Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 8

History in the 60's and 80's

My revision ( "Revision as of 21:56, 4 July 2015". ) has been reverted by Yobol. Can we talk about the reasons: nonsensical and promotional sounding change.

The editor of the proposed source is the World Health Organization, which primary role is not promotional but to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations’ system .

References

Let's review the proposed revision step by step, one sentence after the other:

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

This sentence describes an historic fact. It is not promotional. It is a avaluable alternative to the existing sentence which is less detailed, less accurate and less WP:WORLDVIEW :

Beginning in the 1970s, there was a revival of interest in the United States and Canada, in conjunction with the holistic health movement

Please comment. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The text in question was

"From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that

Benchmarks for training in naturopathy emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention. Various modalities exist. As universities began to emphasize the need for credible research and scientific validation in every discipline and the demand for evidence-based medicine continued to grow, naturopathic practitioners continued their support for high academic standards and sound curricula to pursue the scientific confirmation of naturopathic methods"

First, the first sentence ends abruptly, leading to a nonsensical addition. Second, it is a publication written by naturopaths and is promotional in language (i.e. incorrectly implying that "western" medical practices do not empasize promotion of health and healthy lifestyle while naturopathy does). Third, this is appears to be a copyright violation of the original document. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, thank you for your answer (by the way, thank you also for having labeled my references. I am not an experienced Wikipedian...).

First (nonsensical), sorry for the sentence ending abruptly. It was my mistake. In order to focus step by step, let’s discuss only the first proposed sentence which is now ending properly.

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

Second (promotional), the editor of this publication is WHO. This document has been reviewed by 274 reviewers, including experts and national authorities as well as professional and nongovernmental organizations, in 114 countries. The document was then revised based on the comments and suggestions received. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. The participants of the WHO Consultation who worked towards reviewing and finalizing the draft text, are mainly Professors or Doctors in medicine, even though they are demonstrating an interest for alternative medicine systems. WHO is the highest authority in this world for public health. WHO is not favoring any kind of health system. Can you propose a source demonstrating that WHO is not having a neutral point of view regarding medicine or naturopathy (question 1) ?

I don’t see any promotional language in this first sentence. You believe that it is incorrectly implying that "western" medical practices do not emphasize promotion of health and healthy lifestyle while naturopathy does. Can you propose a source demonstrating that western medicine was correctly emphasizing in the 60’s promotion of health and healthy lifestyle more than naturopathy was at that time (question 2) ?

Third (copyright), I have received the written permission (issued by Permission Team, World Health Organization Press) to reproduce the full paragraph in Wikipedia. WHO encourages the use of its information materials for information purposes i.e. when the purpose of the use is to share objective information

References

I am waiting for your sources and for your answers to my questions. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Language such as "...enjoyed a renaissance," "became disenchanted," "so-called," ... is generally not acceptable in articles. WP:W2W offers some guidance for that. Also, there's a procedure to go through for donation of copyright (see WP:DCM) - the permission you have needs to meet some criteria and the permission needs to be verified. Sunrise (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these further comments. I am willing to find a pragmatic solution. Let me then author my own sentence, based on the sources that we know already for this article (i.e. WHO, Baer and Boughton):

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, interest waxed for naturopathy in many parts of the world. Instead of turning to medical practices based on the conventional western medicine, these people were turning to holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

Please comment. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That WHO report, authored by a large group of naturopaths and other "traditional medicine" specialists, cites this 2001 UCSF "Profile of a profession" for that statement. The relevant statement is found at the foot of page 8:

A significant decline in the popularity of naturopathy in the United States characterized the profession from post World War II until the 1970s, during which time most health care centered around the allopathic medical model. Beginning in the 1970s, increased interest in holistic and alternative health care brought about a resurgence of naturopathy (Finken, 1986; Baer, 1992; Cody, 1985; Gort and Coburn, 1988; Canadian Naturopathic Association, 1999).

— Holly J. Hough, Catherine Dower, Edward H. O’Neil

In turn, those sources were:

• Finken D. (1986) Naturopathy: America’s homegrown alternative healing art. Medical Self-Care, 39-43. November/December 1986.
• Baer HA. (1992) The potential rejuvenation of American naturopathy as a consequence of the holistic health movement. Medical Anthropology, 13, 369-383.
• Gort EH and Coburn D. (1988) Naturopathy in Canada: Changing relationships to medicine, chiropractic and the state. Social Science in Medicine. 16(10):1061-1072.
• Canadian Naturopathic Association. (1999) Questions & Answers about Naturopathic Medicine. Available: http://www.naturopathicassoc.ca/ [Accessed December 5, 2000].

One may note that none of these source statements refer to anything but North America. Either the Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy neglected to cite a source, or the generalization to "many parts of the world" is a primary assertion in "Benchmarks". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Thank you for your contribution and for the depth of your research for sourcing the assertion in many parts of the world. Are we supposed as Wikipedian to question every single word of secondary sources ? This assertion has been reviewed by 274 reviewers, including experts and national authorities as well as professional and nongovernmental organizations, in 114 countries. The document was then revised based on the comments and suggestions received. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. If there would have been such an error that this statement would only be true for North America and not for many parts of the world, why would it still be published like this ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: "It's complicated." The policy is wp:V, which is amplified by wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:EVAL and even wp:USEPRIMARY. It isn't particularly difficult to assemble a large group of self-described experts on any topic (ever been to a COMICON?), and larger numbers of contributors do not make their editors substantially more correct. This is particularly true when the experts are conspicuously drawn from a pseudoscientific group, as is the case here. We don't exclude POV sources, but we recognize them as such. Pretending a POV source is balanced is simply not on.

<rant>Few practioners of evidence based medicine find merit in homeopathy, energy medicine, rekki, accupuncture, or orthomolecular medicine simply because there is no substantial evidence for these practices being effective. To the extent that naturopathic doctrine continues to advocate their use, it undermines the credibility of the whole of naturopathy. A refocus on what does have evidence, e.g. nutrition, exercise, some parts of herbology, could some day transform naturopathy to a science-based medical discipline. There does not seem to be a strong visible effort among naturopaths to do so.</rant> LeadSongDog come howl! 20:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Thanks for your detailed answer. However, what are you talking about ? The topic I am adressing is not the merits or the evidence of any health practice. We are simply discussing if the sentence about history is referring to North America or to many parts of the world. Please stay focused.

Shall we understand that you are comparing Comicon with WHO ? Shall we understand that WHO is made of self-described experts conspicuously drawn from a pseudoscientific group ? How dare !? May I remind that WHO is the highest recognized authority in this world for public health. It is probably more NPOV than any other medical authority, because it cares about public health, but not about any particular professional lobby. Did I address these topics ? No. Stay focused.

Would you please reconsider your arguments for simply answering my question: North America or "many parts of the world ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The WHO published "Benchmarks", not wrote it. The authors and editors are not clearly identified. We are not bound to parrot their errors, even if they came from reliable sources. Less so with this source. Examine Annex 2 for the collected "experts" behind it. As to North America vs many parts: where does Benchmarks cite a primary work to support that? LeadSongDog come howl! 07:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Thanks again for taking time to answer. Let me comment step by step.

First about author vs. publisher. WHO is not a book publishing business. As you can read and understand in the Acknoledgements, Forewords and Preface, this document is an initiative of WHO, part of their collaborative projects. WHO is expressing special acknowledgement of appreciation for his work in preparing the original draft text to Dr Dennis Patrick O'Hara. Then, 274 reviewers did comment and advice on the draft text. Then, 41 participants to WHO Consultation did review and finalize the draft text. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. This process demonstrates that this collaborative authoring is under the control and the responsibility of WHO.

Second about the quality of the source. Why do you write less so with this source ? It cannot be questionned in this way. Once again, WHO is the highest authority in this world about public health, probably more NPOV than any other one. Annex 2 is not presenting the 274 experts but only the 41 participants to the WHO Consultation. In the list, you will find a balance of high level representatives of conventional and non-conventional medicine.

Third about 'potentially' primary source. We are simply talking about historical facts in North America or in many parts of the world. We are not talking about rocket science. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD seems to be applicable: WHO is as fully independent as possible (it only depends on funding by member's states), WHO is authoritative, WHO documents are high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, WHO publications are expert-approved, WHO is subject to editorial control and WHO is a reputable publisher.

