221:. First of all this is absolutely not a POV fork. The original creator of the article stated right up front that he just wanted to put a few documented natural therapies for depression in their own article. Exercising POV would be in deleting this article, because, as one can see from the references, there are good scientific studies backing up these treatments as legitimate and not any POV. The article should be separate because these are alternative but legitimate treatments for depression, not what depression is itself like in the main article, and as one can see, some people with an agenda would like to delete them. 30,000 to 40,000 people in the U.S. and about 1 million people worldwide kill themselves each year as a result of depression. This article could definitely save lives, so let's keep it. --
684:- However, in an article that is using a scientific definition as its basis, one would expect what follows to be scientific in nature. That is not wholly true with every part of this article. The term "snake oil" is not a put down, in as much as it is applied to something that purports to be one thing, and is in fact not. This article starts with a scientific definition, and then goes into a mixture of scientific and non-scientific claims, without differentiating. All I and others are proposing is: if it survives deletion, the non-scientific parts either get scientific references, or get warnings that they are not supported by the scientific community. I don't think there's anything POV about that.
321:
have no value for references on other topics. Encyclopedias shouldn't be in the business of pushing misleading medical information. Lots of drugs are derived from 'natural' substances, something either works or it doesn't, it's either medicine or it isn't. The 'cures' discussed here will have test results and discussions in medical journals if they're legitimate, if they don't then they're not. This natural therapy stuff is just bogus snake oil salesmanship. There are a few sources given here for Reiki for instance, and while I'm happy to concede that can have a placebo effect (especially for something like depression) there's no way that this is medicine.
304:, because they are notable. Any "extensive coverage" by "reliable (secondary) sources" ought to establish notability for a topic. After all, imagine there was an influential, scientifically rigorous empirical debunking of a "natural therapy", that's no less relevant to an encyclopedia than a double-blind study demonstrating effectiveness.
320:
OK, so there'd be no objection to me writing 'there is no evidence that this substance has any effectiveness for this complaint' after each instance then? The secondary sources should be proper medical journals and sources, otherwise they have no value - just as blogs or other self published sources
717:
Comment: the word "natural" is not a marketing buzzword. Natural therapies is a perfectly well accepted expression in common use as a way of distinguishing these therapies from more conventional medicine that is increasingly technological in nature. To talk about natural therapies in connection with
657:
Some of the above comments betray plenty of prejudice, eg the statement that these therapies are "snake oil". This is very much a POV which is very biased. Someone said that these treatments are not medicine, but something doesn't have to be medicine to be worth writing about. Remember, the point of
408:
I never claimed they were .... only that TV Guide and People were also not peer reviewed, as it appears some (not all, some) of the references here are - again to emphasize, my concern is not with every source). In a scientific article, the sources should come primarily from peer reviewed sources,
373:
Not all of the sections are referenced from peer reviewed journals. Just because a journal is about the topic of science, or what one purports to be science, does not make the reference a peer reviewed (and hence truly a scientific) journal. Given the nature of the article, I would think that is
244:
and a lot of is poorly sourced. The coffee section, for example, is sourced from a single "prospective" study, not a full study or clinical trial. The study also looked a very specific group of women aged 34 to 59 and it does not specifically look at people diagnosed with clinical depression. The
409:
as those are the standard works used to support scientific findings. If this is not a scientific article, then appropriate notices should be placed in appropriate places as to not confuse people who might be led to thinking this was scientifically supported. I think that is all Nick was saying.
204:. If the two articles are merged it would create an article of more than 80k in length with over 110 references -- too much for readers. We simply don't need to say everything in one article. And we can't afford to lose important sourced content through deletion.
124:
article. Discussions in both article agreed that this was an inappropriate fork, however a discussion on merging relevant info into the
Clinical Depression, resulted in no consensus because the CD article is already fairly long and already covers the topic in
652:
Most of the above criticisms could be met by editing the text. Eg, the section on coffee was not originally part of the article; if it doesn't come up to scratch, improve or delete that section. You don't delete a whole article because one section isn't up to
481:. If this article does survive this review, there needs to be unambiguous warnings in the article when non-peer reviewed sources are not being used as sources. It needs to be clear that these views are not endorsed by the mainstream scientific community.
270:
Unless any of these 'therapies' can be shown to be effective by proper peer reviewed medical trials. At present the article merely asserts that various substances treat this complaint and this is highly misleading as there's nothing to prove they work.
