Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 27 August 2008 (→Merge discussion from Talk:Treatment of depression: refactor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I have added sections on exercise and sleep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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 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)

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)

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)

People use words like "natural" or "chemical" in an attempt to refer to distinct (and, in the case of this pair of words, opposite) sets of things, and then discover, once they really try to explain what they're talking about, that there's a meaningful sense in which the words could refer to anything and everything in the entire cosmos. The solution for this article, as we've discussed in the major depressive disorder article, is probably just to rename the article, so that "natural" is replaced with another word, like "alternative," which at least implies pretty strongly some diversion from the mainstream. I'll be happy to rename (i.e., move) it once consensus is reached or once five days pass without objection, whichever happens first if any happen at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving this article

First I believe there should be a distinction in the article between natural (non-pharmacological) treatments that have been researched extensively (fish oil, psychotherapy, meditation, exercise, B-vitamins) and those than have not. Secondly, I feel it is a shame that some of the most well-researched options, such as psychotherapy and exercise, do not even appear. Do I have permission to add them?Postcrypto (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add away! --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename and refocus to avoid POV forking

OK, this article is only 19 kb. How about we rename it Treatment of depression and make it inclusive of and focus on all treatments? Then we don't have to worry about what is 'alternative' etc? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All in favour....

• Aye Major depressive disorder has ballooned to 111 kB, making it in desperate need of spin-out articles. The fact that some treatments are more plausible than others can be adequately treated here. The recommended treatments all have their own articles, so this can be just an alphabetical list. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that's not a bad idea at all..I was trying to think of some nexus between it all. I was initially thinking of a more detailed overview of treatment, but then again, each modailty listed should have that so...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree We've been discussing this for a long time now. The other alternatives offered didn't address the pov problems we currently have.(see below for alternative) --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a need for the Treatment of depression article. It is essentially covered in just three articles Antidepressant, Psychotherapy and ECT. Possibly, an article called Alternative treatments of depression may be worth creating instead of this one. However, I am afraid that it will be a magnet for the junk, and thus the strictly evidence-based information I collected in the corresponding section of the MDD article will be overwritten or buried. Paul Gene (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Although if it were just a list, then those three treatments prominently listed at the top may be a good thing (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I will not actively argue against it. But imagine, a new article Treatment of depression is a huge undertaking, and we are not done with MDD yet ;). Paul Gene (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

True that. I won't be prioritising this one, but raised it due to Ronz questioning our progress on it. Mainly raised it as there were problems with this article before and for a focus so if there is a clear consensus to change the scope then it will be thus changed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Major_depressive_disorder#Treatment currently has five subsections, one sub-subsection, and some 60 references. Two of the subsections are lists: "Other conventional methods of treatment" has four entries, and "Alternative treatment methods" has 10 entries. Certainly Major depressive disorder doesn't need this level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative: Merge

Alternatively, we could merge the contents of this article into Major depressive disorder. This would resolve the pov problems once, after the merge, the new content was brought up to the standards of the rest of the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that that article is very large and near to the point of requiring pruning..not sure yet.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed

I was bold and went ahead with it. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've merged in Major_depressive_disorder#Treatment and partially cleaned up the article. Needs lots of work still. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this move which I consider to be a significant change of topic and so unwarranted. The focus of this article is natural therapies for depression. If you want a more general article, then please start a separate one to which this can be linked. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved for discussion: B-Vitamins

I moved the "B-Vitamins" section here for discussion. This appears to be WP:SYN, but without access to the article, I'm not 100% certain. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

B-Vitamins

It has been shown that some people with depression have an impaired folate metabolism and that taking a daily B-vitamin complex tablet can help with depression.

I would reword it to stress that the cause of one particular subtype of depression has been linked to impaired folate metabolism. In most cases, B vitamin supplementation is worthless against depression (and even in the relevant cases you need to make sure that whatever is provided is actually bioavailable to the patient). A better source would be the NIH and references therein (from the B-12 article). - Eldereft (cont.) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV revisited

I rewrote the lede from sources to remove tendentious material and so took the NPOV tag away too. Ronz has added the tag back. We now need some specifics on the NPOV issue because I'm not seeing it and can't address a vague assertion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems have yet to be addressed. --Ronz (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• What problems? You still have not provided any specifics. Please see WP:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute: Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral. ... If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressed above. Please observe WP:NPA, thank you. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In your discussion above with Sardarka, you assert that the selection of therapies is arbitrary. This is a contradiction since arbitrariness would imply the absence of a POV. Sardarka contends that the term natural is readily understood and I have confirmed this by finding and referencing multiple comprehensive sources which use the term in this way. The topic is thus notable, well-defined and provides ample material for a substantial article. Other therapies such as SSRIs likewise require much space for good coverage and there seems to be scope for many articles covering all this ground. Anyway, if you do not provide specific details to be addressed then the general tag cannot stay as it is intrusive and unhelpful. Since Sardarka had exactly the same trouble in interpreting your objection, it seems you need to communicate your meaning better. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"This is a contradiction since arbitrariness would imply the absence of a POV." Not at all. See ]

"I have confirmed this by finding and referencing multiple comprehensive sources which use the term in this way" See WP:FRINGE as well.

