a magazine that reformats, rewrites, and rewords science knowledge as to make consumable for easy reading by the public.
• created a few links to wikipedia articles
• created a link to a student's assignment at a college (Not an authoritative source in any way!).
• The only possibly valid reference he uses is This NIMH site, and you would be better off reading that page than this "book".

This guy only cites one good source, but his book doesn't even reflect the contents of that source. All the other sources are either secondary or meaningless. Looks like he has no idea what he's talking about.

--Monk 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise only for 'mild' depression?

My psychiatrist told me that regular aerobic exercise is as good for moderate depression as an SSRI, according to studies. This book states the proper role of exercise is much more limited, without seeming to back that up with proper research.

207.34.148.245 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

• Change the tone of the book, especially the first person perspective.
  • Agreed.

[edit] Retitle?

I think that a title like Introduction to Depression would serve this book better and bring it more inline with the textbook nature of wikibooks. What does everyone else think? Triddle 07:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change Title The title Introduction to Depression is less marketing-pitch and honest. One more vote for this, and I'll move the title if nobody else does. -Monk 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retitle plus other suggestions

Concerning the retitle, that is fine by me!

Some other suggestions (for now):

• I will make proper figures out of the ASCII art. I know how they should look like, so I should do it.
• Merge parts 1 and 2.

Later on there are other things that could be done:

• Create a section for each of the available treatments (meds, etc)
• Add information on the existing antidepressants (though Wikipedia already has quite a lot)

[edit] New navigation template

I created a prototype navigation template and put it on the first two pages of this book. Here it is as an example:

Next page: Normal Neuron Communication, Previous page: Introduction, First page: Demystifying Depression

What does everyone else think? Triddle 20:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Using a template is a good idea, of course.

About the particular format of the template, I would suggest that all links use the same font size. Also, "First Page" should be renamed "Top", as that is the standard nomenclature used by most tools (eg. tex2html).

Name of Feather 10:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communication between editors

I personally find the use of the talk page a very limited form of communication. What about creating a mailing list (a yahoo group or something) for the purpose of synchronising the editing process?

Name of Feather 10:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the title

Well, I am not adamant about it, but perhaps we should leave the title as it is. It has already picked up some "brand recognition"... :-)

Name of Feather 10:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace

Looking at the Wikibooks:Naming conventions page, we should move all pages back to the original "Demystifying Depression/Section Name". That is the preferred format for new books.

Name of Feather 10:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After reading the Naming Conventions page and Wikibooks:Hierachy_naming_scheme it seems that using : is going to be easier for this project than using /. Why? The | trick will be of great use when creating links to pages inside the book. Quick overview of how links work:

• [[Foo]] - links to Foo
• [[Foo|Bar]] links to Foo but displays Bar
• [[Foo:Bar]] links to Foo:Bar
• [[Foo:Bar|Bar]] links to Foo:Bar but only displays Bar (note trailing |)
• [[Foo/Bar]] links to Foo/Bar
• [[Foo/Bar]] links to Foo/Bar but displays Foo/Bar, can't use trailing /
• [[Foo/Bar|Bar]] links to Foo/Bar but displays Bar

Now think of the difference between

Next page: What Is Depression, Previous page: Demystifying Depression, First page: Demystifying Depression

and

Next page: What is depression, Previous page: Demystifying Depression, First page: Demystifying Depression

As well as the other benefits listed by Wikibooks:Hierachy_naming_scheme#Real_custom_namespaces. It really seems to me that setting this up in its own namespace is the way to go. Triddle 16:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to create custom namespaces. In that case, it is definately the way to go!

Name of Feather 08:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Announce book

I think it is time to announce the book and add it to the bookshelves, don't you agree?

Name of Feather 11:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree due to the huge amount of unsupported and perhaps false information.Lonjers 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notation fixer

I ran this program on all the articles to update the old style reference notation. I hope someone else can find it useful in the future. Triddle 06:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

#This source code is copyright Tyler Riddle <triddle@gmail.com>, 
#caries no license requirements, and is made available for any purpose.
#You may incorporate this into any other project with out regard
#for licensing issues.

use strict;

my $data = <<EOF;
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 Wikipedia: Dualism (philosophy of mind)]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrhosis Wikipedia: Cirrhosis]
#[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00083A00-318C-1F30-9AD380A84189F2D7 Taming Stress]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_%28medicine%29 Wikipedia: Stress (medicine)]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response Wikipedia: Fight-or-flight response]
#[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Wall.html Neurogenesis in the Human Brain: Fact or fiction?]
#[http://www.econ.uiuc.edu/~hanko/Bio/stress.html Stress and the Immune System]
#[http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.html Sleep Paralysis Page]
#[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Depressionmenu.cfm NIMH: Depression]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor Wikipedia: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor]
#[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolar.cfm NIMH: Bipolar Disorder]
#[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006AF90-5BC7-1E1B-8B3B809EC588EEDF Why? The Neuroscience of Suicide]
#[http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00019A70-0C1C-1F41-B0B980A841890000 Nietzsche's Toxicology]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression Wikipedia: Clinical depression]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_%28game%29 Wikipedia: Concentration (game)]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMRI Wikipedia: Functional magnetic resonance imaging]
#[http://www.biopsychiatry.com/newbraincell/ Depression and the Birth and Death of Brain Cells]
#[http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2001/05_01/uusitalo.htm Overtraining]
EOF