758:
already covers the various treatment methods for depression, whether "natural" or otherwise. A separate article for some subset of treatments is confusing, at best. If some of the specific remedies mentioned in this article are not in
335:
I think it's totally appropriate, probably necessary even, for the
Scientific Point of View to be presented (double plus if supported by WP:RS), I'm just saying that if the SPOV is "this is bunk", that's not grounds for deletion.
702:
Whatever the result, don't merge anything into the main article. If the bunk is needed on WP keep it separate. Also rename it to something as "Folk therapies of depression", "natural" is merely marketing buzzword here.
239:
If the information was neutral and accurate, it would be helpful, however this article is not. It pushed an anti-medication view, and it is unlikely this article could "save lives." The article has several extremely
526:
section in there. This article could use a lot of work, but it's not irredeemably bad, or hopelessly biased. I'm leaning towards endorsing a merge of properly sourced material back into
631:
I think there is enough here for an article. Will need careful sourcing and watching. The title may need adjustment, per Pete.Hurd, though i do not immediately see what is the best one.
754:
of the allegations it contains. Further, the provided references do not, largely, give a good showing of the scientific basis for the remedies. Even more to the point, perhaps,
110:
83:
78:
87:
153:
70:
722:
However, if enough people object to the word "natural", we could instead call them complementary therapies, which I have found is widely accepted.
392:
You are reaching in an unscientific way. The article references plenty of appropriate and respectable sources, not the TV Guide or People.
74:
17:
773:
733:
712:
693:
673:
642:
621:
584:
563:
543:
490:
469:
418:
401:
387:
366:
345:
330:
313:
280:
258:
230:
213:
196:
172:
142:
52:
66:
58:
357:
objection is not only irrelevant but it is baseless as the article already contains references to papers in medical journals.
593:
718:
depression is merely to say that we are examining the non-technological therapies and how they may relate to depression.
791:
36:
708:
763:, and if they can be justified with good sources, that is where they should go. Anything else should be deleted.
790:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
617:
465:
397:
362:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
378:. Otherwise, it becomes a claim that could be answered in any published source including TV Guide or People.
254:
138:
689:
486:
414:
383:
326:
276:
191:
499:
226:
432:
and if necessary relocate good information. Much of the article should be in individual pages, such as
250:
134:
704:
117:
760:
755:
747:
613:
539:
531:
527:
519:
515:
461:
393:
358:
341:
309:
182:
126:
121:
241:
559:
729:
685:
669:
580:
552:
482:
478:
410:
379:
354:
322:
272:
209:
186:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
572:
453:
222:
456:
as well, evidenced by subtle POV statements such as "drug companies have responded with a
246:
460:
of antidepressant medications" and "they nevertheless may have a contribution to make".
535:
337:
305:
166:
130:
375:
764:
638:
555:
518:, if the argument for maintaining this article separate is hat merging it back into
725:
665:
576:
205:
104:
433:
49:
503:
437:
245:
way the article is written and reinterprets this source falls squarely under
297:
293:
160:
592:
The topic is clearly distinct and notable and there are many sources, e.g.
610:
The
Instinct to Heal: Curing Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Without Drugs
633:
507:
445:
534:
into some article with a better criterion for inclusion than "natural".
301:
452:. This is a clear POV fork and I feel it was written for a particular
48:. Most of the concerns of the delete side should be discussed in talk
441:
596:
which returns hundreds of hits including books with titles such as
449:
510:... a more accurate title for this article as it stands would be
498:
I see the biggest problem here is the use of the word "natural":
784:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
606:
Understanding
Depression - Natural Solutions That Really Work
292:
They don't have to work to be notable. We have articles on
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
794:). No further edits should be made to this page.
602:User's Guide to Natural Remedies for Depression
662:a subject, but simply to tell people about it.
532:Clinical_Depression#Other_methods_of_treatment
516:Clinical_Depression#Other_methods_of_treatment
127:Clinical depression#Other methods of treatment
154:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
750:. This article lacks proper sourcing for
571:per nom. Textbook POV fork, borderline
152:: This debate has been included in the
575:(especially in the "herbal" sections).
