Talk:Depression and natural therapies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Cannabis as an alternative, natural anti-depressant

its a natural remedy for depression that millions use, obviously some strains can make anxiety worse but some strains with higher levels of CBD and lower levels of THC can help relieve anxiety (especially indica dominant strains such as Blueberry, Northern Lights, etc). and in the cannabis dispensaries there are strains sold specifically to help anxiety / depression. i would say it is more useful than St. John's Wort (which has been shown to be no better than placebo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.138.8 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

St. John's Wort has been proven to have chemical significance in the body. In fact, certain people can't take St. John's Wort because it interacts with certain medication. I don't think a placebo would have such an effect on the body. While pot might be a natural remedy, there haven't been enough studies done on it to confirm it as an anti-depressant. Perhaps you are thinking of medicinal marijuana when distributed for treatment. Often the patients when they are given such treatment may be depressed about their condition, and not necessarily have clinical depression. ForestAngel (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi folks. I created this article to fill a gap. There was plenty of info on depression, but not much on the potential contribution of natural therapies. Hope you like it. Sardaka 10:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I tagged the article as violating WP:NPOV. The selection of "therapies" here appears fairly arbitrary. The labeling of these therapies as "natural" promotes a specific viewpoint that I don't think we can define well enough to be useful.

While I think this article should be deleted or merged, I'd like to hear others' viewpoints on the NPOV issue. --Ronz 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Some points: 1) the selection of therapies may appear to be fairly arbitrary, but the fact is that no article can possibly cover all therapies, so no matter what therapies were covered, someone could always say "Why this one, why not that one," and so on. The title implies pretty clearly that it is dealing with various therapies and how they may affect depression. It doesn't claim to be covering all therapies.

2) Calling the therapies "natural" doesn't imply a bias of any kind. The expression "natural therapies" has been used for a long time now and has been accepted by the medical profession; not in the sense that they have given their official approval, but in the sense that they recognise that these therapies exist and have a place. They are often referred to as supplementary therapies and are seen as a valid supplement to conventional medical treatment. I have seen this especially with HIV-positive people, where supplementary therapies are widely accepted. No bias is implied.

Sardaka 09:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PoV Fork?

How is this article not a WP:POVFORK and what should be done to make sure we're not in violation? --Ronz 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading through POVFORK carefully and looking at how this article was started, I think we're in violation. --Ronz 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing

Starting a discussion on missing entries: Exercise, socialization, and lithia water immediately come to mind (no pun intended). --Ronz 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, how about a healthy sleep schedule. So obvious to most people that it is easily overlooked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.93.139 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Depression

Is there any reason why this article cannot be merged with Depression? It can form a section or two under the main article. Shot info 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article is a povfork that was not created properly per WP:POVFORK and that the information here is duplicated mostly in Clinical_depression#Dietary_supplements, I don't see much to merge. Probably best to start a formal merge proposal. --Ronz 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is moved to the main Depression page, perhaps more, who are searching for a non-prescriptive means of relief, would be exposed. It does have merit to stand alone. There should difinately be a link and short mention to this article on the main Depression article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.211.17 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree

Merge I think that it makes sense to merge the articles together. It would only make the article better. ForestAngel (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

I can't agree that this article is a POVFORK. It was not created as a way of putting forward a POV. It was created to cover areas that are not covered by other articles. The section on dietary supplements does not cover everything covered by this article.

As for merging, it may have some merit. Personally, I think this article deserves to stand on its own, but some may think it should be merged. Probably doesn't matter all that much.

Sardaka 09:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep these articles separate but have them interlink better. Currently, Clinical depression doesn't link to this article, for instance. There seems to be enough info here to justify having a separate article. That being said, Depression and natural therapies should be expanded perhaps to discuss in greater detail the history behind using natural therapies to treat depression. I think that would certainly make the article even more encyclopedic. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this is not a vote. Thanks! --Ronz 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I seem to insinuate that it was? I was just letting you know my position and provided justification. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion is here: Talk:Clinical_depression#Merge_from_Depression_and_natural_therapies. --Ronz 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rename

Sardaka attempted to "rename" this article, but did so in an improper fashion, so I have undone the redirect. We need consensus for a new name for the article before such a rename takes place, and it must be done in a proper fashion (as a move, not just a redirect). I'm copying over the first post made about the name here:

The new name for this page seems unsatisfactory. (and the talk page was left behind at Talk:Depression and natural therapies). Here's some thoughts on possible key words and their meanings before we progress:
1. Natural - this is the converse of artificial (man-made). A good example would be exercise.
2. Complementary - this indicates a treatment in parallel to another. An example would be counselling in addition to drugs.
3. Alternative - this indicates a different therapy which is implicitly unorthodox, e.g. Rolfing
4. Traditional - hallowed by long use, e.g. Traditional Chinese Medicine.
There are other variations such as Complementary and Alternative, which I see abbreviated as CAM.
My feeling is that the word natural best conveys what the likely readership is looking for here. But perhaps it should be Natural and alternative. But I don't like complementary because of the hanging implication that it is complementary to something else which is not necessarily the case.
Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The move was done improperly and I have now reversed it. I've moved this discussion over to Talk:Depression and natural therapies where we can properly discuss renaming the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name to "complementary therapies" because some people got stuck on the word "natural". Someone even suggested that "natural" indicated a bias, which it doesn't, but some people were getting stuck on it so I thought it would be a good idea to change the name. I chose "complementary" because I have found it is widely accepted, having worked as a therapist with HIV people. However, other people may have other ideas.

Sardaka (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a rename should be done with consensus, however, and you also did not do the rename in the proper fashion, as I mentioned on your talk page. Collectonian (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natural

This article seems to have lost momentum. I plan to revamp it considerably with a focus upon the word natural. To me, this means not artificial or man-made. The lede indicates that this is what people are looking for - in particular, they don't want drugs. But the current list does not map onto this definition too well. For example, acupuncture seems as artificial a procedure as electroshock or lobotomy - it is just less violent. The scheme I favour would include the following categories:

  • change (of job, partner, location, etc)
  • counselling
  • diet (including vitamins, herbs, etc)
  • exercise
  • hobbies
  • meditation
  • religion

Things like acupuncture and reiki belong in a different article which focusses upon alternative therapies. Ok? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. For practical purposes, it is not worth distinguishing between natural and alternative. A natural therapy obviously means a non-technological one, ie not involving drugs, machinery or surgery. The list you provide above is mostly valid, but it can be made part of the article as is.

I have just finished revising this article to make it more NPOV. It was criticized by some for being POV. This criticism had some validity, as I now recognise, so I have eliminated the POV elements. I think most people would agree it is now more impartial. All it needed was for the wording to be changed.

Sardaka (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)