Major 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 31, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted April 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 6, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted June 23, 2009 Today's featured article Main Page Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Translation Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Wikiproject MCB Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Why is Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" illustrating this article? The painting is not a depiction of depressive disorder.

Its provenance is very well known and very thoroughly researched. It began as a lithograph study made in van Gogh's student days as a painter at Arnhem, at a time when van Gogh himself was in good health. It was always simply and merely a study of an old man, one of a group. Van Gogh himself refers positively to the old man as a "fine sight" in a letter of the time.

The painting itself was made towards the end of van Gogh's life years later, while he was recovering from his nervous breakdown and self-harming incident in an institute at St. Remy, France. It is an exact copy of the lithograph and is one of a group of colour studies made at the time. There has never been any suggestion by academics that van Gogh was attempting to project some private desperation of his own in the painting. It is not included in a list of works from that time suggested by his most authoritative archivist, Jan Hulsker, as possibly indicative of his state of mind at the time.

But it is (or was - I refuse to look at the article again) documented as such in the Wikipedia bio of van Gogh by a cabal of contributors (including a Wikipedia administrator who is a practising psychiatrist in Australia and who I suggest ought to know better), who for some agenda of their own wish to depict Vincent van Gogh as suicidally depressed in the last three months of his life, what is simply not true or at any rate is documented as such. The quite disgraceful story of that is documented here @ http://www.gutclean.com/wpvangoghdarkdebate.html. The fact is, as is agreed by all scholarly biographers, there were no indications of van Gogh suffering from depression in the last months of his life, nor indeed is there any agreement as to the nature of whatever mental illness van Gogh did suffer from. One can add that in the past year plausible evidence has been put forward in a new book from a respected source that van Gogh was in fact the victim of a manslaughter.

I ask that this illustration be deleted forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.61.254 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great picture that illustrates the topic well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your judgement. But the fact is that van Gogh did not mean to portray a depressed person and on that ground alone it is out of place. But it also makes a subtle judgement about the nature of depression, that it is necessarily associated with despair of the sort arguably portrayed here. If the article must have a fine art illustation, then I suggest Durer's Melancholia, as was originally used, is much more appropiate. 31.6.53.248 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the only one who use it for this purppose http://www.washington.edu/news/archive/id/56102 and this ref supports our use http://books.google.ca/books?id=7yqTnHyTbfAC&pg=PA214 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the Washington Post uses it in the same way is not justification in the absence of reliable sources that van Gogh meant the painting to represent depressive disorder (and incidentally sorrow, the title van Gogh himself appears to have given these works, is not a clinical condition). The same remark applies to your other source, a mere glance at whose content moreover suffices to establish that it is in fact a scholarly article about stereotypes, precisely the kind of stereotypes we should wish to avoid in an encyclopaedic article such as this. 31.6.61.199 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the van Gogh painting is more suitable than the Durer painting, regardless of its history. Looie496 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And we have another good comment here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied thus:

No. The painting is at the Kroller-Muller in Holland (the original lithograph is apparently lost). The title "At Eternity's gate" is not van Gogh's but some traditional title and it is exhibited at K-M as "Sorrowful Old Man: At Eternity's Gate" http://www.kmm.nl/object/KM%20111.041/Sorrowing-old-man-At-Eternitys-Gate?artist=Vincent%20van%20Gogh%20%281853%20-%201890%29&characteristic=&characteristic_type=Painting&van=0&tot=0&start=63&fromsearch=1. The same collection has an accompanying lithograph from the period of the original lithograph with a title beginning "Sorrowful woman ... " and in addition there is another lithograph from that period depicting the same old man reading a book with concentration and not displaying any signs of strong emotion. It's not clear what van Gogh's theme was at the time (his letters of the time are concerned only with the technicalities of producing these lithographs) but it's clear that at most he was concerned to depict sorrow, which I expect your trained psychiatrists you mention will concede is not a clinical condition. It is in fact only the subjectivity of the viewer who introduces the idea of 'sorrow' looking at this picture, let alone a diagnosis of depressive disorder your trained psychiatrists apparently make.

