Talk:Disease of despair

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Frontiers in Public Health[edit]

User:MrOllie and User:EpiDoc2014, I'd like you to reconsider this dispute.

MrOllie is correct that some Frontiers Media journals are sub-par. However, EpiDoc2014 is correct that this is not true for all of them. If you're uncertain about a journal, you need to look up the individual journal – not just rely on "that ham-fisted script highlighted it as needing further review, so I assumed 'actually do the work of looking it up' was a secret code phrase for 'definitely bad'" or "I heard that, years ago, Frontiers wasn't so great, so they must still be bad."

You can look up most medical journals at Scopus. The journal in question is described at https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100798718 What I see there is that the journal's CiteScore puts it in the top half of all medical journals specializing in "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health" (which is the relevant category for this subject). The journal's website says that the Wikipedia:Impact factors is 2.031, which is well above the magic number of just 1.0 that was promoted for years by some medical editors as a signal of sufficient reputability for MEDRS purposes. The SJR and SNIP scores (which measure prestige and popularity within the field, respectively) are just what you'd expect from a middle-of-the-pack journal.

In short, the journal seems to be fine, and IMO you shouldn't remove it merely because it's one of hundreds published by Frontiers Media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Causes' section[edit]

Added essay-like tag as this section's style is completely unencyclopedic.

Bowwow828 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passages that read like an essay have been removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction section[edit]

A disease of despair is one of three classes of behavior-related medical conditions that increase in groups of people who experience despair due to a sense that their long-term social and economic prospects are bleak. The three disease types are drug overdose (including alcohol overdose), suicide, and alcoholic liver disease.

This section doesn't read like a properly researched section. I also wish to raise an observation, particularly in regards to suicide. Whatever the cause, it's not a disease, it's an act.

Suicide can be caused by a disease, I assume. Provided you can find sources for it, to be added to the article. I don't think there are sources that can conclusively claim that. This whole area with suicide falls under the area of philosophy of psychiatry. That's a can of worms that's not as simple as somebody's moral opinion is. Gamma1138 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Although it does make sense that suicide is not a disease and is rather an act that may or may not be caused by a disease or condition, I am not sure this article (in particular its introductory section) discusses the concept of "disease of despair" from a philosophical or moral perspective. Further, I am not sure that morality has anything to do with the subject matter of the article. 94.243.69.200 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with it because the qualification of behavior in whatever manner involves ethics. For the statement that suicide is a disease, it is required to provide adequate scientific evidence. Otherwise, this has to be reformulated with proper references to the philosophy of psychiatry. I think it's a reasonable observation and this conforms with Wikipedia standards of editing. Gamma1138 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also too much bold text assigned for emotive emphasis, which is not encyclopedic. I don't understand the purpose of bold text for - Cognitive despair; Emotional despair; behavioural despair; biological despair; diseases of despair; death of despair.

This is highly irregular for Wikipedia considering the quality articles.