Do you still have any objections about writing many parts of the world instead of North America ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While the WHO does other, more important things, it certainly is in the business of publishing and for that matter selling books. They normally do a very good job of it, which is part of what makes this work so puzzling. It gives no explanation why the group selected for consultation is so skewed. O'Hara does have some relevant knowledge in naturopathy, chiropractic, and theology, but that hardly puts him in the evidence-based world. It is also unclear to me if he retained control of the text after the initial draft. Perhaps you are seeing something I'm not? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog thanks again for your fair answer. Eventhough I appreciate exchanging ideas and comments with you, we will not progress if we do not focus to the open question: Do you still have any objections about writing many parts of the world instead of North America ?

Eventhough WHO is spreading its knowledge by selling its own books, it cannot be seen as a book business (I don't know if Wikipedians are allowed to use smileys, in which case I would have used one here).

I understand that O'Hara was only responsible for the first draft. The final document was finalized by WHO. The criteria for the selection of the participants to the WHO event called WHO Consultation on Phytotherapy is not closely linked to my question.

My question is not addressing naturopathy vs. evidence-based. It is simply addressing an historical and geographical fact: many parts of the world instead of North America. I did not,I don't want, and I don't see why I would have to enter here into the debate naturopathy vs. evidence-based. Do you still have objection to edit the article in this way ? Is this WHO document a valid source for this historical and geographical detail ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I still have the same objection as above, for the same reason. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. All these fringe groups have their own wp:walled garden of "experts" who are not recognized as such by the larger scientific community. Such people have a vested interest in the promotion of their worldview. An outside-the-walls source is necessary to reliably source any statement that naturopathy became more popular in many parts of the world. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Thanks for answering my question and for disclosing your point of view: all these fringe groups ? We are talking here about WHO and only about WHO, authoring and publishing this document. In order to sustain your point of view, please provide a reliable source supporting your opinion that WHO is a fringe group or that WHO publications are under the influence of fringe groups. Without such a reliable source, your personnal opinion does not count here (WP:NCAYO). How can you pretend that Dr Gabriela Crescini, biologist, Professor Vincenzo De Feo, professor of medical botany, Professor Anna Maria Di Giulio, professor of pharmacology, Dr Gaetano Guglielmi, medicine and surgery (Directorate-General for EU and International Relations, Ministry of Labour, Health, and Social Policy, Rome, Italy), Professor Emilio Minelli, medicine and surgery, Dr Samvel Azatyan, Ph.D. clinical pharmacology, just to name a few, are a fringe group of walled garden experts not recognized by larger scientific community ? They are all issued from the evidence-based science. But more importantly, they are able to have a scientific and well informed point of view about my question, the fact that maybe naturopathy became more popular in many parts of the world and not only in North America, because they are demonstrating scientific curiosity for non-conventional medicine. Who else, if not these people can write about this topic outside-the-walls ? The American Lawyer's association ? The Swiss Bankers association ? NO. The American Medical association ? Certainly not, because they are having a COI, or simply no interest at all, for this topic. Who else ? The WHO, Traditional Medicine, Department for Health System Governance and Service Delivery, simply because your government, as well as my government and many others, are paying them for doing this job. This is a neutral and independant worldwide authority. WHO is NPOV by nature. Their mission is simply worldwide health, not worldwide medicine nor worldwide naturopathy. If we cannot agree on that, how can we seek arbitrage between your opinion and my factual statement that WHO publications are NPOV ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. Of course I am not calling the WHO a fringe group, the UN is about as "establishment" as it gets. However, one specialized panel does not stand for the whole of the WHO any more than the NCCAM stands for the whole of the NIH. Your cherry picking of a few individuals from a long list does not change the fact: the vast majority on that list are engaged in "Traditional Medicine" of one form or another. The source for that is the document itself, not my "opinion". LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog thanks again for your answer. Author of this document is WHO as an institution, not a specialized panel. Being engaged does not necessarily mean promote or COI. Considering that WHO is good and NPOV when it is addressing conventional medicine topics and bad and COI when it is addressing non-conventional medicine does not seem to be an NPOV by itself. Either WHO is a reliable source, as a whole institution (and so are all its publications), or it is not. Is it acceptable to cherry pick publications that are supposed to be NPOV and those which are supposed not to be ? Doing so, you are questionning the NPOV of the entire WHO institution. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The book is not "authored" by the WHO; it has no listed authors. It's a book out of their publishing arm. From what we know of its genesis, it probably falls afoul of WP:FRIND. Reliability is determined by assessing content and source together: whole institutions are not given blank cheques for total reliability in all topic areas. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn thanks for joining the discussion. WHO is not a book shop publishing anonymous documents outside of its scope and mission. If the document is missing an explicit author its simply because it is indeed a WHO document published by WHO about one of WHO's own projects. How does an institution sign its own documents otherwise ? Usually, the author is wirting the Aknoledgements, in this case written by WHO as an institution. Do you believe that WHO would promote fringe science ? As I understand you, when WHO is addressing conventional medicine, it is seen as reliable, but when WHO is addressing non-conventional medicine, it is no more reliable. How can it be ? Shall we question directly WHO press office about its reliability ? Please edit WP:MEDORG in order to explicit your opinion: WHO is only reliable when addressind conventional medicine topics. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about book shops? You again assert this document was "written by WHO as an institution" but this is simply incorrect. (BTW, things which represent that kind of institutional view are easy to spot. See e.g. this.) Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, then what do you mean by publishing arm. Is WHO an editor publishing anonymous work about fringe topics without any control ? Who is then authoring this document if not WHO itself, considering that this document is part of one of WHO's project ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The publishing arm of the WHO is called the "WHO Press". They are the publisher of the work in question. No author is stated, though the original text is credited to one "Dennis Patrick O'Hara". You can read about him here where it is confirmed "[h]e has drafted a description of the naturopathic profession for the World Health Organization". Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, WHO Press is the publisher. So what ? WHO Press becomes the publisher of choice for the dissemination of important scientific, technical and medical advice that WHO wishes to deliver to the world. This publication is not an anonymous fringe document published randomly by an obscure editor, it is part of important scientific, technical and medical advices that WHO wishes to deliver to the world, knowing that WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system, and stimulating the generation and dissemination of valuable knowledge [1].

O'Hara did write the draft (the original text) of this benchmark. So what ? Finally, after first round of review, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. WHO managed the entire authoring process and, as such, is taking responsibility of the authoring process, which makes WHO the collective author by default, like for any other of their publications of this type. Here is the confirmation by WHO itself that WHO is the author. WHO being the author, you cannot say that WHO is authoring fringe content. Considering that WHO is a reliable source by WP:MEDORG, can we now edit the sentence in the article ? Did we pass all the security checks and all the gates ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer your last two question, no and no. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, thanks at least for answering. But I would appreciate if you can disclose your arguments or applicable WP policies. Which security check did we not pass ? Which gate is still closed ? For what reason ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We've examined several aspects of the source and it isn't fit for the proposed use. Paulmartin357 is saying that the WHO is the "collective author by default" against the evidence. The source is not named or identified in the same way as Position Statements issued by the WHO. So far as I am concerned it's case closed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for your answer, however your answer is very vague. You neeed to be much more specific: "we" ? who ? "several aspects" ? which ones ? "isn't fit" ? according to which principles ? "the same way as Position Statements" ? which way ?

I am not saying against evidence that "WHO is the author". Did you at least check my source ? I asked the following question by email to publications@who.int:

Is it correct to consider and to say that WHO (as an institution) is the author of the following publication ? http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/BenchmarksforTraininginNaturopathy.pdf, Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy, SBN 978 92 4 15996 5 8 (NLM classification: WB 935)

Their answer is:

Yes this is correct. This book is published and authored by WHO Headquarters, in Geneva, Switzerland.