If the trained pyschiatrists you mention were writing a book on depressive disorder and wished to illustrate it with a dust-jacket depicting this painting, they would have to seek the permission of the trustees of the Kroller-Muller museum and it is far from clear to me that the trustees would wish to grant that permission. As trustees of the estate and moral rights of one of our greatest ever artists, they would undoubtedly wish to see that his work was viewed freely without stereotyping or mythologising the artist and might very well look askance at this attempt to make, quite gratuitously, the painting an iconic representation of depressive disorder and the more so given the considerable difficulty in assessing to what degree illness played a part in the painter's life and indeed what the nature of that illness was.

What your trained pyschiatrists are really doing with this painting are peddling sterotypes and myths. It is absolutely disgraceful and a matter of concern to all art lovers, 'trained' or otherwise. When you consider further, as every beginning student of art history knows, that van Gogh himself wrote intelligently about the relationship between insanity and artistic creation (he took a view that was to become fashionable decades later, that society 'labelled' artists as mad and so indeed they did eventually become) it becomes little short of outrageous, because that labelling is precisely what your trained psychiatrists are doing with the subject of this painting. Skirtopodes (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replied again, see the page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I thus:

No again. It is you who deny an issue and you do it in the time honoured way of accusing me of misunderstanding the 'real' issue.

However, I shall take you as face value and treat what you decribe as the real issue - that the painting is a good representation of MDD (Major Depressive Disorder). I did notice, incidentally, that this last reply of yours moves to the royal wikisodality 'we'. Are we by any chance young and naive - a student perhaps? High school?

Whatever, will you please explain what it is about the image that makes it a good illustration of MDD? That the man is old? That he is holding his knuckles to his face in an apparent gesture of depair? What makes you say the image accurately portrays that suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts are amongst the most severe and prominent symptoms of depression (or so you characterised them for my instruction)?

Above all, will you please quote reliable sources, as should be the Wikipedia way, that attest this painting as a good image of MDD. Who are these 'trained pyschiatrists' you mention? It looks likes OR (original research) to me. Skirtopodes (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall us having this debate before and there being a commentary that linked the image to depression...only 11 pages of archives to sift through.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, see my most recent comment here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Basalisk. And I record my reply thus:

I have been away. You are quite juvenile. You cannot even distinguish between p -> q and q -> p. The whole point is that this merely a painting of a sorrowful old man. Just because an old man is sorrowful does not imply that he he is clinically depressed whereas indeed it may be true, as I presume you mean to instruct me, that an old man who is clinically depressed is necessarily sorrowful, nevertheless the two are not equivalent. I wonder what your mentor Casliber's professional association would make of this attempt to stereotype the old and sad as clinically depressed and in need of treatment?

I shan't notice any response you make. I have to say that if your would-be profession of choice involves the care of patients, then I can only hope that you were entirely unsuccessful in the examinations you mention. Skirtopodes (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard words, Skirt, but hard luck too - I passed my finals. Since your argument has degenerated to a huge tl;dr WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think the discussion is over. The next time you embark on a tirade of vitriol like this, or the speech below, I'll report you for personal attacks (that's if one of the admins watching this page doesn't block you anyway). Finally, I'm not a psychiatrist. I've never talked to Casliber. He's not my mentor. Everyone who disagrees with you is not in a cabal. Get over it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he was a troll after all. Too bad, wrestling with pigs and all that... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Casliber: well I would be grateful if you can point me to the debate. I asked a Wikipedia expert to find me the original edit and she tells me that it was made by a user called 'Sonjaa' on 28 May 2006 at this address http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_depressive_disorder&diff=next&oldid=55164823. The original text read ""Vincent van Gogh, who himself suffered from depression and commited suicide, painted this picture in 1890 of a man that can emblematise the desperation and hopelessness of depression." As far as my friend can see it was never subsequently challenged though the text was eventually edited.

