Talk:Nature therapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camimitchell35, Victoria a490. Peer reviewers: Brycelog.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmb.05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Feedback on article This article could use more depth in the history and more depth in how it beneficial to someone. Also what are the range of exercises and tasks that one would perform for this nature therapy? I believe this article just lacks depth and it would be beneficial to do more research and possible add another topic.

"spending time in nature" is misleading. In particular, there are very specific techniques one must learn to get the benefits of Shinrin Yoku, for example. Just wandering around in nature might be therapy for some, but most folks coming to this article probably want to know the differences between the various ways in which spending that time is good therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwoodtwig (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mdarrow18 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because Forest Therapy has nothing to do with 'forest bathing'. While 'forest bathing' is not an established evidence-based Public health approach, Forest Therapy is a medical practice substantiated by hundreds of research articles across the world published in peer-reviewed articles about its effectiveness.

Please see the list of references given in the article on Forest Therapy, in particular:

.

Thank you kindly for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasserlurchi (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please sign and date your posts. This is basic etiquette here in WP, as basic as "please" and "thank you". With regard to the objection, Same thing, different wrinkle. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because:
 * not only has it just gone through the WP:AFC process and deserves more of a chance than a speedy, but it obviously adds significant (if somewhat waffling) content and a lot of references that are not in the very short, two sentence article on Forest bathing. The Nom is completely wrong to apply WP:CSD A10, as this criterion clearly states: This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. Even if this went to WP:AFD, I predict that the outcome would most definitely be to merge, not to delete. -Nick Moyes (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think the AfC reviewer thought to look under such an odd existing article name; if they had, they surely would have directed the creator to add content there. The other article was here first and was also over-elaborated (see this version) like this one is. They are the same thing (each citing the Japanese term Shinrin-yoku for example), with different names -- the notion that spending time in the forest is therapeutic. (there is also, oddly, Draft:Prairie Bathing)  There is content here that could be added there. but the correct answer here is A10.  The other answer I would be fine with would be re-draftifying this, now that the creator knows the other article exists.  Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MatthewVanitas, were you aware of Forest bathing, and if not, would you please "unaccept" this? Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was not aware of that other article since it's not an intuitive term to compare. I'm not familiar with any "unaccept" mechanism, though I suppose one could just use Page Move to move it back to Draft namespace. I do think this version has some valid content, and I'll live it to others to conclude whether they should be merged, and if so under what name, etc. I would submit that straight deletion would not be desirable, compared to re-draftification or userification since the page does have useful content that shouldn't just disappear. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MatthewVanitas, Yes, the non-drama thing to do, would just be to "unaccept", aka redraftify. Everybody goofs, and undoing a mistake is a normal thing. :)  I would not object to that, at all. It was only 2 hours ago or so, after all. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have merged Forest bathing here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am the founder of the Association of Nature and Forest Therapy Guides and Programs (www.nftg.org). I've studied forest therapy all over the world, and have met with many researchers, guides, and practitioners. I am the primary author of the Scope of Practice and Professional Standards used to train and certifiy forest therapist guides. My organization has trained over 700 guides in 45 countries on six continents, and will train another 300+ in 2019. I am author of "Your Guide to Forest Bathing," and several of the other books on this topic have been written by colleagues who I know personally and whose work I admire very much (for example, Dr. Qing Li at Tokyo University; Dr. Miyazaki at Chiba University). Since the original article was removed and merged into "Nature Therapy" there have been many developments in this field. If I may, I suggest that my expertise on this subject may justify my having some seniority of standing in this discussion. My perspective is (in part): Forest Therapy, Forest Bathing, Shinrin-Yoku, and Sami Lok, are terms that are used interchangeably. However, the practices they denote vary slightly to moderately depending upon culture. For example, in Japan guides give more emphasis to imparting information about scientific studies suggesting there are benefits to being in the forest; in the United States guides tend to give less importance to giving information and focus more on sensory experiences. The essential shape of the practices are similar. I know this from direct experience, having guided and been guided in many countries by guides trained by various schools. It does seem to me that "forest therapy" is evolving toward use in situations where a health care professional has prescribed or suggested the practice, and where it is guided by a qualified, trained guide; and "forest bathing" increasingly denotes when the practice is done by an individual or group, and may or may not be guided, but is not connected to a health care diagnosis. One of the comments above suggests that "it is not an intuitive term," which I think is correct but in a temporary sense. We might have said the same thing about "yoga" 30 or 40 years ago. In the past year the term "forest bathing" in particular appears to have taken hold in the public mind, with no fewer than eight books released in 2018 with "forest bathing" "shinrin yoku" and/or "forest therapy" in the title. My opinion is that it is entirely unjust and mistaken to subsume these under the topic of "nature therapy." Here is an equivalent case: in psychotherapy there are many schools and approaches. Wikipedia has separate articles for quite a few of these. Gestalt Therapy, Depth Psychology, and Object Relations Theory (the three that I randomly checked) each have quite robust individual pages. To apply the same logic that has been applied here, they would all be merged under "psychotherapy" and the content for each greatly reduced, thus rendering them virtually useless to those who seek information about them via Wikipedia. I do agree that the scientific evidence is in early stages of development, but I don't see why that would result in not honoring the validity of the work in progress. I would very much like to see this topic re-established and turned over to those who have actual expertise on the matter. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to stay in the discussion if there are any questions I can answer or clarification I can provide.Amos Clifford (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, forest bathing is just nonsense, and deserves the coverage in our project that it currently has, and no more. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)-Roxy, the dog . wooF 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review
Feedback on Nature Therapy Article