You are refusing the evidence that WHO is claiming to be the author. According to which WP principle can you refuse the objective, written, publicly available and documented fact that WHO is claiming to be the author ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I am still waiting for your answer on this evidence. According to WHO source, WHO is declaring publicly to be the author of this document. Based on which WP principle can you ignore this documented WP:V fact ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Performed by other medical and health professionals

@Trhermes:, thanks for your edition of my contribution. However you are completely transforming and undermining its meaning. My point is: despite the very negative opinion of Atwood, up to 67% of certain naturopathic treatments in certain western regions of the world are indeed performed by evidence based licensed and registred medical doctors, but not simply by any kind of other medical and health professionals. Your sentence does not accurately illustrate this paradox. Its a very high percentage for a medicine that is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. Furthermore, my source does not support that many kinds of other medical and health professionals offer such treatments. It only support the fact that medical doctors offer up to 67% of certain types of these treatments in certain regions. Let me propose to edit your contribution as follow. Your sentence:

Naturopathic treatments encompass a wide variety of alternative medical practices

is somehow duplicating the first sentence of the article :

is a form of alternative medicine employing a wide array of "natural" treatments, including homeopathy, herbalism, and acupuncture, as well as diet (nutrition) and lifestyle counseling.

You could merge yours and this one at the top of the article. Your sentence:

As such, other medical and health professionals offer such treatments that are also considered to be naturopathic.

is somehow duplicating an existing sentence of the article:

Naturopathic practitioners in the United States can be divided into three categories: traditional naturopaths; licensed/registered naturopaths; and other health care providers that provide naturopathic services.

You could merge yours and this one at the top of the article. Then I would like to return to my original contribution at its original location, right after Atwood quote, and maybe rewrite it in your way:

However, up to 67% of certain types of naturopathic treatments in certain western regions of the world are indeed performed by evidence based medical doctors

I am open to comments and suggestions before publishing, but I believe by WP:STRUCTURE that this important paradox shall be exposed to the readers of this article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to be assuming that everyone with an M.D. Is engaged in evidence based practice, while this is clearly not the case. You further appear to be asserting that users of specific treatment modalities, e.g. massage, are engaged in "naturopathic" treatment. This is a false generalization, as the use of one modality does not imply the use of the whole suite. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentences, as you pointed out @Paulmartin357, they are redundant. The cited remark about 67% of MDs are doing some kind of "naturopathic" treatment was a miscitation. I went ahead and read the French document that was cited. Those are the results of a survey performed in Switzerland. This is too narrow a point to be made in the opener. You should consider moving it to a section below about naturopathic practice in Europe or Switzerland, more specifically. I added some citations to support existing claims made in the opener. Trhermes (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog:, thanks for joining this topic. I am not assuming that everyone with an MD is engaged in evidence based practice, eventhough they should (see below). My source is demonstrating that it is not the case. What is your point ?

I am not asserting that users of specific treatment are engaged in naturopathic treatment. There is maybe some mis-understanding. My source is showing that certain treatments also employed by naturopathy (this is paraphrasing the existing lead: is a form of alternative medicine employing a wide array of "natural" treatments, how can I be more accurate ?) are performed by MD's. I am sticking to the wording of th elead, to the facts and to the source. Let me try to rephrase in order to avoid mis-interpretation:

However, up to 67% of treatments using certain techniques also belonging to naturopathy, in certain western regions of the world, are indeed performed by medical doctors holding an "evidence based medecine" diploma

Maybe you can propose a more elegant and more accurate way for expressing the concept, at least for the last 4 words of the sentence.

For your information, according to a document published by the Swiss Academy of Medical Science,

Such a violation (of a physician's due diligence) is performed when (...) therapy or other medical intervention appear no more defensible in view of the general state of medical science (...) .

To my understanding, this document makes very clear that MD's (at least in Switzerland) are supposed to work in line with "the general state of medical science" and not with fringe techniques such as homeopathy and acupuncture.

@Trhermes:, thanks for your answer and for understanding my point. I disagree with the fact that my contribution shall be moved because it's "too narrow". Of course, I would be more than happy to read a worldwide survey about the same topic. But eventhough, exceptions to rules, or important paradox, are worth mentionning next to the rule. As such, this information is relevant in the lead by WP:BALANCE. In this case, its an objective fact balancing a mainstream opinion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul, that looks like an excellent document for a discussion of Swiss medical regulation, particularly footnote 93 on page 60.

Art. 43 al. 2 let. d et art. 58 LAMal. Pour les autres assurances sociales, une base légale expresse en matière d’AQ fait défaut. Le message concernant la révision de la LAMal (FF 1991 p. 129) précise que: «La garantie de la qualité contribue à juguler l’avancée des coûts dans la mesure où elle élimine des prestations les mesures qui ne sont ni nécessaires ni efficaces ni appropriées. La notion de qualité se conçoit au sens large du terme, de telle sorte que la garantie de la qualité englobe aussi bien le résultat du traitement que la mise en oeuvre appropriée des prestations et la satisfaction du patient (voir art. 50).»

I'm not sure though, that I know the particular part of the document that you are referring to. Can you please be more specific in citation?

Where you suggest However, up to 67% of treatments using certain techniques also belonging to naturopathy, in certain western regions of the world, are indeed performed by medical doctors holding an "evidence based medecine" diploma I believe you are referring to para 4.1 of this source. I would instead say just In the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 7% of surveyed individuals reported using accupuncture. Medical doctors delivered 62% of those treatments. The source does not characterize the accupuncture modality as naturopathic, so we should not do so either. It does not refer to the EBM aspect of their training, simply describing them as "un médecin diplômé". Connecting the dots between the two sources is considered to be wp:original research. We don't do that. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks for taking the time to read my sources and for your detailed and helpful answer to my questions.

I fully agree with your proposal to stick to the original text of the source. But may I propose to cut down to the essential in order to avoid overloading with unnecessary details, as long as the meaning is not altered:

However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, Medical doctors delivered 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments.

I understand your point that we shall avoid to produce original research. But this is WP:UCS in Switzerland: an MD is EBM trained. There is no other choice for being MD in Switzerland. It would add value to the quote if we can mention it in one way or the other.

Does anyone still disagree that I publish the above sentence in the lead, following Atwood quote ?

In order to answer your questions, I am using page 132 of this source and page 20 of this source. The source does not categorize acupuncture or homeopathy as naturopathy, but Atwood does not distinguish nor say the contrary either. By default, and without evidence of the contrary in available sources, there is no reason to say that homeopathy practiced as such or homeopathy practiced within a naturopathic treatment are different techniques.

I could also comment on your Art. 43, but it would drive us away from the topic. If you are interested, I can do so on your talk page, for your information. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously original research which has the effect of advancing an advocacy agenda for Naturopathy. We don't want that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, this is your own opinion that I am "advancing an advocacy agenda". I am adding valuable content from reputable sources following WP:PRINCIPLES. Please remain focused on the facts and do not engage into your conspiracy theory. "We" don't want that !? Who is "we" (second time that I am asking you this question) ? The definition of original research by Wikipedia WP:OR is : "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". This is not the case here. The source is published and very reliable. Eventhough it would be original research, according to WP:PSTS: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia (...) A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (...) Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself." . I did simply quote the facts and did not analyse, evaluate or interpret anything in this context.Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Questioning undue references in the lead