I think you will agree that the original falls far short of scholarly standards. Quite apart from the need to cite a reliable source for "emblematise the desperation and hopelessness of depression" there is a problem that you yourself, a practising psychiatrist so I understand, should be acutely aware of and that is that there is no consensus of what Vincent's mental illness (if that is what it was) actually was. I don't doubt that in ordinary terms he suffered depressions but this is an article about clinical depression and whether Vincent was clinically depressed is simply not clear. I repeat there is nothing in his letters of his last three months to indicate that he was depressed, let alone suicidal. It's indeed no longer clear that in fact he committed suicide (but was rather the victim of a manslaughter).

For the last time I ask you, a Wikipedia administrator as well as a psychiatrist, to delete this image that is such a disgraceful and quite unwarranted discourtesy to the memory of Vincent van Gogh. His desperately tragic story, as that of his brother Theo, is almost unbearable to read and it is not served at all well by these pathetic and pitiful romanticisations by a clique of misguided Wikipedia editors. In his own life Vincent struggled against this kind of stereotyping and wrote eloquently and intelligently about the link between creativity and madness, which he thought merely a social construct. His own sister Wil, an early champion of feminism, was hospitalised for much of her life (four decades) on the questionable gounds of suffering dementia, a condition that apparently presented in her case in her late thirties. I take it you aware that there is a flourishing van Gogh family who are the direct decendants (through Theo) of his family? It is a disservice to them as well.

Do I really have to petition the art world on behalf of Vincent in this matter? The Kröller-Müller museum for a start might express an interest.

In the meantime I am making an edit to insert the correct title for this painting as it is currently displayed at Kröller-Müller i.e. "Sorrowing old man ('At Eternity's Gate')" http://www.kmm.nl/object/KM%20111.041/Treurende-oude-man-At-Eternitys-Gate?lang=en. The popular name 'At Eternity's Gate' is really another romanticisation, carrying roughly the same degree of authenticity as Beethoven's title 'Moonlight Sonata'. It appears on on of the early lithographs he made and nowhere else. The painting itself, as I note above, was merely a colour study he made as he was convalescing at Saint-Remy from his breakdown (the ear incident, though again it's no longer clear that in fact he mutilated himself). Your original contributor Sonjaa might care to reflect that Jan Hulsker, Vincent's most esteemed archivist and critical authority, thought not to include this painting in a list he made of paintings at the time as possibly reflecting Vincent's state of mind and thus presumably would take issue with "emblematise the desperation and hopelessness of depression".

What a complete disgrace and how utterly pathetic and pitiful your editors' responses. Skirtopodes (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ CasLiber: Skirtopodes has been blocked by Risker. That makes twice he has been blocked, once by you and once by her.

He posted first on your talk page on 13 January 2011 raising the issue of 'Sorrowing Old Man', the first time he has posted on Wikipedia on this issue. Your reply is above, saying it had been discussed before and that a commentary had been found linking the image to depression. Skirtopodes asked you to point to that commentary, but you did not reply.

I have looked through the archive and can find no such commentary. The only source I can find is the one quoted above, but that, as Skirtopodes pointed out, is in fact an academic paper to do with sterotypes which in no way seeks to support the thesis that van Gogh suffered from clinical depression.

There is no "commentary". That is a fiction.

I did find this from you Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_4#Illustrations

"Yeah, good point. The painting is rather a good one (of a sad person, that is), unfortunately Van Gogh had other mental health symptoms suggesting problems other than depression. OK, let's leave it open for a little bit but removing I think I agree with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)"

So why is it still here, why did you change your mind?

Looking at Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_4#Illustrations I get the impression (the large downer smiley) that you consider the whole business a bit of a joke. Is that so?