"Anyway, if you do not provide specific details to be addressed then the general tag cannot stay as it is intrusive and unhelpful." Again, please observe WP:NPA.

Maybe we could change the topic to something about the promotion of substances deemed "natural" as possible ways to address depression? Otherwise, we have POVFORK, NPOV, SYN, and FRINGE problems, especially in contrast to the information that is much better sourced in the related articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Still you provide no specifics, details or examples for any of your complaints. Please instance the precise portions of the article to which you object. If you object to the entire article and its theme then the tag is redundant since what you want is to remove the article entirely per your AFD. Tags are intended to be used for the purpose of improving the article. If you have no specific improvements in mind then a tag is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. See my comments above. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I had already read all the comments above but have done so again. The only specific details are the absence of coverage of Lithia Water and Socialization. I have now added some details of the former but the latter does not appear to be a therapy - just a risk factor for depression and a technique used in counselling such as CBT. In any case, these points do not support the complaints made in the tag. Two of these post-date the comments above and the article too has changed significantly as a result of my editing. You are therefore required to state or restate your detailed objections per WP:NPOVD which states, "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't understand the situation. Every part of the article has problems, and the article as a whole is especially problematic. This has been discussed in detail for almost a year now. I don't think any significant changes have been made to solve these problems.

It would be helpful for you to explain your edits in detail, as some appear to be very helpful, but your edit summaries really don't explain what you're doing or why. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again it seems that the only problem is that you want the entire topic to go away. This would not be in accordance with our policies and seems unlikely to happen. As for my edits, if the edit summary is insufficient, one can see their effect by either looking at the diffs or reading the result. In general, I am improving the article by adding content related to the topic while sharpening up the presentation as appears appropriate. The next step will perhaps be to address the talking therapies. These were not covered originally but seem relevant insofar as they are not drug-based. Anyway, you are still failing to clarify your objections as specified by WP:NPOVD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Again it seems that the only problem is that you want the entire topic to go away. " Please discuss the article contents, rather than discussing other editors. Thanks!

I'm once again asking you to either use more detailed edit summaries, or to summarize you edits in some other way, especially given that there are multiple problems here.

In the meantime, could you identify some of the sources used to achieve NPOV? I don't see any, but then again I'm having a hard time making out what you and past editors think given the edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Again, per WP:NPOVD, "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely no sources being used in any way to follow NPOV. Please list a few. How's that? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article cites 48 sources and you're saying that absolutely all of them are violating NPOV in some way? This seems absurd and it would be pointless to list some since you say that they are all bad. Again, this is an untenable blanket assertion which cannot be taken seriously and does not help us forward. Please be specific, as required by WP:NPOVD. Failure to provide specifics when repeatedly asked seems to indicate that you are engaged in pointy disruption. Since this tagging may be deliberate defacement in support of your AFD nomination, I shall continue to remove tags which are not supported by adequate details here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"The article cites 48 sources and you're saying that absolutely all of them are violating NPOV in some way?" Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON and avoid misrepresenting others. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You say above, "I see absolutely no sources being used in any way to follow NPOV". Again that is, "absolutely no sources being used in any way". Now, this seems to mean that you are suggesting that all sources have an improper NPOV. If you have some other meaning then please list the specific sources or interpretations to which you object as you have been asked repeatedly per WP:NPOVD: "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've clearly and exactly explained, "Every part of the article has problems, and the article as a whole is especially problematic." I have not found any section that has sources used to balance the content per NPOV. I've asked you to help me identify such sources and you've ignored my request. If you cannot identify even one, what am I to think? That you cannot identify any either? That there are none? That you don't understand NPOV?