522:makes it too long, then why leave the
129:. Only link to this article is from
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
181:into the above mentioned section of
514:. Much of this article replicates
185:. Doesn't need its own article. --
24:
67:Depression and natural therapies
59:Depression and natural therapies
374:important in terms of meeting
1:
774:23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
734:11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
598:Healing Depression Naturally
512:DIY therapies for depression
53:15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
713:18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
694:14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
674:07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
643:01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
622:11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
585:11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
564:08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
544:06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
491:05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
470:04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
419:01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
402:00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
388:20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
367:11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
346:05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
331:04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
314:04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
281:03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
259:05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
231:03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
214:03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
197:01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
173:01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
143:01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
811:
524:Other_methods_of_treatment
787:Please do not modify it.
502:is "natural", how about
219:Retain and keep separate
202:Retain and keep separate
32:Please do not modify it.
530:, or merging this and
658:an article is not to
500:S-Adenosyl methionine
761:Clinical Depression
756:Clinical depression
748:Clinical Depression
528:Clinical_Depression
520:Clinical_Depression
183:Clinical Depression
122:Clinical Depression
247:original research
175:
157:
802:
789:
771:
194:
189:
169:
163:
158:
148:
108:
90:
34:
810:
809:
805:
804:
803:
801:
800:
799:
798:
792:deletion review
785:
765:
705:Pavel Vozenilek
242:fringe theories
192:
187:
167:
161:
133:as a see also.
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
808:
806:
797:
796:
779:
777:
776:
720:
719:
715:
699:
698:
697:
696:
655:
654:
646:
645:
625:
624:
614:Colonel Warden
587:
566:
546:
493:
472:
462:VigilancePrime
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
405:
404:
394:Colonel Warden
370:
369:
359:Colonel Warden
351:
350:
349:
348:
317:
316:
284:
283:
264:
263:
262:
261:
234:
233:
216:
199:
176:
131:Antidepressant
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
807:
795:
793:
788:
782:
781:
780:
775:
772:
770:
769:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
716:
714:
710:
706:
701:
700:
695:
691:
687:
683:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
663:
661:
651:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
635:
630:
627:
626:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
567:
565:
561:
557:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
427:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
319:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
269:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
238:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
195:
190:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
164:
155:
151:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
786:
783:
778:
767:
766:
751:
743:
739:
724:
721:
686:LonelyBeacon
681:
664:
659:
656:
649:
632:
628:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:Google Books
589:
568:
548:
523:
511:
495:
483:LonelyBeacon
479:Nick mallory
474:
458:vast arsenal
457:
429:
411:LonelyBeacon
380:LonelyBeacon
323:Nick mallory
289:
273:Nick mallory
267:
251:Collectonian
218:
201:
178:
149:
135:Collectonian
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
477:- I'm with
438:Amino Acids
434:Acupuncture
223:WriterHound
504:Mesembrine
118:WP:POVFORK
536:Pete.Hurd
338:Pete.Hurd
306:Pete.Hurd
298:mesmerism
294:snake oil
120:from the
768:Tim Ross
653:scratch.
556:Xdenizen
508:Inositol
446:Inositol
302:unicorns
111:View log
726:Sardaka
682:Comment
666:Sardaka
577:Tevildo
573:WP:SPAM
553:Nick m.
551:as per
496:comment
290:comment
206:Johnfos
188:Beloved
84:protect
79:history
740:Delete
569:Delete
549:Delete
475:Delete
448:, and
442:Coffee
430:Delete
355:Nick's
268:Delete
159:-- --
88:delete
50:Secret
746:into
744:Merge
660:prove
450:Reiki
193:Freak
179:Merge
171:: -->
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
752:many
730:talk
709:talk
690:talk
670:talk
650:Keep
639:talk
629:Keep
618:talk
608:and
590:Keep
581:talk
560:talk
540:talk
487:talk
466:talk
415:talk
398:talk
384:talk
376:WP:V
363:talk
342:talk
327:talk
310:talk
300:and
277:talk
255:talk
227:talk
210:talk
168:talk
165:<
162:pb30
150:Note
139:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
742:or
634:DGG
612:.
454:POV
156:.
109:– (
732:)
711:)
692:)
672:)
641:)
620:)
604:,
600:,
583:)
562:)
542:)
506:,
489:)
468:)
444:,
440:,
436:,
417:)
400:)
386:)
365:)
344:)
329:)
312:)
296:,
279:)
257:)
249:.
229:)
212:)
141:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
728:(
707:(
688:(
668:(
637:(
616:(
579:(
558:(
538:(
485:(
464:(
413:(
396:(
382:(
361:(
340:(
325:(
308:(
275:(
253:(
225:(
208:(
137:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.