I am trying to understand your motives here. Do you perhaps regard yourself as something of an authority on Vincent van Gogh? On his health? Perhaps you have published a dissertation or an academic paper? Or perhaps you regard yourself as something of an art critic? Do you perhaps post in Wikipedia on the visual arts? Do you have any association with editors who do that might lead to conflicts of interests? Perhaps you have patients who are artists or art critics that might lead to similar conflicts of interests? In short, what is this all about?

I trust you will agree there has been adequate time for you to respond here and that if you do not do now respond adequately, then the assumption must be that you do not intend to.

I am posting this on the IP address that Risker blocked and I will copy to your talk page.

Thank you. 31.6.53.252 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still debating Van Gogh's mental health when it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to the appropriateness of the image in this article? Whether Van Gogh was depressed, schizophrenic, manic, a psychopath or completely normal, the picture is still a good illustration of despair and sorrow. That's all that matters. Let's just move on from this, further discussion is not accomplishing anything. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the painting is emblematic of the topic, whether Van Gogh intended it to be such or not. (Off topic:There is a short interview with Steven Naifeh, one of the authors of Van Gogh: The Life here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IF people spent more time helping and talking to each other instead of arguing what painting describes what and blah blah blah, we would be a much happier world. The painting is beautiful and so is everything else in the universe, love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.240.157 (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be curious to know from the user Basalisk above why the painting is a good illustration of despair and sorrow. It was meant to be an illustration of mortality and the divine (see my post below). Even were it a good illustration of despair and sorrow (and that's not what I see), then why should that be an icon for a psychiatric condition? Is it a mental illness to feel despair and sorrow? RobvanderWaal (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

This is an excellent article. Nevertheless, since MDD is diagnosed in the medical and psychological community with criteria from the DSM-IV rather than through questionnaires and scales, it might improve the article if in the introduction there is a clear breakdown of the most recent criteria for diagnosing MDD.

In addition, the section on children and MDD can be improved. The current DSM-IV criteria include three cardinal symptoms for children. In order to qualify, the child must endorse one of the three for more days than not in a two-week period. These cardinal symptoms include a sad/down/empty mood, loss of interest or inability to enjoy most activities, and irritability.

Thanks for your time! Velvsop (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DSM 4 criteria are copyrighted by the APA and they have asked us not to use them. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a substantial edit of the article At Eternity's Gate explaining this painting's genesis.

It was never meant to be a depiction of sadness or sorrow. In the two acknowledged catalogue raisonnés it was listed respectively as Worn Out: At Eternity's Gate and Old Man with His Head in his Hands. It was not until it passed into the collection of the Kröller-Müller Museum in 1970 that it was given the fanciful name Sorrowing Old Man, probably because they already had a drawing of a woman burying her face in her hands that they had named Mourning Woman Seated on a Basket.

The genesis of this painting is known in some detail and it is one of the rare examples where van Gogh actually made his intentions clear.

The inspiration for the original drawing, entitled Worn Out, was a print by the British graphic artist Hubert von Herkomer depicting a Chelsea pensioner slumped dead at Sunday service, a fellow beside him anxiously checking his pulse. This print was enormously popular and Herkomer worked it up into an oil painting with the sentimental title The Last Muster, which was exhibited at the Royal Academy 1875 and which cemented his career. Van Gogh certainly saw this when he was in London and his letters include several references to the print, which he admired greatly.

In 1882 van Gogh was looking for a subject that too would draw attention to him as a serious graphic artist and he elected on mortality as a theme. His drawing (and subsequent lithograph) was entitled Worn Out and was the basis of his later painting. In his letters he makes it clear that he was at pains to express the divine in his drawing, 'something on high' as he expressed it, quoting Millet, and later he wrote that he wanted to express the special mood of Christmas and New Year.