In the lead, 3 sources ( Atwood, Gorski and Ernst ) are supporting Atwood quote: "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." However, this a direct quote of Atwood wording. It is only supported by one single reference (Atwood) in the body of the article, chapter 3.3 Evidence basis. The 2 other sources do not exist anywhere else in this article. According to WP:CREATELEAD, "the lead is based only on the content of the article" and "The explanatory and more detailed text with the references is already found in the article". These 2 sources are not part of the content of the article. Details about these sources are not found in the article. I am questioning the presence and the validity of these 2 sources for supporting Atwood quote in the lead. I am proposing to remove these 2 references from the lead.Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no quotation marks in the article, nor is it attributed to Artwood. Is this really a direct quote? Could you provide a bit more context from the source (I don't have access to it) to show that? If it is a direct quote, then we are too closely paraphrasing, and we need to rewrite that sentence so it is our own summary of all three sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Jess, this is a direct quote. However, this is not the topic of this section to discuss this quote. I am adressing undue references only. If you would like to discuss the quote, please open a new section on the Talk page or "revive" an existing section about the same topic from the archived Talk pages. It is a recurring topic here... Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Yes, it is about the quote. You made a claim that it is a direct quote, but we're not using it as a quote, nor have we in any way indicated it is a quote. I'm asking you to back that up, because I'm unable to. If it is not a direct quote (as it currently appears from my vantage point), then our coverage and inclusion of 3 sources is fully warranted. We would only need to adjust the sentence (or citations) if your claim about it being a quote were true. So... again... can you provide some context from the source showing exactly what it says? I'd appreciate it, because I don't have access to that source, myself, but you appear to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jess, here is the exact quote from the first paragraph of the abstract of Atwood article: "An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices." I am questionning 2 of the 3 sources supposed to support this quote. Obviously, only one single source is supporting it, Atwood himself. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Our lede summarizes our article fairly, but unfortunately too closely to one source's specific words. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbr, "unfortunately", since years, you/we (I still don't know who is "we") did revert all contributions who did amend these specific words from Atwood... Will you let me a chance to rephrase it with my own words, being perfectly in line with WP:NPOV ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection the problem in the body was not WP:COPYVIO but just messed-up quotation marks. I've fixed this and paraphrased the mirroring content in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, THANK YOU for this very good paraphrase. I fully agree with your proposal.Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

US centricity in the lead

@Alexbrn:, you did revert my contribution "An examination of Anglo-American literature reveals that (...)" . If you "no longer have access to the Atwood paper" , how can you claim it is WP:OR or WP:V failure ? You are reverting faster than you are making due diligence. Let me quote Atwood for you then:

- "An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with (...) "

- "What follows is a summary of the current state of "naturopathic medicine." Much of it comes from the position papers and other articles on the Web site of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP); from the Textbook of Natural Medicine, the only general textbook of the field, coedited and largely coauthored by one of the Medicare appointees; and from the most visible naturopathic school, Bastyr University in Kenmore, Washington, where the coeditor of the Textbook was founder and president and where the other new MCAC appointee is associate dean. Thus, it reflects the health beliefs of these 2 appointees and of the uppermost levels of "naturopathic medicine."

You can also check the 53 sources and references listed by Atwood. It is obviously only Anglo-American literature, without any further research. I did it. You can do it if you like. Anyone can do it for WP:V. Atwood himself is giving us the information in "long format" (i.e. listing 53 references) which we can sumarize as "Anglo-American literature" without any WP:BIAS nor WP:OR. It is pure WP:UCS and WP:RAP (Original research can be avoided by citing claims to reliable sources that can be verified by other editors) to write that: "An examination of Anglo-American literature (...)". Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You indicated you were quoting from the source, and I took you at your word. If the source has "An examination of their literature" you can't just change it to "An examination of the Anglo-Saxon literature" as it misrepresents the source. It also may be too closely paraphrased. Atwood is making a universalizing statement and we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What is more, the content in the lede is sourced to three sources, not just Atwood. Alexbrn (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if Atwood says "their", we can clarify for the reader of Wikipedia article what Atwood is refering to. "Their" means "Naturopatic literature from Anglo-American sources". This is an obvious fact that any reader can check by himself for WP:V. It is not "misrepresenting" the source (unless you did not read it). It is "claryfying" the source (if you did read it, including its 53 references at the end).

I don't see any "universylizing statement" from Atwood. He is nowhere pretending to make an "universylizing statement". His sources are not supporting your opinion. Not only his 53 sources but also the all chapters of his article are Anglo-American and even US centric:

- Brief History and Current Status

- 1st paragraph about origins in Germany in 19th Century

- 2nd paragraph about AANP and Oregon (US centric)

- 3rd paragraph about United States and Canada (North American centric)

- 4th paragraph about 13 US states (US centric)

- Naturopathic belief (no mention of geography, but only Anglo-American sources)

- Naturopathic treatments (AANP, Massachusetts and only Anglo-American examples)

- Implications for Medicare (US centric)

- USA topic (US centric)

- White House Commission (US centric)

- USA topic (US centric)

Please provide evidence that Atwood is making an "universalizing statement". How does it apply to naturopathy in Northern Botswana ? According to which source ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

After this article was published, Atwood came under attack from Naturopaths, like you claiming that his sourcing was unrepresentative. He responded that

I was careful to include only references that any reasonable person would consider representative of the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine': the Textbook of Natural Medicine — “the most comprehensive summary available of the actual practices and recommendations of naturopaths,” according to its own back cover[1] — the Position Papers and other articles offered on the Web site of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), the course catalogs and other information from the Web sites of “approved” naturopathic schools, especially Bastyr, and other articles or quotations only if they were written by faculty members or other prominent members of the field.

Introducing "Northern Botswana" - or any other regional exemption - is entirely your original research. People in foreign countries often read English you know, and there are such things as translations. As I say: WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, this quote is not supporting your opinion. Atwood was answering to the following concern: "My references do not come from reputable sources, do not reflect what NDs really do, or are out of date". He was not, and he never did, pretend to be universal. He is simply and only reflecting "what ND really do" based on Anglo-American sources. Your above quote from Atwood is one more obvious confirmation of this fact. I am still waiting for your arguments showing "universality" of his statement... Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As he says the sources represent what "any reasonable person would consider representative of the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'". No mention of the US or Botswana. If you contend that his view is not in alignment with "the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'" then you're going to need sources. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience wherever it happens, and is not subject to regional variation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, he his obviously refering to "the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'" based only on Anglo-American sources. You cannot reasonnably oppose to this obvious fact. You cannot oppose to the fact that his article is only dealing with Anglo-American and even US centric topics (see chapters listed above) !? Can you show me one single source cited by Atwood who would reasonnnably support anything outside the Anglo-American world ? If an author is writing "White House is the highest level of power" in a book dedicated to US, it does not apply to the entire world simply because the author forgot to mention in that sentence that he is writing an article about US politics !? The same is valid for Atwood. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What next, you'll be arguing that Newton discovered the force of Gravity operated only in England? Atwoods's work is not "dedicated to the US". The insistence on its regional specificity, and your charge that the author "forgot" to mention the US is entirely your WP:Original research. In any case the content we have is supported by other sources, including by Ernst and Singh who have a British and European perspective. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, since you did rephrase the lead, this topic is closed for the lead section. Thank you again.

However, for your own information, I am inviting you to read the naturopathic litterature of Northern Botswana in order to realize the differences with the one of "the highest level of naturopathis medicine" mentionned by Atwood (I still don't know if smileys are following Wikipedia etiquette... otherwise I would use one here). Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead: "often" and "prefer"

The following statement in the lead is not based on the content of the article:

"practitioners often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine"

Which part of the article and which references are documenting the words "often" and "prefer" ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I see several references to "evidence based medicine" in the article. In "Practice": Naturopaths...often rejecting the methods of evidence based medicine. In "Traditional naturopaths": Traditional naturopathic practitioners surveyed in Australia perceive evidence based medicine to be an ideologic assault on their beliefs. This is in addition to the content in "Evidence Basis".   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Jess, thanks for joining this topic and thanks for your contribution. From a semantic point of view "often rejecting methods" is not equal to "often preferring other methods". I still don't see any justification for the words "often" and "prefer" in the proposed sources.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the two are not the same. However, our coverage in the lead is intended to be a summary of the article, not a direct paraphrasing from individual sources. That sentence in the lead appears (to me) to adequately summarize a good deal of content in the body. No, it is not identical to the content in the body, but it's not intended to be.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mann_jess, thanks for your comment. The lead must summarize the content. Nowhere the content of the article is using the semantic concept of "often" and "prefer". Pretending "often" and "prefer" is WP:EDITORIALIZE and WP:OR. Instead, we could write : "practitioners are using certain methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine", which is better representing the content of the article and which is WP:NPOV. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Alexbrn who did rephrase the lead. I fully agree with him. Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead: very small amount

The following sentence is not respecting the original references:

"Their training adds up to a very small amount of that of primary care doctors."

