Talk:Wellness (alternative medicine)/Archive 1

Untitled
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. 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. -- John Gohde 09:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you do!

Documentation Has Been Located
Recently, I came across an academic paper that does an excellent job of documenting the reason-for-being for this article on wellness. James Miller ('Wellness: The History and Development of a Concept', Spektrum Freizeit 27, 84-106, 2005) Currently, the full text of this document is available online for FREE in pdf file format. Ergo, the wellness movement is real and deserving of the current separate WikiPedia article. Furthermore, the present article could easily be expanded using this documentation as the source material. John Gohde 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wellness Movement / concept is real.
 * The Wellness Movement / Concept has been recognized by Academia.
 * The Wellness Movement / Concept has a history which is very well documented.

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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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|&#9993; 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)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. 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.


 * The fact that multiple people keep deleting them I think is support enough. Per WP:EL, we should avoid links with an objectionable amount of advertising.  Instead of flooding the article with link spam, I've linked to DMOZ instead.  Leuko 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lueko. The three links added yesterday don't seem appropriate per WP:EL and the DMOZ link is a much better idea, since Wikipedia is not a directory. CiaranG 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Halbert L. Dunn
The fact that Halbert L. Dunn was a M.D. with direct ties to writing the constitution of the World Health Organization is anything but a minor point. Halbert L. Dunn, M.D. was the primary person behind the wellness movement. John Gohde 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some well known wellness promoters are ...
I just removed Stephen Langer from the list of well known promoters. That list is intended to be representative, giving a scant few names to help establish context for the readers - is there a source indicating he should be included? - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Wellness Wheel
Please see my post at the reference desk regarding this concept.


 * Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009_July_14

I'm asking for help on whether this article should be updated or a new article started. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is the National Wellness Association, supposedly of Singapore?
The definition of wellness allegedly made by that organization has been copied all over the internet, but I can find no source for the definition and indeed no such organization. 98.216.215.247 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently uncovered the association between anything wellness related and Singapore. In the state of Wisconsin (intimately connected with the creation of the wellness concept) there was a concurrent creation of a large career interest survey which was contracted to Singapore.  The Singapore schools paid millions of dollars to validate the test and implement it across most of their educational system.  UW-Madison is responsible for WISCareers, while UW-Stevens Point is the nation's first college level wellness program and responsible for the creation of the National Wellness Institute (NWI).  I don't know where the lines were crossed, but WISCareers is where the Wisconsin Singapore connection originates.  143.236.34.51 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pasting here odd addition that I reverted
It's not clear why this was added to the beginning of the article:



Halbert L. Dunn (1895-1975)

Introduction

Halbert L. Dunn, M.D.Halbert L. Dunn was born in New Paris, OH. He earned both medical and doctoral degrees at the University of Minnesota. He served on the staffs of Presbyterian Hospital of New York City, the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and the University of Minnesota before becoming chief of the National Office of Vital Statistics in Washington, D.C.

Then he got the idea about wellness.

It was for what Dr. Dunn did with his life after that time that he is remembered today as the founding father of the concept.

In a recent interview, I was asked to capture, in 350 words or less, three things about Dr. Dunn: 1. For what is he best known? 2. How have his ideas been utilized in the field of health promotion? 3. Name a few sources where we can learn more about his life and work. Here is what I came up with.

Legacy

Dr. Dunn was to the early adopters of wellness what the Enlightenment was to America's Founding Fathers - an inspiration and source for definitions, ideals, visions and promises. He well described the components of a dynamic state of full and effective living, an integrated method of functioning. He championed the transcendent wellness goal - to maximize the potential of environments in which people function.

Alas, just as America struggles still with the ideals our Founders gained from the Enlightenment in Europe (i.e., liberty, equality, justice, reason, self-governance/personal responsibility and independence) so, too, is high level wellness, as Dunn described it, an unrealized dream. America, for all its unprecedented triumphs as a leading democratic Republic, remains mired in racial, social, economic and religious divisions. The wellness ideal, only slightly more than half a century on, is not in evidence - yet. Dunn would not recognize or think much of wellness" at health promotion worksites, health/medical care institutions, educational settings, spas around the world or other sectors where the term advanced is employed in ways foreign to concepts articulated in Dunn's seminal work High Level Wellness.

Applications - Applying Dunn's Ideas

Dunn's concept of wellness is not suitable for U.S. worksites, where health promotion lives. Dunn's panoramic view of man, his focus on laws of energy, on the mind, the imagination and the natural and social environments is not compatible with the mindsets at constricted settings that extoll cost containment, risk reduction and medical minutiae. These controlling objectives distract from explorations and expansions of personal satisfactions and purposes in life.

On a hopeful note, know that Dunn concluded his series of 29 high level wellness lectures with a soliloquy on transition points in the scheme of things, using water as an example (i.e., liquid to ice or steam) if conditions (i.e., temperatures) are right:

It is the same with the emergence of thought...After a long period of slow development, a gigantic advance is made, seemingly all at once. The world is never the same after such a transition.

A wellness consummation devoutedly to be wished, anticipated, promoted and welcomed.

Seminal Readings

Ardell, Donald B. High Level Wellness: An Alternative to Doctors, Drugs and Disease, Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA 1977. Halbert L. Dunn, High Level Wellness. Beatty, Arlington, VA 1961. Halbert L. Dunn, High-Level Wellness for Man and Society, American Journal of Public Health (Nations Health, June, 1959; 49(6): 786-792. James William Miller, Wellness: The History and Development of a Concept, Spektrum Freizeit, 2005.