The later painting of 1890 was done at Saint-Rémy either during or directly after his longest and most acute episode of mania, which lasted some nine weeks. Generally speaking he was unable to paint or draw, or even to write letters, during his attacks, but on this occasion he was able to paint a few souvenirs of the North as he called them i.e. scenes from memory of Holland. Whether this painting was one of them or not is not known, if not it was painted directly afterwards.

Of course it's very curious and unsatisfactory that it has apparently become an icon of mental anguish and despair. RobvanderWaal (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it is unsatisfactory that it is an icon of mental anguish but this discussion is probably best at At Eternity's Gate Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article At Eternity's Gate is about a painting and not an article about a psychiatric condition that the painting is purported to represent. If you look at the various international wiki articles linking this painting, it's clear that the painting is now iconic for depiction of mental anguish in a way it was never before and wikipedia is quite plainly responsible for this. Of the various scholarly sources I have examined for this painting, none suggest it is a depiction of despair and anguish, precisely because of course scholars are aware that in fact van Gogh was on the contrary concerning himself with the themes of mortality and the divine. I was asked to provide an edit describing its genesis and I have done that. I merely wish to point out here that representing the painting as a depiction of despair and anguish is entirely misconceived. Since this is where that painting is so represented, it seems reasonable to me this is where to point that out. I did consider consider adding a section in the painting's article about wikipedia's iconisation of the painting but was advised by my editor that self-references of this kind in wikipedia is not advised.

There is no discussion needed here because the issues involved are simple matter of facts and I have nothing further to add for myself beyond noting that I will be following the development of this painting as a cultural icon as a matter of historical interest.

Thank you. RobvanderWaal (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the image was initially intended to represent despair or sorrow; the fact remains that that is the way it looks. The painting is a good visual representation of despair and that's all that matters. The article makes no mention of van Gogh's intentions and thus discussion over said intentions is irrelevant to this article's talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you above to explain to me why this image was a good image of despair and sorrow and all you do here is repeat your opinion that it is. Do you in fact have an argument to back your assertion or not?

I do not see this image at all as being about sorrow or despair. On the contrary I see it exactly as we know van Gogh intended it, as an image of frailty and resignation, consistent with the context of other studies he made of Zuyderland at the time such as F1002 Saying Grace.

If you wish to advance a drawing in which van Gogh unequivocally wished to make a representation of sorrow, or something of the sort at any rate, then I suggest you choose his famous study F929 of his partner Sien Horrnink at this time at The Hague, actually entitled Sorrow by him in English (in deference by the way to the British graphic artists of the time he so much admired) although I suspect that if his English had been better he might have chosen a word such as "desolation". Even in that image we know, because of another rare pronouncement of his intentions he made, he was also at pains to depict life's struggle, and again I would ask why you would wish to illustrate a psychiatric condition with a representation of a perfectly normal emotion, without which we would in fact not be healthy, possibly indeed the sort of desensitized pyschopath, if that indeed can be properly represented as a pyschiatric condition, you ludicrously include in a list you make above of the possible conditions van Gogh suffered from.

Of course it matters. I shan't make an excursion into explanations of the function and purpose of art, such as that put forward by Heidegger I personally espouse, but briefly it is to teach us a way of viewing the world:

Van Gogh quite literally did do just that with his work, precisely why images such as The Starry Night F612 are quite so popular. Popular taste is an uncertain referee of works of art, but in the case of van Gogh's major paintings (of which the color study in question here is decidedly not, whatever the merits of the original drawing) I doubt any serious art critic or historian would doubt its verdicts.

Do you in fact know van Gogh's figure drawing dating 1881/82 at The Hague? Few artists, if any, have ever embarked on a study of the human figure with the same intensity as Vincent brought to bear on his task at that time, in fact decisively ruining himself in the process. I am currently preparing an article in my sandbox on his Hague studio for Wikipedia and you might to like to glance through the finished article when I upload it a few weeks hence. I can't help but think if you did know this work in the context of his other works of the time, you would not be quite so insistent that the drawing in question here represents sorrow and despair.

