`  ==Depression== I noticed that in the excellent copyediting, Shimeru took out a lot of my equivocations like Wollstonecraft ``appeared to have depression`` and other similar phrases. Many of those were intentional. We do not have a diagnosis of depression for Wollstonecraft; it is a speculation that scholars have made, knowing that she tried to commit suicide and she wrote many melancholy letters. But none of that is definitive.  :I don't think it's really problematic to say ``Wollstonecraft was plagued by depression``. True, Wollstonecraft was never diagnosed with clinical depression, but depression is widely understood outside of a medical context. The evidence is pretty conclusive that Wollstonecraft dealt with at least some form of depression (considering she attempted suicide twice). In the case of her sister's more specific post-partum depression, I see that Shimeru left the equivocation intact, which is probably a good idea since post-partum depression is a much more clinical term.   ::That's pretty close to my reasoning  her depression and her father's violence seem pretty well established by the text (which is cited, though I admit I haven't got the book to hand).  If you feel I overstepped with some of the removals, go ahead and reinsert them.  They'll probably be pointed out at FA, though.   :::One of the reasons I made the point about depression in particular is because all of the biographies I read do so as well. But I will not add the equivocation back in if people do not think it is necessary.  ::::I think the equivocation is awkward in this case. It just seems much too anal to not state the obvious here. Plus, I have a reference for an unequivocating quote, so I'll reference that...   :::::I'm afraid that I think that the equivocation is essential in this case. It is not obvious to say that someone two hundred years ago had depression when all we have left are their letters. It is incredibly difficult to diagnose depression today. Also, your quotation uses the word depression in a broad sense, not in the clinical sense, so I do not think that you can use it to support the idea that Wollstonecraft had depression. I do not view cautious and careful scholarship as being ``anal.``   ::::::Why would we not also be using it in ``a broad sense``? I don't think it's necessary or desirable for us to hazard guesses (or echo other sources guesses) about whether or not Wollstonecraft may have suffered from clinical depression. But I don't see anything wrong with saying that she suffered depression (in the normal sense of the word). Perhaps there is a way to rephrase it without using the word ``depression``, or do you think it is important that we address the issue of clinical depression in the article? In case your wondering why we're so anti-equivocation, it has to do with the featured article criteria, specifically the ``brilliant prose`` criteria. In practice, this criteria means that reviewing editors will be harsh on equivocation-heavy writing. This is to offset Wikipedia's natural tendency towards equivocating everything (although this is more typically due to neutral point of view issues rather than historical uncertainty). Obviously, we can't make unsubstantiated claims to make the writing more compelling, but in this case, I think it is fair to use ``depression`` in the broader sense. I would be interested, however, in seeing what Todd says on the matter.   Here is what Todd says on the issue in the footnotes for Chapter 7: ``I have used the words 'depressed' and 'depression' anachronistically to refer to Wollstonecraft. 'Depression' in fact became a current term only in the mid-nineteenth century when it came to be used for the lowness of spirits felt by the sick. By 1900 it had achieved its modern meaning of a general sinking of the spirits. I have used 'melancholy' and 'melancholia' also, especially when Wollstonecraft seemed in part to be celebrating her condition.  `