Talk:Third ventricle

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

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

This page is not composing correctly. The top left picutre is overlapping the left frame.

Len 14:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Third Ventricle Hypothesis

Some folk seem to have an issue with Medical Hypothesis - in response to this I put *three* more references outlining the Third Ventricle Hypothesis up - including one in J Psychopharm - I was about to put up references to some of the 20 or more journal articles that have cited this hypothesis when I got a message saying not to edit this article again today - can those changing this article please explain to me it is you require? Thank you RiverMonkey (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I don't have a big problem with Medical Hypotheses as being one of the sources, so it's not an issue for me. My concern is about WP:UNDUE. Here is why. We have WP:MEDMOS, which says that we have to be careful about presenting medical hypotheses (lower case) in ways that might mislead our readers about the kinds of health care that they might seek. This subject is a hypothesis, rather than something that has come to be widely agreed to by medical researchers as explaining what causes depression. There are lots of other hypotheses, proposing other explanations, and some of them have a much larger amount of support in the scientific literature. For me, that means that we should not mislead our readers into thinking that this particular hypothesis is getting close to explaining what causes depression. This page here is about the third ventricle, as an anatomical structure in the brain. The hypothesis is, in the overall context of the page subject, just one minor part of the subject. Therefore, per WP:UNDUE, it should not get a large percentage of the text on the page. I'm not particularly bothered by giving one sentence to it, but I think that a lengthy paragraph is too much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with having an article on the Third ventricle hypothesis of depression, and even on having a "See Also" link to it from this article, but I feel that anything more than that would be undue weight, given the very limited support the hypothesis has in the literature. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do have concerns about a standalone article, but that's a discussion for a different talk page. But I do tend to agree with you that a "see also" link (whether to a standalone page or to a section of a more general page) is probably the correct due weight. I created a very brief section here as a compromise for the time being, but that doesn't mean that I would oppose a "see also" link. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at Talk:Third ventricle hypothesis of depression that I looked at the literature, and it appears that the literature about ventricular enlargement in depression is not really limited to the third ventricle. That raises further concerns for me about covering the topic at this page (ie, why not at the other ventricle pages?). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on that other page, the theory really relates to the behavioural cluster associated with depression and how this can be explained by events in the Third ventricle only - because of the structures that surround it or whose pathways pass through it - changes to other ventricles not relevant in this respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's what the hypothesis is. But the overall source material shows that the hypothesis is only one small part of a larger literature about a broader concept. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is literature about ventricular enlargement in other disorders and there is literature about shrinkage of brain structures under other circumstances but to lump those together with the Third Ventricle Hypothesis is with the greatest of all possible respect a bit like saying that there is only one mental disorder because they all involve the brain - events in the ventricular system can be extremely localised (melatonin release by the pineal targeting regions of the hypothalamus for example) and looking at all ventricular events as being part of the same process does not take that into account - hence my saying that venticular enlargement in depresssion may be mediated via a completely different process to enlargement of different ventricles in say schizophrenia RiverMonkey (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is indeed a large literature about other disorders, that is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the literature on depression, specifically. The third ventricle source material is just a small subset of a larger set of source material about depression. It's undue weight to make it sound like the literature about brain changes in depression focuses on the third ventricle, when it does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]