my @links = &build_array;

while(<>) {
	s/(\[(\d+)\])/&handler($1, $2)/ge;
	print;
}

sub handler {
	my $orig = shift;
	my $refnum = shift;
	
	die "Invalid reference number: $refnum" unless defined $links[$refnum];

	my $newlink = '[' . $links[$refnum] . ']';

	print STDERR "$orig => $newlink\n";

	return $newlink;
}

sub build_array {
	my @array;

	$array[0] = 'garbage'; #numbering for the articles starts at 1

	while($data =~ m/^#\[([^ \]]+)/gm) {
		my $link = $1;

		push(@array, $link);
	}

	return @array;
}

[edit] Reference Descriptions

This is about the reference links throughout the book. What about adding article/page titles to the tooltips?

I am very impressed with the book. Thanks for a useful and real discussion.

[edit] Calvinism

The references to Calvinism probably need better explanation. 220.253.24.254 01:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Before you make changes...

Being a wikibook and all that means that one expects people to make changes/corrections as they see fit. However, if not for anything else at least for the sake of politeness, it would be very much appreciated if radical changes were first proposed in this talk page. (See the history for an example of what I'm referring to).

Thank you,

Name of Feather 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Radical changes are however needed to this book please make them.Lonjers 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some doctor should put some specific counter arguments against some of the specific the book is claiming. I sense that the author of this book deeply believes what he or she wrote, so he or she deserves some scientific arguments. May be those sections that can not be proved or were just made up should be marked as that are controversial. Ervinn 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be done with this book?

I think that this book needs almost completely rewritten and reorganized as an introduction to depression. Or it needs to be removed from wikibooks. My reason for this is it contains large amounts of unsighted or original research and information based on individual experience. According to the "What Wikibooks is not" section of Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks large parts of this book do not qualify for being part of a Wikibook. At the vary least it needs removed from the completed books book shelf. What are other peoples opinions Lonjers 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not remove this book. The claims it is making could be true, based on 'individual experience'. If scientifically proven that the book claims are incorrect then I would remove it. In the meantime it could be moved to a controversial state. There are some precedence, where 'individual experiences' were strongly rejected and eventually turned out to be true. Ervinn 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd move to remove...

I read this book with some care. I see very little merit in it and much potential for disseminating misconceptions and unfounded speculation about a very important subject. Does the nature of wiki mean that we have no reponsibility to try to ensure good quality information? Despite the caveats, this book is seriously likely to misinform people including sufferers about a potentially very dangerous illness.

[edit] Unfortunately not a 'wikibook'

I personally think that this work has its merits in giving a new public perspective (as far as I am aware) on depression. Upon reading the Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, however, I do not think that it qualifies unless properly cited or founded, as it is certainly not a textbook, rather an interesting essay. Simply put, I do not think that this is the place for the book; but I do think that it should be part of a public reading list somewhere on depression (I assume somewhere on Wiki), if not simply for the debate it causes.

[edit] My editing spree

In case any one noticed I went through and just destroyed everything I though was obviously wrong or does not fit the guidelines for what should be on wiki books. I realize this was not the most democratic method but it needed done and I was in the mood. The whole book still need restructured perhaps in the form of three major sections What is Depression, Treatments, Other Issues. It also all needs cited. If disagree with any of my changes feel free to revert. The book is currently a mess with many pages now blank in need of deletion but I could not figure out how to do that so perhaps some one more knowledgeable can help with that. Lonjers 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree all the deletions. Deleting something because being in the mood is the definitation of vandalism. I think a warning on the discussion page before deletion is the wiki policy we should follow. Ervinn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand revert anything you feel is actually within the guide lines of things that should be on wiki books. Relize however the most of the information I deleted was in direct confrontation with much higher quality article on wikipedia. It just seemed to me that there had been a consensus for a while for deletion but no one had done anything. Lonjers 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If this stays it is certainly inappropriately indexed

As a psychiatrist, and a wikipedia member I must say that the inclusion of this book under Health is completely unfair to to people seeking high quality information. It does provide one person's perspective without scientific data or sources, and it may have some value in shedding light on the publics viewpoint. However, this is not a book about Health. At best this should fall under Self-Help or perhaps Editorial. I refrain to get into the argument about whether this should be completely removed or not, but it certainly has no place whatsoever within the category of health. Slippy007 March 30, 2007

[edit] VfD

I personally feel that this book had some good information before it was mostly all deleted by Lonjers. However, if the requirements for inclusion here are the same as Wikipedia, than original research is not welcome and thus this book should be outright deleted. I don't know why it hasn't been put up for deletion given the general consensus. However, there is a deletion policy in effect here. As I do not believe it should be deleted I'm not going to put it up myself, but there you have it. Spoom (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)