Atwood is writing: "Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care". It's not "very small" but "small". The second source, AANP, is not making any judgement (no "small" nor any other similar words), but simply quantifiying each one of the various cursus. Writing "very small" would be WP:OR and WP:EDITORIALIZE. Furthermore, this second source is not found anywhere else in the content of the article. I am proposing to rewrite this sentence in the lead as follow, by quoting Atwood words: "Their training amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors" and to remove the second source, AANP, which could be used elsewhere is the article if need be.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Alexbrn who did rephrase the lead. Its a progress. This topic is closed here. However, I did open another section in the Talk page for adressing a new concern ("Naturopathic training omits most of that undertaken by primary care doctors"). Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fringey special pleading ?

I have a general comment about the tone of this article. It is an anti naturopathic screed. I am an M.D. and totally agree with all of the points made in the screed, but don't think that's what an encyclopedia is for. This is a common problem in wiki articles. There must be a way to briefly cite medical sources that regard naturopathy as unscientific, without coming back to that point over and over. There is an almost comical disconnect between the long sections on licensure in various developed countries and the equally lengthy tirade against the discipline. If it's so bad, why does Switzerland make sure that it's practitioners are properly trained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider creating an account for yourself.

@Alexbrn: please explain what you consider to be "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to clarify Atwood quote ("US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians") and to cite statistical study about the use of naturopathic methods by MD's ? Please also refer to previous Talks about the same topic. If you would have disagreed, your comments would have been welcomed earlier on the Talk page before vandalising this article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND. Atwood's stuff is not US-specific. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please provide a valid source WP:V confirming that Atwood sentence about primary care is not US-specific, but universal. Can you tell me if naturopaths in Northern Botswana are claiming to be primary care physicians ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-American is more than the US, you know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, we are not talking about Anglo-American sources. For supporting his statement, Atwood is naming only 2 US sources: AANP and Oregon University ("according to the official definition on the Web site of its national organization, the AANP.[6] At the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon"). Claiming that what is valid in the USA is valid for the planet is your opinion, not a documented fact. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, regarding "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, based on Anglo-Amrican sources]], what is "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to write that it is based on Anglo-American sources ?

Alexbrn, regarding "However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments have been delivered by Medical doctors."", what is "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to cite an official statistical study in this field ? Please answer these 3 questions in a clear way: 1: US, 2: Anglo-American, 3: statistics Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

'1: US, 2: Anglo-American, 3: statistics ' are not questions. I honestly have no idea what any of what you just typed means. Perhaps Alexbrn can decode it, but I cannot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, thanks for joining this Talk and sorry for not being clear in my questions. Alexbrn did revert my contributions. This talk page is for asking him why he is considering that my contributions are "Fringey special pleading". There are 3 parts of my contribution which have been reverted:

1. "US" in this sentence: US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians (...)

2. "Anglo-American" in this sentence: Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, based on Anglo-American sources (...)

3. statistical facts in this sentence: However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments have been delivered by Medical doctors. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on. The Swiss stuff is undue/special pleading. The mention of US-centricity in the lede fails WP:V since it is sourced to 3 sources which collectively do not support it. The limitation of Atwood's observations to the US is WP:OR since it is not (as I remember) a limitation that Atwood himself makes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for your detailed answer. WP:UNDUE does not apply to the Swiss stuff because the source is WP:NPOV: these are neutral, unquestionnable, statistical facts collected by a governemental agency, not personnal opinion of a minority.

US centricity in the lead is not the topic addressed in this talk (I will open another topic for this one, since you did revert it). We are addressing the US-centricity in chapter 3.3 Evidence basis where there is only one source, Atwood himself, which is perfectly WP:V. Atwood writes: " according to the official definition on the Web site of its national organization, the AANP. At the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon", which is a clear reference to US-centricity. It is not WP:OR. It is simply a very obvious fact according to WP:UCS and [[WP::GF]]. I can paraphrase the 2 above sentences by saying without any possible objection that "US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians (...)". Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources aren't adjudged NPOV, edits here are. Undueness is an POV problem your edit had - using a Swiss canton factoid to "however" the pseudoscience of naturopathy! I don't understand what you mean about the US stuff - you didn't address the point that in the lede THREE sources support the ststement. I no longer have access to the Atwood paper so would need to re-check. If he is confining his comments to US physicians we could amend the sentence in the body from "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine ..." to "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes of US physicians, in the journal Medscape General Medicine ..." or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, remove the "however" if this is your NPOV problem. The fact that the majority of certain naturopathic techniques are performed by EBM trained MD's in a non Anglo American western country shall be of interest ("however" or not "however"...) to the readers of this article, despite the fact that these techniques are being considered in the Anglo American world as being "replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices". Your intellectual curiosity and your intellectual honesty shall be alerted by such a fact. It's not simply a useless "factoid". I still dont see any WP:UNDUE here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog:, may I seek your opinion about Alexbrn revert. You did previously agree on this statement which is now being considered as WP:UNDUE by Alexbrn. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I more acceded then agreed, but that is perhaps splitting hairs. We have no real reason to focus the reader's attention on one particular population of less than a half-million while ignoring others far larger. We also have no reason to address accupuncture as naturopathic. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks for answering quickly to my request. We are not focusing attention on one particular population. We are taking a well documented example directly relating to the topic. Knowing that usual scholars or clinical sudies are typically focusing on hundrends rather than half-millions, this a reasonnably good sample to my opinion. Feel free to propose sources which are contradicting this fact at larger scale. I see no reason to hide this reality to the reader of the Wikipedia article. Interest is not a question of quantity. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Side note-"fringey" is not a real word. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just an alternative spelling of "fringy" (which is in the OED) ain't it? Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see it come up in any other dictionaries (I really don't use Wiktionary as a reliable source) or here [2] spelled that way. I do see fringy but I never really hear anyone use that particular adjective in conversation. It's really of very little importance to me though and I maintain there are probably better ways to communicate the idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all kind of contributions, including linguistic ones. However, please stay focused on the only remaining open question in this section: what is "fringey/fringy" in a statistical fact from a reputable source ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic training omits most of that undertaken by primary care doctors

@Alexbrn: thank you for rewording this sentence in the lead. It's a real progress. However, it is not reflecting exactly what the sources are saying. The concept of "omit most of" is WP:OR. May I propose to rephrase:

"Naturopathic training for conventional methods is a small subset of the one for primary care doctors" (please improve my wording, considering that I am not a native English speaker...)

The following sentence from Atwood is supporting my proposal:

"The unwary reader might conclude that naturopaths are trained to provide "conventional methods" when appropriate, but NDs have had only a small fraction of the training of primary care MDs. Instead they have been steeped in homeopathy and other highly implausible, ineffective practices. It is unlikely that readers of WebMD and the other sources mentioned here will appreciate this dichotomy."

Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, your edit is a valuable contribution for explaining that ND's and MD's are simply not following the same training. However, "omit most of" is still WP:OR from a semantic point of view, because they are not intending to do the same job. Their training for conventional methods (i.e. scientific based) is indeed a subset (ie. rephrasing Atwood when he is saying "a small fraction of", which is the definition of a "subset") of the one for primary care doctors. On top of this subset of "conventional methods", ND's are learing non-scientific and unproven other methods (which is reflecting your last edit). Please reconsider "subset" vs. "omit". Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, thanks for your update. "Materials" is vague. Atwood is comparing the "conventional methods", not the "materials" of the course. The wording "conventional methods" is more descriptive, more accurate and is sticking to the source. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Best not to risk WP:PLAGIARISM. I think most people will understand what training meterials are - it's a very broad term. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, "we" are not expecting Wikipedians to guess the meaning of an article. I don't think that describing acurately the concept is WP:PLAGIARISM. We don't know anything from these 2 sources about the kind of "material" that a MD is attending in class. We only know that Atwood is comparing "Conventional methods", without any further description. For example, some "evidence-based" Swiss universities are also offering "fringe content" (classes about MTC, homeopathy, phytotherapy etc., counting in hundreds of hours) in the cursus of MD's for their "general information".... Thus, it is necessary to refer exactly to what is compared by Atwoood: "conventional methods" which is WP:V, not overall "materials" which is WP:OR. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine and take an antivaccinationist stance

The statement "naturopaths often take an antivaccinationist stance" in not in line with the statements of the chapter dedicated to vaccination and is not in line with this source which says the opposite. Can you please quote the Singh source supporting this statement, because I don't have access to it. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: thanks for your quote. However the quote does not support at all the sentence in the article. "they are often taking a antivaccinationist stance" is absolutely not the same as "many are not in favour of vaccination". The first one is "active" while the second one is "passive". The references found in the body of the article in chapter 3.6 Vaccination is helping to understand the situation raised by Singh:

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination."

