Talk:Wellness (alternative medicine)

I'm unsure why this article isn't merged into Health. It seems like Health is already talking at reasonable length about wellness. Why not merge the two?

That is precisely why it has it's present name. Health has absolutely nothing to do with wellness. Health is not at all talking about wellness from the sense of alternative medince. See, the direct quote shown below from an MD admin who concurs with my position. Why do you think that I wasted my time posting his comment, here? Try reading the comments posted in talk, before making your comments. -- John Gohde 23:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is needed

Why the need for an alternative medicine article on wellness? Because conventional medicine is not concerned with wellness outside of mental and physical health.[1] This article is almost entirely about going beyond mere mental and physical health.

Quite frankly, I am thinking very strongly about adding a new article on Health (alternative medicine) which would be a direct translation of an early German edition of the Health article. There are actually quite a few German edition articles in Wikipedia that would be worth translating because of their strong alternative medicine theme. I can point people towards Stress (medicine), written obviously by a science person, for starting this trend. I think that it is time to take another stab at Stress (psychological), too.

Furthermore, I do not respond to anonymous questions or comments. Contrary to popular belief, this entry was made entirely as an opportunity to take advantage of an edit summary made by Jfdwolff, MD.[2] -- John Gohde 09:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you do!

Wellness?

Why is this article not at Wellness? That's a redirect to this page right now, and I don't see a reason why the "(alternative medicine)" thing should be here when the word is not used for any other article. --Conti|✉ 10:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Wellness (alternative medicine) → Wellness. I don't see a reason why the "(alternative medicine)" part should be there. Wellness actually is a redirect at the moment. --Conti|✉ 21:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with the person who made the nomination. The term is widely understood and there's no ambiguity. --Smithfarm 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP AS IS The reason for the name is given in Talk:Lifestyle diseases (alternative medicine). That article had to be renamed. This article started out with the correct name. But to recap in brief, 100% alternative medicine articles have to be named with alternative medicine or some science person is going to take it as an article about medicine which it clearly is not. Health is about being disease free. Wellness (alternative medicine) is about being more than disease free. It has nothing in common with the old article. Perhaps, only about 2 sentences from the old article remains. The subjects are completely different. And, separate names are required in Wikipedia to keep the subjects separate and distinct. The article is about being more than disease free. As written, it clearly should be classified under alternative medicine rather than medicine. -- John Gohde 23:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP AS IS This request was made by somebody who clearly don't know what they are talking about. The reason for the name is given in Talk:Lifestyle diseases (alternative medicine). That article had to be renamed. This article started out with the correct name. But to recap in brief, 100% alternative medicine articles have to be named with alternative medicine or some science person is going to take it as an article about medicine which it clearly is not. Health is about being disease free. Wellness (alternative medicine) is about being more than disease free. It has nothing in common with the old article. Perhaps, only about 2 sentences from the old article remains. The subjects are completely different. And, separate names are required in Wikipedia to keep the subjects separate and distinct. The article is about being more than disease free. As written, it clearly classified under alternative medicine rather than medicine. -- John Gohde 22:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If I understood you correctly, you are saying that "Wellness (alternative medicine)" is something different than "Wellness"? If so, why is the latter a redirect to the former? They should be either seperate articles (with a good reason why they should), or there should only be Wellness. Because it is alternative medicine (which I doubt as well) is not reason enough. --Conti|✉ 23:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was following the explicited directions of your leader: User:Snowspinner. See discussion in Talk:Health where Snowspinner explicited directly me to do so. -- John Gohde 23:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't use that kind of cynicism, this is Wikipedia and not Snowypedia. --Conti|✉ 23:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The old Wellness article is not remotely similar to the article presently in question. That fact alone proves that your move to merge is being made in bad faith. It is all the reason anyone in Wikipedia needs to have separate names for separate subjects. It is the way things are done in Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 23:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I can assure you that there was no bad faith in my proposed move. When the old content is so much different, then why isn't it a seperate article? If it's a different topic it should have its own article, if it is not, it should be moved there. --Conti|✉ 23:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just noticed your last sentence "As written, it clearly classified under alternative medicine rather than medicine": Either way it should be at "Wellness", the specification is only used when there's another wellness that could be at the same articlename. Then we would have to decide between Wellness (medicine) and Wellness (alternative medicine). --Conti|✉ 23:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done: Wellness (medicine) and Wellness (alternative medicine) both presently exist. And, both are clearly are about two different topics. Now, there are no redirects. -- John Gohde 23:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if these two topics differ that much, but I don't know enough about this topic to really say that, so I guess things are ok now. --Conti|✉ 23:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think having two articles on wellness is pretty lame. I wasn't aware that it's a term used much in classical medicine. Do students in medical school take classes in it? On a different note, however, Wellness is currently a redirect to Wellness (medicine). It should be a disambiguation page, no? --Smithfarm 08:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great idea about wellness being a disambiguation page. It is now done. The new page merely proves my above points by quoting directly from both articles. --John Gohde 19:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Gohde: please do not assume that ContiE is trying to cause problems - he has raised a very valid question. The term wellness is used primarily for alternative medicine but has more general meanings too – he lead section reflects this. It is usual policy to avoid brackets where possible. Wellness redirects here, and so anybody that enters that into the search box comes to this article. There is no other meaning of wellness that could be confused with this one and I therefore concur with ContiE that the move should take place. I will be doing so after the usual WP:RM policy of five days if there are no further objections. violet/riga (t) 15:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but please keep my name out of this discussion! It appears that the above group has decided otherwise. You do not own this article. Wellness is now a disambiguation page as it clearly should be.