This article could use more depth in the history and more depth in how it beneficial to someone. Also what are the range of exercises and tasks that one would perform for this nature therapy? I believe this article just lacks depth and it would be beneficial to do more research and possible add another topic. I like all the different type of categories that you added into your articleJjthakid23 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Also would you be able to give more information on the health effectsJjthakid23 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Mdarrow18 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow


 * Thank you for this feedback! I am trying to find more information about the history!:) Camimitchell35 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on nature therapy article I like all of the different variety of different types of therapy. Could you expand more on the history part of the article? This article lacks some research that could still be added. Brycelog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)--Brycelog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bryce! I think this is a good idea; we will try to do that. Thank you!Camimitchell35 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Earthing therapy
For some reason the “Earthing Therapy” article redirects here although there’s no mention of earthing therapy at all in this article – it’s separate and distinct (more related to electrical earthing than nature per se). Perhaps Earthing therapy could have its own article? --SimonEast (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference behind paywall
I have reviewed most references and have access to a large University library but I can not get this reference behind a paywall. If anyone is able to check the reference that would be appreciated. Rajoo, Keeren Sundara (June 2020). "The physiological and psychosocial effects of forest therapy: A systematic review". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 1 (2): 64–74. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126744
 * I couldn't get to it either, but I did find a similar paper from 2021 that might be useful for the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good article. Thank you. I skimmed it and might be better as it is more accessible, very complete and up to date. We could put the results and conclusion in,

"The results of the eight moderate and low-rated reviews indicated that forest-based interventions are beneficial to the cardiovascular system, immune system, and mental health (in the areas of stress, depression, anxiety, and negative emotions). Evidence for the effectiveness of forest-based interventions on metabolic parameters in adults, the severity of atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents, and social skills and sociality in healthy primary school children was weak. Discussion/Conclusions: Evidence suggests beneficial therapeutic effects of forest-based interventions on hypertension, stress, and mental-health disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Changes in immunological and inflammatory parameters after forest therapy should be verified in bio-geographically native forests. In the future, more attention should be paid to careful planning, implementation, and reporting of primary studies and to systematic reviews on the effects of forest-based interventions."

Setting this article aside for a bit now though.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating Science
— Assignment last updated by Isab.6703 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Practical Research Methodology 2024
— Assignment last updated by Jadensicotte (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS
The article states: "120 minutes in nature weekly could improve health and well-being". But the research shows that people who spent more time in nature score higher, not that that activity itself improves anything. Sure, people who have time to go explore a forest for a couple of hours every week are probably more healthy than those who live in the inner-city working 3 jobs to survive. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Videos of nature
The article stated:

People exposed to nature are also more cooperative and pleasant compared to those who are not.

But these people weren't "exposed to nature"... they watched a short video. This can not be proof that nature therapy works, only that watching calming videos work. Polygnotus (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

five minutes
The article stated:

As little as five minutes in a natural setting, improves mood, self-esteem, and motivation.

If you actually click on the link you see it is not a scientific study, just a blogpost about someone who is a therapist and promoting her business. Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have reverted the recent edits. Polygnotus (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Edu student editors should never be assigned articles like these because they are controversial and fall under WP:MEDRS. Can you please ensure this stops and never happens again? Same with Urban green space btw.

You guys should fix the problems you have caused. It is unfair to demand of me that I fix it; my time on this planet is limited.

Please explain to the instructor that this is not a suitable topic for their course and to the student why this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I honestly feel bad reverting 10k bytes from a good faithed editor who will get bitten because their instructor did not give them the help required.

All pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science are considered a contentious topics. All medical claims require MEDRS.

I now think the student editor used chatgpt or similar to hide the copyright violations somewhat.

Polygnotus (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

COPYVIO
Article said:

Despite its growing emergence as a discipline, horticultural therapy can be traced back to ancient times, with evidence of the therapeutic benefits of plants and gardening dating as far back as 2000 BC.

and

The lush agricultural landscapes of Mesopotamia and as well as Persian gardens serve as early examples of the recognition of healing properties within horticulture.

Source said:

Horticultural therapy is a relatively new discipline; however, recognition of the therapeutic effects of plants and horticulture dates back many centuries to 2000 BC and the lush agricultural landscapes of Mesopotamia and to Persian gardens, designed to please all of the senses, around 500 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nature_therapy&diff=1218225474&oldid=1218205754

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nature_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1218175372

Another example:

In the Middle Ages, monastic gardens served multifaceted roles, and were viewed as a space for sick individuals to recuperate, while also providing areas for the cultivation of medicinal plants.

which was stolen from:

During the Middle Ages, monastic gardens were used for growing medicinal plants and to provide places for the sick to dwell and recuperate.

Encyclopedia of Geropsychology is a copyrighted source. These are blatant copyright violations.

I think they used Chatgpt to rewrite the source. Polygnotus (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)