Its "a minority" and not "often". The sentence in the article shall be rewritten as: "Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine and a minority of them take an antivaccinationist stance" or "Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine but a majority don't take any stance regarding vaccination". Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotation use antivax as an example of what they advise patients, which is active. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, scientific logical thinking cannot come to that conclusion. It would be WP:OR. Let me rephrase for explaining.

"many naturopaths are against mainstream medicine and advise their patients accordingly – for instance many are not in favour of vaccination"

"many naturopaths are against mainstream medicine and advise their patients to drink apple juice, because they are not in favour of vaccination".

Proposing "actively" apple juice does not mean they said anything about "vaccination" to their patient. They did not take "a stance against vaccination". It would be a syllogism to think so. It could as well mean that they "did not make explicit recommendations about vaccination" (Downey L et al Pediatric vaccination and vaccine-preventable disease acquisition: associations with care by complementary and alternative medicine providers. Matern Child Health J. 2010 Nov;14(6):922-30. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0519-5. PMID 19760163. PMC 2924961). Otherwise, how would you explain the total contradiction between Singh (a self-published book in 2009) and Downey (a peer reviewed scholar publication in 2010) ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Downey as the quotation we had did not appear to be in the source? Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if need be, we can add this source to the article next to Singh source. What is your opinion regarding the logical question above ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in accord. The entire article is so shambolic I am not inclined to get into detailed consideration of minor details until the larger issues are addressed. One thing that needs to happen is that the antivax stuff is consolidated. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, sorry, but saying the opposite is not "a minor detail". But yes, you are right, the full article is "shambolic". I am ready to help restructuring. But as a newbies I am risking lots of reverts... I will use the Talk page for making proposals as I am currently doing. But first, please let's agree on this "minor detail". Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination in Switzerland

Paulmartin357 made edits that stated that a majority of naturopaths in Switzerland do not oppose vaccination, but the following citations might contradict that claim:

• http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2008/47/smw-12423.pdf
• http://www.revmed.ch/rms/2012/RMS-359/Vaccinations-le-refus-est-avant-tout-alemanique

It seems to me that there is a lot of heterogeneity in Switzerland, especially from the German-speaking regions, where vaccination rates are lower. Trhermes (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, thanks for your interest for Swiss case. Your first source does not mention anything about naturopaths in Switzerland. Your second source does not concern the "normal vaccination" as such, but the opinion of a citizen's committee regarding a new law allowing the governement to impose vaccination to all the population in case of epidemic. It has nothing to do with the usual process of preventive vaccination. Unless you can find better reaseons for reverting my contribution, please revert back. By the way, WP:BRD does not encourage revert Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, I did not write that "naturopaths do not oppose vaccination". I did write that:

In Switzerland, a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution. The majority of naturopaths are proposing alternative solutions, without denying evidence-based medicine.

This is not exactly the same to say "naturopath do not oppose to vaccination" and "vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine". I still don't see any valid reason for reverting my contribution.Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are some of those "alternative solutions" to vaccination that they propose? --McSly (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

McSly, thanks for joining the Talk. I don't know and I don't need to know for answering the open question of this Talk. This is another topic. It shall not be addressed here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason for removing your addition was that the source came from an interview of one physician. The source does not have any strength, no data, etc. The other source from 2005 does not contain a clear remark about how naturopaths in Switzerland practice, and again, this sentence in the source is uncited. Therefore, there is no evidence to say anything about naturopaths and vaccination in Switzerland. I apologize for not paraphrasing your edit as well as I could have. Trhermes (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, thanks for these explanations, but you are not naming any WP's for supporting your opinion !?

Regarding the first source, this interview is formally labeled as a communication of Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination (i.e. the governmental body of experts in favor of vaccination). According to WP:NEWSORG, "the opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". According to WP:RS/MC, it is "a position statements from nationally reputable expert bodies", ie. not just a simple physician, but a Professor of medicine, President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination, i.e an authoritative statement.

The second source is a scientific article, saying very clearly: "The majority of naturopaths are proposing alternative solutions, without denying evidence-based medicine." What kind of other "clear remark" are you expecting here for accepting this sentence ?

According to WP:USEPRIMARY, "secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the source is building on the foundation of prior sources rather than starting with all-new material." Being President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination, then "you have some reason to believe that their scientific article is building on the foundation of prior sources", because this is their main focus of interest, their job and their responsibility to know about this situation.

According to these WP's, I still don't see any valid reason to revert my contribution. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One guy's opinion is not data. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, thanks for joining this Talk. It is not "one guy's opinion". First source is an official communication from a governmental expert agency about data gathered in their area of responsibility. It is in line with WP:RS/MC, being "a position statements from a nationally reputable expert body". Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree: the citations you added are not position statements. The information you cited appears in a publication by a government body, but it is the opinion of one person that you uncited. You did not cite a position paper. The interviewee states that naturopaths have varied practices: some are opposed and some delay and select a few to support. This pattern is not quantified and does not suggest that NDs in Switzerland support vaccination. Trhermes (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhernmes, where did you read that I said "naturopath support vaccination" !?! Why do you bring this sentence here ? This is not the topic. The person is explicitely cited in my reference tags. But I can rephrase for you the first half:

"In Switzerland, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, "a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution"

Please confirm if this first half is now aligned to WP criteria. Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is, again, one person's opinion. This is a non starter for me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, once again, this is not "one's person opinion", but the voice of the President speaking on behalf of the Federal Commission for Vaccination under the title "Communication" in the journal, introducing and bundeled with an article of Commision Members in the following pages under the same overall title. According to WP:RSOPINION, "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". According to WP:NEWSORG, "the opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint", in this case a Professor of medicine, President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination. Who else, which other source can be more reliable and can have a more significant viewpoint about vaccination ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing of the interviewee's statements intimate that Swiss naturopaths support vaccination. Also note that in WP:RSOPINION it is customary to state precisely the source of the opinion in the writing of the article, such as "Author X states that ...." I do not think it's factual to state that a majority of NDs does not believe vaccination is opposed to natural medicine, as we do not know how this translates to practices of naturopaths. In other words, the cited information you provide is nonspecific and very subjective. Please propose a rewrite that captures the following: 1) The practices/beliefs of Swiss naturopaths in vaccinating is varied as was stated in the interview (page 515):

Apparently. Naturopaths are moving in a system of values ​​with different concepts ferent from those of the medicine based on the evidence. This ideology has always existed and is worthy of respect. It postulates that "Nature is good "and therefore are useful in diseases child development, or they are the trials that life sends us for us strengthen, as the death itself is part nature and must be accepted. There Most naturopaths recognize without difficulty as certain diseases beyond the scope of alternative medicine and require allopathic treatments, pre- immunization invention is not in opposition to a natural medicine. For others, a very small minority rule let Nature is ab- solue - so vaccination is an interference in the natural evolution. They estimate that preventing a disease by vaccination tion, it deprives the child of development opportunities ment and exposed to disturbances responsible for chronic diseases later cal as diverse as allergies, diseases autoimmune or cancer. In between, certain naturopaths are trying to make sense of things by offering to vaccinate in a "selection tive ", choosing some vaccines in the re- delaying, etc.

I believe it should reflect that Swiss NDs might not be opposed to vaccination in theory, but NDs do delay vaccination and seem to make custom schedules. It is established that such practices are considered "anti-vaccine" by the medical community; and you should include in your rewrite that 2) the notions you cite are the opinion of one person, albeit a medical specialist. It seems you did not include the final remarks in the above quotation of the interviewee when you made your addition to the Vaccination section in Switzerland. Trhermes (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, I really don't understand why you would like the source to say something that she is not saying and state your own conclusions or belief. This would be WP:OR. Saying what the source is saying is not "intimating". For the rest, I have no problem rephrasing and exetending the quote of the first source:

"In Switzerland, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, "a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution. Inbetween, some other naturopaths are proposing selective vaccination or customized vaccination agenda."