As I understand, or at any rate as it was represented to me and I have no reason to suppose it was unfairly represented, the origin of all this here was a plainly neurotic post a few years ago suggesting van Gogh's painting can be taken as an icon of mental suffering. All I wish to do here is record the facts and note that I will be following its development. I think I'm entitled to aver the situation is unsatisfactory. While I'm happy to debate any serious argument about what is portrayed by this painting, I'm afraid I don't see any point in entering discussions which essentially deny the facts of the matter and merely repeat personal points of view.

I hope you will agree I have given generously of my time here, and I thank you for yours. Thank you. RobvanderWaal (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RobvanderWaal has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Rinpoche. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have substituted van Gogh's 'Sorrow' image as per RobvanderWaal's suggestion. I trust this will be satisfactory to all parties and we can move on here. RUCloseYet? (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. Please do not repeat this change; it is clearly against consensus and has been for ages (check previous discussions about this). In fact, I'm redacting RvdW's comments as he is a sock of a banned user. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refactor Talk pages per WP:RTP. I shall ask for eyes if you persist. RobvanderWall, a valued editor in the Visual Arts, is appealing his block initiated by you. I ask that his edit above be kept as evidence. It is not in your remit, as apparently some sort of injured party in a dispute, to act like this. Thank you. 31.6.27.228 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I apologise for removing the comments. Give me a break, though, I didn't "initiate" any block. I just raised concerns that RvdW and Skirt were the same person as Rinpoche, and turns out they were. That's not my fault; I didn't block anyone. This doesn't matter now anyway as RvdW has "retired". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no breaks here for you Basalisk. RobvanderWaal, Skirtopodes and Rinpoche are all different people. I know them well. Rob is simply defeated. One of the nicest people I know. Congratulations. But relax. No one is going to come after you. No one is going to sue you. Enjoy your little moment of triumph. LHirsig (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note To get a long standing image changed you will need to get approval through a WP:RfC. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob wasn't trying to change the image here. He wasn't trying to edit the article. All he was at pains to do was to point out that At Eternity's Gate isn't about sorrow or despair. It's about mortality and dying. Anyone with eyes and a modicum of sensitivity to painting can see that. The title makes it clear it's about mortality. And Rob's edit at At Eternity's Gate wasn't about original research. It's well known what this painting is about and his edit is meticulously cited. All it needed was a knowledgable opinion to set it right. He left it to you to put it right (it does need putting right) and this was how you treated him. Nor is it as if Skirtopodes was the first to raise the issue of the painting's suitability here. It was raised here before, acknowledged as pertinent and then just ignored. This isn't something that should need a WP:RfC. It's just plain wrong and you and your co-editors here are in denial. An image of mortal frailty illustrating a psychiatric condition noted for its suicide risk? Come on ... It's bizarre and not a little creepy. What can you be thinking? LHirsig (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I've added a WP:RfC. Perhaps it will give one you boys (we are talking boys here, right?) a nudge. LHirsig (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've WP:DENYed it below. Sockpuppet, see [2] Dennis Brown (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New View of Depression: An Ailment of the Entire Body April 9, 2012;

108.195.138.124 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an huge issue currently which is that it is not based fully on secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. I have just removed 154, 155, and 156. For this article to stay featured these issues need to be addressed. I will take a stab at it eventually unless someone else wishes to begin. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "huge issue" is perhaps an overstatement. After your edits I am having difficulty spotting any more. Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 216 is a 73 patient study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17453654
• Ref 105 and 106 have neither a PMID nor an ISBN. I wonder why.
• Ref 108 is the BBC from 1999 could be better
• Ref 107 is primary research
• Ref 116 is a little old (from 1998) and much new literature have been published.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed issue with 105 and 106. Probably messed up your numbering of some of your references slightly though. :-P I still intend on addressing references in alcoholism article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]