Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Horticultural therapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aichelemc. Peer reviewers: Tmbloyed, Erinford44.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Es789716.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JodiMonday.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATION OF HOW MANY TIME HAS THIS ACTIVITY OCCURRED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.100.193 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources

[edit]

This article, especially the "Programs" section does not cite many sources. It all seems a bit biased to me. Lena08041993 (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Information in credentials section

[edit]

Artyplantz and 183.82.19.72, who I am assuming are one and the same, please stop adding promotional information to the Credentials section (which would be the incorrect section even if your content was permitted). Also, without proper citations your added content is unverifiable. If you'd like to find a neutral way to add developments to the therapy, please discuss here.

DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 09:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of article: What are the article's strengths?

[edit]

This article overall is very well written and organized. The thing that stood out to me the most as a strength of the article would be the organization and categorization of the information over horticultural therapy, that made for an easy to read and understand informational article. Tmb211 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very AHTA-centric

[edit]

"How to become a horitcultural therapist" section is just straight up AHTA criteria, and oftentimes throughout AHTA are the only people referred to. Undoubtedly they are experts on Horticultural Therapy, however what other organisations if any may oversee/implement it outside of AHTA (especially outside of the US, for instance, in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.), or is horticultural therapy unique to the US/AHTA?

This page is about horticultural therapy, not AHTA, so making it less AHTA-centric may be ideal (and the "how to become a horticultural therapist" section may be better to be heavily reworded or removed, wikipedia is not an instruction manual or AHTA training page!) 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:37 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. It looks like this article has been primarily put together by students for assignments, so that explains part of the poor organization of the article. The whole thing really needs a rework. KoA (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening

[edit]

I removed the following:

Extended content

An extensive systematic review with [[meta-analysis]] examined the effectiveness of horticultural therapy.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Soga | first1 = M. | last2 = Gaston | first2 = K.J. | last3 = Yamaurac | first3 = Y. | year = 2017 | title = Gardening is beneficial for health: A meta-analysis | journal = Preventive Medicine Reports | volume = 5 | pages = 92–99 | doi = 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.11.007 | pmid = 27981022 | pmc = 5153451 }}</ref> A significant positive association with gardening was observed for a wide range of health outcomes, such as reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms, stress, mood disturbance, and BMI, as well as increases in quality of life, sense of community, physical activity levels, and cognitive function.

It is a review of studies about gardening in general; not specifically about Horticultural Therapy. So to present it as evidence of HTs efficacy is misleading at best. Polygnotus (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Rush

[edit]

The article says:

The first modern documentation of horticulture being used as a treatment for mental health purposes was in the 1800s. Dr. Benjamin Rush was the first to suggest that field labor in a farm setting helped attain positive outcomes for clients with mental illness.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rush|first=Benjamin|date=1830|title=Medical inquiries and observations upon the diseases of the mind, 4th ed.|doi=10.1037/11843-000}}</ref> This discovery lead many hospitals in the western world to begin using horticulture as a means to start therapeutically treating patients with mental health and developmental disabilities.

It seems incredibly unlikely that he was the first one to link mental illnesses and being outside/gardening/field labor. The source is Benjamin himself. He also believed in extreme purging and bleeding (depletion therapy) which is a terrible idea...

I don't want to read a 378 page book to discover if he indeed claimed that he was the first person ever to come up with this idea but I searched through the OCR-ed version and I could find no such claim. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-66551140R-bk Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rush story also appears here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine just deleting the claim out of caution. There should be independent WP:MEDRS sources making the claim if it were true and substantial, so text can always be revisited if it's found out to be the case. KoA (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: The reason I haven't deleted it yet is that the remaining text would be incredibly clunky; looking at the History section. Do you know how to deal with that? Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about heading out for awhile, but just looking at the text, I'd say delete the first two sentence and then change This discovery lead many hospitals to In the 1800s, many hospitals. It looks like it would work in terms in sources, but that's only at my initial glance. KoA (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable saying something like In the 1800s, many[weasel words] hospitals in the western world[where?] began using horticulture as a means to start therapeutically treating patients with mental health issues and developmental disabilities.[citation needed] without a source so I am going to move it to the talkpage:
Extended content

The first modern documentation of horticulture being used as a treatment for mental health purposes was in the 1800s. Dr. Benjamin Rush was the first to suggest that field labor in a farm setting helped attain positive outcomes for clients with mental illness.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rush|first=Benjamin|date=1830|title=Medical inquiries and observations upon the diseases of the mind, 4th ed.|doi=10.1037/11843-000}}</ref> This discovery lead many hospitals in the western world to begin using horticulture as a means to start therapeutically treating patients with mental health and developmental disabilities.

If someone wants to restore this content to the article: please include a reliable source. Polygnotus (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I think I intended to take out "many" too, but missed it in my copy/paste. My thinking was that the remaining sentence was basically citing sources in the following sentences, so a citation wasn't absolutely needed in that sentence, but I'm perfectly fine leaving it out like this. It would probably better to have a good secondary source giving an overview on the history that at least has some arm's length from the topic rather than something that could be a sort of advocacy territory if anything at all is mentioned. KoA (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]