Again, this article is a POVFORK. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Now, this seems to mean that you are suggesting that all sources have an improper NPOV" What does it mean for a source to have an improper NPOV? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep avoiding the specifics which are required by the process. You say that there are numerous parts of the article with problems. Please start listing them and specify what the problems are. Until you do this, we cannot even begin to talk of balance because you have not stated any particular detail which is unbalanced or in what direction. You talk of other sources but have yet to produce any to substantiate your personal opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand NPOV, given your comment above. I see no need to proceed further here if you are going to ignore each and every other topic and suggestion I bring up. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I read through this discussion. I too would like to read what specific issues Ronz has with this article in terms of NPOV. Please explain what sections specifically you feel are in violation and please describe why. You may have valid points, but we can't know what they are if you don't explain them to us. -- Levine2112 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show some indication that you have actually read the above discussions by making comments that follow WP:TALK, rather than just repeating comments that border on harassment. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I have indicated that I have read the above discussions. If you need more of an indication than that, then allow me to add that in all of my reading, I failed to see any place where you've backed up your NPOV violation claim with any sort of specific example. What I am kindly asking you to provide here now is such an example so I can weigh the merits of your NPOV violation claim. -- Levine2112 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith. I'm looking for evidence that I should continue to do so. Please read WP:POVFORK if you haven't done so, as it describes the problems here. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:POVFORK applies here. I don't think that an article which describes natural therapies for depression necessarily avoids any NPOV. We have many "alt med" type articles on Misplaced Pages. Are we to believe that each one of those is a fork? I think there is room to put both negative and positive aspects of this subject in this article. Of course, I may be missing something which you may see. If so, please enumerate why you think POVFORK applies here. -- Levine2112 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON says otherwise. And of course, this is not a vote. Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. Thanks!

A "natural therapy" is an ill-defined term. Trying to distinguish it from a pharmaceutical means avoiding science, mostly. That's fine, except there is no reason except for the fact that some fringe practitioners parlay the fear of modernity into a slick New Age package selling alternative quackjuice. Let's just keep all the treatments on the same page since they all deal with the same fundamental topic. If the page becomes too large, then we can properly fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the lead rewrite, I think what the editors here want to do is create a category of non-pharmaceutical treatements for depression. It's not clear though. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

There has been some tag-bombing so I have sharpened up the sources for the lede and doubled up the ones supporting the initial sentences which explain the general topic. The OED reference comes from their online service and so a page number is not applicable. It is a subscription service but you may be sure that I have quoted it accurately. I would address Ronz's tag complaints in the same way but they are still too vague, as discussed above, and he has still failed to provide any details. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd still isn't satisfied. He is invited to clarify his objection as these sources are fairly voluminous. Please understand that the points made are not direct quotes as we do not plagiarise our sources. Rather we write our own prose and cite sources which support the factual points made. What is the fact which is disputed please? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion is not included at all in citation #3. #2 says that natural remedies may be cheaper and equally effective. I suggest removal of citation #3 and I have edited the sentence so it more accurately reflects what is stated in #2. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The third source makes many points. Among them, we have:

• an over-emphasis on medicinal cures at the expense of cheaper and better therapies
• the advice of the Chief Medical Office that many depressed patients should be prescribed exercise programmes rather than pills.

The general thrust of the piece is that drugs, including anti-depressants, are promoted for financial reasons while natural remedies such as exercise are neglected. The authorities mentioned see this as wrong and wish to see this reversed. This seems to support the general sense of the lede sentence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Nice POV-piece. Of course, "natural remedies" are promoted for financial reasons too! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...

Colonel Warden has asked me to take a look at this. I don't want to address the interpersonal issues that he has raised, as this would probably devolve into needless drama, but I advise that some discussion occur before major edits are made to this article. After the recent ill-considered move, we have both Treatment for depression and Treatment of depression, which is not good. After the AfD, we are presented with two options: merge both into one article, or preserve this one as a WP:SS spinout of the other. Could we stop the merging and moving for a minute and discuss this?  Sandstein  19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that it's a bit confusing. I'm a bit inexperienced at merges, and wanted to retain as much history as possible per Colonel Warden's concerns. I thought that Treatment of depression as it exists would be deleted, and Treatment for depression would be renamed. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Organizing Alternative treatment methods

Since there are so many of them, they should probably be organized into groups. I thought the Alternative_medicine#NCCAM_classifications might be good:

• Whole medical systems
• Mind-body medicine
• Biologically based practices
• Manipulative and body-based practices
• Energy medicine

--Ronz (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion from Talk:Treatment of depression

As discussed in the above, I really see no need to segregate treatments for depression in this, if you will pardon the pun, artificial way. The topic can be treated with adequate depth and better style using this single article and {{main}} links to full discussions. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, thank you. The division is not artificial as there are numerous, voluminous sources with a specific focus upon natural therapies and so the topic is well-recognised. There are also numerous pharmaceutical therapies for depression and there will be much confusion if we try to cover everything in one place. Just addressing the natural therapies alone is already proving quite trying as we fuss over the details. I suggest that Treatment of depression be renamed Pharmaceutical treatment of depression. This is a substantial topic which will not be helped by wrangling over Reiki, Meditation, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which disambiguates the two? I haven't seen any presented. Even so, we can present them on the same page and fork later if this article becomes too big. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything that was worth keeping in that article is now here. There is still some cleanup work to do here, though. Thanks everyone for taking care of that awful piece of (expletive deleted) formally known as Depression and natural therapies. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;70:419 ( March )