Furthermore, a clear reading of the above clearly shows that ContiE did not concur that the move should take place. ContiE clearly expressed a change in opinion. -- John Gohde 19:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody "owns" anything here. We're carrying on a discussion to try to come to a consensus on how the page should look. We now have "Wellness" as a disambiguation page. After giving the matter some thought, I really don't think there is anything ambiguous about the term "wellness". It's a New-Age term and has little, if anything, to do with classical reductionist medicine, which is primarily concerned with sick people. Therefore, I don't think the disambiguation warrants a whole page of its own. It can be accomplished in the main Wellness article with a line like this one at the top:

This is an article about Wellness as that term is commonly used in alternative medicine. For a classical medicine perspective, see "Wellness (medicine)"

That would be my vote. I would like to compromise, but find it difficult because the idea that wellness is a term with significant classical medicine implications seems ridiculous to me. Really, I don't think this is very controversial. --Smithfarm 20:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, wellness (medicine) is the historically older article. The forces on Wikipedia would only attempt to recreate the wellness from the medical perspective article if the two articles are merged. Why are we wasting so much time on this non-issue?

Puting a disambiguous notice on the good article would only serve to totally mess up the good article. A separate disambiguation page is clearly the best choice.-- John Gohde 20:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- I'm not proposing the articles be merged. Wellness in classical medicine can have its own article as far as I'm concerned. But the disambiguation should be done in conformance with common Wikipedia practice. In cases where a certain word (call it "X") has one major meaning and one minor one, the Wikipedia practice is to call the article on the major meaning "X", have the article on the minor meaning be called "X (something)" and to put a link to "X (something)" in the main article on "X". When the second meaning is really minor (like this case IMO) the link is put somewhere at the bottom of the article. But I'm willing to accept the link being at the top if that's where you think it should be. But a whole page for disambiguation is for cases when a given word has several meanings, all pretty much comparable in significance. Not the case here, so I was wrong to suggest it in the first place. --Smithfarm 20:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Notmoved The disambiguation seems to be the popular choice. violet/riga (t) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears this article's content has been deleted

...and replaced with a redirect to Mental health. Déjà vu? --Smithfarm 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

After giving the matter some thought, I reverted it. I would request that anyone who doesn't want this page here should go through due process (VfD, Merging process, etc.) -- so as not to provoke unnecessary controversy. --Smithfarm 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do the external links keep getting deleted from this article?

A few months ago there were a bunch of external links to relevant websites and last week they were all gone, including government websites. I put back up what I thought were some credible resources and they seem to have been taken down again. If we're going to have an article on wellness, there should be some more relevant websites than just one. If they are taken down again, please at least explain in this discussion why. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.153.248 (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Because they are commercial links that do not add anything to the article. They only exist to drive visitors to these sites, and they are spam. Please see: WP:EL and WP:SPAM. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a web-directory, it is an encyclopedia. Leuko 06:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most websites are commercial. That doesn't mean anything. It's only important that they are neutral, credible, and relevant. From the WP:EL page: "What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Those websites were not put up to drive traffic to their visitors. I put up three unaffiliated websites yesterday, so how could that be the case? I'm a neutral observer trying to improve the article. I think that some people take the strictness of the external link policy a little too far. I think it actually hurts the Wiki community to exclude all commercial sites when many of them contain more and better information than government sites. I'm putting those links back up. I disagree with you. See if you can find some support for your argument.