I hope this short account of the life of a very good man and a remarkable doctor will lead you to look deeper into the works of Halbert Dunn.

Be well and look on the bright side.

If there are sources such that this person is notable, an article about him could be created. But this essay style wouldn't be acceptable as an article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see there's already an article on Herbert Dunn. TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced
The following sections are unsourced - moved here per [{WP:PRESERVE]]. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without finding reliable sources - WP:RS or WP:MEDRS as is relevant -- checking the content against them, and citing them.

Alternative approaches to wellness are often denoted by the use of two different phrases: health and wellness, and wellness programs. These kinds of wellness programs offer alternative medicine techniques to improve wellness. Wellness programs vary depending on the target market and who is promoting them. Wellness programs are most commonly promoted in progressive companies and schools along with personal wellness programs marketed directly to health seeking individuals. Wellness programs attempt to facilitate life improvements though recommending positive lifestyle changes. Wellness programs are often pursued by people seeking recovery from an illness or specific health condition or by those interested in improving their overall health.
 * Programs

Supporters of wellness programs may claim there are many factors that contribute to wellness: living in a clean environment, eating healthy food, regular physical exercise, balance in career; family; and relationships, spiritual awareness and some programs include faith-based worship. Faith-based wellness programs may suggest a spiritual component in their models, however, it would be opposition to most secular wellness programs which tend to be inclusive any individual's spiritual beliefs or practices. Working toward a deeper understanding of these issues and the underlying causes of both physiological and psychological disorders are such innovators as Dr. Christopher Jackson (A Path to Wellness), Dr. Bruce Lipton, and Dr. Wayne Dyer.

Some other well known wellness promoters are Deepak Chopra, Michael Roizen, Mehmet Oz, Don B. Ardell, John Travis, David F. Duncan, Mahendra Trivedi and Andrew Weil.


 * Secular-based programs

The aging population participates in wellness programs in order to feel better and have more energy. Wellness programs allow individuals to take increased responsibility for their health behaviors. People often enroll in a private wellness program to improve fitness, stop smoking, or to learn how to manage their weight.

Workplace wellness programs are recognized by more and more companies for their value in improving health and well-being of their employees. They are part of a company's health and safety program. In a study conducted by RAND Health and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, researchers found that approximately half of U.S. employers offer “wellness promotion initiatives”. However, participation is spotty, as the study also showed that only 46 percent of employees who have access to a program undergo clinical screening and/or complete an HRA (Health Risk Assessment). These wellness programs are designed not only to improve employee morale, loyalty, and productivity, but also to lower health insurance costs, medical bills, and other employee compensation costs. They could consist of as little as a gym full of exercise equipment that is available to their employees on company property during the workday, but they may also cover smoking cessation programs, nutrition; weight; or stress management training, nature and outdoors activities, health risk assessments, and health screenings.


 * Faith-based programs

Religious organizations often provide food, shelter, clothing, childcare and senior services in the community. Faith-based wellness ministries are simply wellness programs sponsored by the faith-based community, which are similar to those offered by others, but generally also focus on the spiritual, New Age and religious aspects of wellness from the perspective of a particular faith. Here, wellness is viewed as a quest for spiritual wholeness. Robert H. Schuller's be happy Beatitudes, for example, expounds upon the New Testament and presents eight positive principles for fulfillment. New Age guru Deepak Chopra, author of more than 40 books on spirituality and health, offers an alternative and New Age spirituality perspective to wellness.

Whether these techniques actually improve physical health is controversial and a subject of much debate. James Randi and the James Randi Educational Foundation are outspoken critics of this alternative new age concept of wellness. The behaviors in the pursuit of wellness often include many health related practices, such as making healthy lifestyle changes and utilizing natural therapies.
 * Criticism

Wellness, as a luxury pursuit, is found obviously in the more affluent societies because it involves managing the body state after the basic needs of food, shelter and basic medical care have already been met. Many of the practices applied in the pursuit of wellness, in fact, are aimed at controlling the side effects of affluence, such as obesity and inactivity. Wellness grew as a popular concept starting in the 19th century, just as the middle class began emerging in the industrialized world, and a time when a newly prosperous public had the time and the resources to pursue wellness and other forms of self-improvement.

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Women and wellness
I'd like to insert this material into the article, but it's been reverted twice for 'undue weight' - despite the article only being a couple of hundred words long. These are news sources, but they are reputable news sources and about the social side of things, not the medical. I'm not sure why the material's inclusion is inappropriate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been argued that the rise of the wellness movement has been due to mainstream medicine's treatment of women's health issues, or a need to feel in control of their health issues.

Overlap with Wellness (medicine)
This article, though it is disambiguated from Wellness (medicine), on the page Wellness, has a considerable overlap.

I believe the part of the article describing the WHO resolution should probably be moved to the Wellness (medicine) article, and the later paragraphs should perhaps be moved to the articles on the Employee Assistance Program / Affordable Care Act / US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavigupta (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should just be merged there, probably. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, mostly because Wellness (medicine) is a redirect to Health, so if this article were to be removed, it would be difficult for people searching for the alternative medicine version of wellness to find a Wikipedia page on the topic; which would probably lead them to a bunch of less reputable sources. Kavigupta (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)