Please confirm if this is now inline with WP. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would consider writing, "In Switzerland in 2005, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, naturopaths have varied beliefs on vaccination: a majority acknowledge that vaccination is not in opposition to natural medicine, a minority are opposed, and others propose selective and delayed vaccination." I am still not satisfied, however, because there are no quantities in her statement and it still seems subjective. Any other ideas from others? I will try to contact Dr. Siegrist to see if she has actual data. Trhermes (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, thanks for this counter proposal. It is not usual to date the source in the text. Can you show me a WP for this ? I don't see many examples here. It makes everything unnecessarily "heavy" without adding key information. But if you insist, why not... The fact that a group of population "have varied beliefs" is not a surprise. This is human nature, thanks god. I don't see the value of this statement. The rest of the quote makes it obvious that there is at least 3 groups of "beliefs". The source is not saying "a minority". The source is saying "a very small minority". The source is not saying that they are "opposed" (stake, active) but that they are "considering it is interferring" (belief, passive). Why would you like to use another semantic/concept than the source ? This would be WP:OR. I am fine with: "and others propose selective and delayed vaccination". I am proposing not to wait for an hypothetical answer from Pr. Siegrist before publishing, eventhought it will be great to receive percentages at a later stage. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is a pointless and futile debate. The default position for anyone engaged in medicine, is to support vaccination. This is tantamount to saying that naturopaths in Switzerland accept that the earth is spherical: it is only significant because American ones (and indeed most other countries as far as I can tell) think the earth is flat. You appear to be engaged in whitewashing naturopathy, and to have no other interest in Wikipedia at all. Are you a naturopath? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, thanks for joining the Talk. I strongly believe it is "futile" that a truely relieable source shall be questioned like this one, while other much more "unreliable" source are not questioned at all. It is certainly not futile to mention the Swiss case here. The article is not to discuss the general position of all those who are engaged into medicine, but to explain, based on reliable sources, what is the position of naturopaths. As such, it is not "pointless". If you carefully read all the past history of this Talk page where is did express my own opinion about naturoapthy, you will realize that I am certainly not "whitewashing" naturopathy . However, there is no reason for this article not to follow the WP rules. I am simply reading this article from A to Z and checking all the references. When I cannot apply WP:V, then I am questionning the sources, the statements, and looking for sources which are confirming or not the statements of this article. You shall be thankful to have such a dedicated reader instead of baching him. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer the key question: you are an editor with no other area of interest, are you a naturopath? Guy (Help!) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, I am not a SPA in the strict sense, but I am contributing to articles one by one, this one being my first big contribution. I am Master of Science from one of the top100 universities in this world. I am also holding one university diploma in "evidence based" medicine. I am currently student in one of the top100 "evidence based" medicine university for another "evidence based" medicine diploma. I have many other fields of study and many other fields of expertise, one of it being naturopathy. If you are interested to know my opinion regarding naturopathy (from my "scientific" point of view), you can read Archive 7 from this Talk.

"My personal opinion is that what some people call naturopathy contains some pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. This is not the question. This is not my debate. My opinion does not count here. I am simply aiming to bring objectivity and neutrality WP:NPOV to the naturopathy article."

The vast majority of my income is issued from science and evidence-based medicine activities. I am simply an advocate of truth and fairness. By nature, I am always swimming against the mainstream, because this is where value can be found. Is it answering your WP:COI question ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of words for a question needing a Yes/No answer. I'll ask it this time, "Are you a naturopath?" -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Understanding the quality of research published by naturopaths

There is a supposed meta-analysis published by a group of naturopaths claiming that for a range of health conditions naturopathic whole systems treatments are really great. The paper is published in a journal which seems to be uncritical of complementary and alternative medicine, by publishing low-quality papers overwhelmingly in favor of CAM as scientific research.

Edzard Ernst wrote up a recent review of this article. As an established expert in CAM and reputable scientist, his conclusions about the paper should be trusted. He states:

• the searches were done three years ago, and more recent data were thus omitted,
• the authors included all sorts of investigations, even uncontrolled studies; only 6 were RCTs,
• rigorous trials were very scarce; and for each condition, they were even more so,
• the authors mention the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews implying that they followed them but, in fact, they did not

He goes on to then write:

The authors claim that their results table provides full details on this issue but this is unfortunately not true. All we have by way of an explanation is the authors’ remark that the interventions tested in the studies of their review included diet counseling and nutritional recommendations, specific home exercises and physical activity recommendations, deep breathing techniques or other stress reduction strategies, dietary supplements including vitamins, hydrotherapy, soft-tissue manual techniques, electrical muscle stimulation, and botanical medicines.

I think, this puts things into perspective. If I advise a patient with diabetes or hypertension or coronary heat disease to follow an appropriate diet, exercise and to adhere to some stress reduction program, if in addition I show empathy and compassion during a 40 minute consultation and make sure that my advise is taken seriously and subsequently adhered to, the outcome is likely to be positive. Naturopaths may elect to call this package of intervention ‘naturopathy’, however, I would call it good conventional medicine.

The problem, I think is clear: good therapeutic advice is effective but it is not naturopathy, and it cannot be used to justify the use of doubtful interventions like homeopathy or all sorts of dodgy supplements. Testing whole treatment packages of this nature can therefore lead to highly misleading results, particularly if the researchers draw unwarranted conclusions about specific schools of health care.

Given that the Naturopathy page has been under constant vandalization by what may very well be naturopathic "doctors", I think it is important to keep a heads up on what "peer-reviewed" research they are publishing, which may be uncritically cited in Wikipedia. To a non-specialist, the Oberg (2015) looks great for naturopathic medicine. In reality, the authors did not conduct a tight research project and made very overarching and positive conclusions about naturopathic medicine that are not supported by their data inputs or analytical methods. In other words, they published a glowing and highly biased literature review concealed as a meta-analysis. Trhermes (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not untypical of the sort of "science" done by Alt-Medists everywhere. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, can you explain why did cite all except the first "important caveat" raised by Ernest:

"the authors seem to have only looked at US studies (naturopathy is a European tradition!)" ?? Paulmartin357 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Paulmartin357, Ernst makes this point yes, but I didn't find it valuable in discussing the methodological shortcomings of the authors of the study, who are based at North American naturopathic institutions and private practices. My guess is that once the protected status of this page is lifted, there will be a torrent of attempts to cite this study as some sort of proof that naturopathic medicine is effective for disease management. The study does not show this notion to be true. Trhermes (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, I understand your point of view. However, the author is putting it on the first place on his list of "important caveat". The question remains open if "what is valid for the Anglo-American world" is also valid for the rest of the world. It's good to see that I am not the only one being concerned by this issue. This is one more example of this WP:WORLD issue that I have already raised a few times here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Official translation

LeadSongDog has modified a sentence quoted "word for word" from the official English website of Swiss constitution. Claiming that "unofficial translation is quite different from the French text" is not in line with WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NOENG. The Constitution is carved in stones. The source is reliable. The source is written in English. The English translation is official. There is no need for another translation. The personnal translation is misrepresenting the source. I am proposing to revert back to the original English text from the source. Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead : Many naturopaths oppose vaccination

The following sentence is not supported by the body of the article.

"Many naturopaths oppose vaccination based in part on the early views that shaped the profession"

The references found in the body of the article in chapter 3.6 Vaccination is not consistent with the lead:

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination."

Its "a minority" and not "many". Furthermore, the 3 references supporting the sentence in the lead are not found elsewhere in the article. I am proposing to replace the 3 references in the lead by the reference from the body of the article and to rewrite the sentence in the lead as follow:

"Only a minority of naturopaths actively recommend against vaccination."

Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look closer at the 3 proposed sources, you will see how biased and WP:NPOV is this sentence. The first source (Kumanan) is reviewing one single clinic in Canada. As such, it cannot support a universal statement in the lead. Nowhere in the source is a confirmation that many (how many ?) naturopaths are opposing to vaccination. The second source (Busse) is reviewing 2 colleges in Canada (ie. reviewing students but not yet naturopaths as such) and found out that " the majority of the students were not averse to vaccination", but "anti-vaccination attitudes were more prevalent in the later years of the programs". "more prevalent" does not equal "many". "student" does not equal "naturopath". "2 colleges in canada" does not equal "global". The third source (Wilson) survey sudent in 1 college in Canada and found out that 87.2% of them would advice full or partial vaccination. The affirmation that "many naturopaths oppose vaccination" is not supported by these 3 sources. This statement is strongly WP:NPOV and does not satisfy WP:V and WP:WORLDVIEW Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trhermes: considering there is an open Talk about the sentence that you did edit, it would have been fair to wait for a concensus before being Bold. However, your edit can still be discussed here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination, source Downey is valid

@Alexbrn: you did revert my contribution claiming that "quotation isn't in the cited source":

" but "published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and that "a majority make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination".

Instead of removing an interesting and reliable source from this article, you could have amended the text in order to better align to the source, or even have opened a Talk section about it before reverting. The source is saying exactly this:

"but published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination [17–20]. A survey of naturopathic physicians in Massachusetts found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination" and this

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination. "

The article is explicitely considering naturopaths as "CAM practioners". Feel free to rephrase if need be, but I don't see any reason not to include this valuable information in the article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

References

So let's get this straight: you're comfortable with framing these quotations like they both apply to naturos, while the second is stated in the source as applying to CAM practitioners in general? Seems pretty blatant and rather at odds with your uber-pickiness elsewhere! I shouldn't have deleted BTW, I had a page search SNAFU on my browser which meant I missed seeing the text in question in the soruce. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for challenging my pickiness. I am open to critics. From a logical point of view, I don't see any problem. It is supported by mathematics laws called set theory If it applies to CAM, knowing that naturopaths are CAM practitioners, it also applies to naturopaths, unless otherwise specified. This is reinforced by the fact that the author is illustrating his article with a very unambiguous example about naturopaths in Masschusetts. Feel free to rephrase if necessary. But the facts are the facts. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's false reasoning. Naturopaths are atypical CAM folk in that they take a hard antivax line it seems (from the source). Feel free to ask at WP:NORN. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, above is the expression of your own opinion. Do you sincerely believe that if the authors would have found out that naturopaths are such atypical CAM practitioners, they would have listed only one example about naturopaths (Massachsetts) that is absolutely in line with their overall conclusions ? Certainly not. They would have found plenty examples of the opposite. Then, why is there not one single example of the opposite in this study ? Yes, they are taking some precautions: "Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful". But they do not mention a single doubt about it in their overall conclusions. They don't write "CAM practioners, except naturopaths". You cannot question the scholar source simply based on your own opinion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. We're now quoting the source accurately. What you propose it WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, then let's quote acurately:

"Published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and one survey "found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination."

I am proposing to remove the introductory sentence ("Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful") which is making the link with the rest of the source. It is meaningless here. The word "suggest" in the next sentence is sufficient for showing that evidence is not absolute. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, what I am proposing in not WP:OR. Do not confuse a logical conclusion with a syllogism. Please refer to science based laws (set theory) which are saying the following:

If Wikipedia administrators can edit articles (if CAM practitioners are making no recommandations)

considering that Alexbrn is an administrator (considering that naturopaths are CAM practitioners)

then Alexbrn can edit articles (then naturopaths are making no recommandations)

There is nothing that either scientific logic nor WP:OR can oppose to this fact. It's only your own belief, your bias and your own opinions that make you oppose to it. It is certainly not NPOV nor logical thinking that can oppose to it.

A syllogism (ie. wrong logic) would be:

If wikipedia administrators can edit articles

Considering that Alexbrn can edit articles

then Alexbrn is an administrator.

Eventhough the conclusion might be right, the above logic does not support that conclusion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. I'm not prepared to try and teach you basic reasoning. What you're proposing is WP:OR pure and simple. If in doubt, ask at WP:NORN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you don't need to teach me basic reasoning, but you need to provide a source supporting your logic/reasoning for WP:V. my source for supporting my reasoning/logic is set theory (I can provide similar extra-Wikipedia source if need be for WP:V). What is your source for WP:V your logic ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're spouting nonsense. This will be my last post to this section. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, sorry for wasting your time. I understand your point. I have asked WP:NORN. In the mean time, you did not answer to my last proposal quoting acurately the source:

"Published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and one survey "found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination."

I am proposing to remove the introductory sentence ("Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful") which is there for making the link with the previous sentences in the source but is meaningless here. The word "suggest" is sufficient for showing in this article that "evidence is less plentiful". Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody did comment or oppose to my last proposal since 3 weeks. I will edit now before this section being archived... Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

New sources to add for verifying claims that naturopaths cause patient harm with natural substances

I've been doing bibliographic searching for relevant citations to the section "Safety of Natural Treatments." I think this article would be improved with the following citations:

• Oliver, Mark; Van Voorhis, Wesley; Boeckh, Michael; Mattson, Debra; Bowden, Raleigh (1996). "Hepatic Mucormycosis in a Bone Marrow Transplant Recipient Who Ingested Naturopathic Medicine". Clinical Infectious Diseases 22 (3): 521–524.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). "Hepatitis Temporally Associated with an Herbal Supplement Containing Artemisinin — Washington, 2008". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 58 (31): 854–856.
• Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) (2006). "Deaths Associated with Hypocalcemia from Chelation Therapy — Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, 2003–2005". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55 (8): 204–207.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1996). "Infection with Mycobacterium abscessus associated with intramuscular injection of adrenal cortex extract--Colorado and Wyoming 1995-1996". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45: 713–715.

References

I added one reference, but @Alexbrn reverted the change. I am unclear as to why this user did this.Trhermes (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

We should use WP:MEDRS for health content, and avoid primary sources. The 1996 source you added is an old primary. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a 2012 review which cites that 1996 source (in PMC 3317515 it is ref 27), but all that review says is "Cases of hepatic mucormycosis have also been associated with ingestion of herbal medications." That doesn't support the assertion for which the 1996 source was cited. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Before adding new sources, it would be wise to review existing ones. The first source ("Naturopathic Medicine". American Cancer Society. January 16, 2013) is not linking to relevant information. Please provide a more accurate link. The second source (Barrett, Stephen (November 26, 2013). "A close look at naturopathy". QuackWatch.) is not supporting exactly the text of this section. I am proposing to remove the first and the second sources by WP:V. Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society page on Naturopathy no longer exists. Wayback Machine has it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150403092521/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicinehttps://web.archive.org/web/20150403092521/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine Trhermes (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the source does no longer exist, I am proposing by WP:V to remove this source from the list of references and to remove 3 informations/sentences solely based on this source :

According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published.

ozone therapy

Naturopathic doctors are not mandated to undergo residency between graduation and commencing practice, Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The ACS position seems to now be this. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this new source. However, it does not relates to the 3 above informations/sentences. Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a book published by the American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary & Alternative Cancer Therapies (2009). Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society. [ISBN: 978-0944235713]. The section on naturopathic medicine is on pp. 116-119. The content reflects the language and material used on the ACS webpage on naturopathy, which is no longer available online. I propose this reference be added to support the existing citation. Trhermes (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this new source. Please quote here in the talk page the sentences of this book which are supporting the above 3 ones. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the book is very similar to the text of the online source no longer available: I made the book excerpt temporarily here: http://imgur.com/Z9qrQCg What other sentences are based on this source that need review? Trhermes (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this quote. We shall rephrase in order to stick to the source WP:V and to reflect exactly the balance of the source WP:BALANCE:

According to the American Cancer Society in 2009, "available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine is effective for most health problems. Some naturopatic methods have been shown to reduce the risk for illness.

Naturopathic doctors in the United States, as of 2009, do not receive residency training.

However, it is also necessary to point out that the sources and references of this chapter of the book are very limited and questionable. Is it a real secondary source WP:secondary ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society (2009) source appears as a reliable source. The American Cancer Society is a major medical organization and scientific institution. WP:MEDPOP

May I paraphrase LeadSongDog in another topic on this talk page when he is talking about WHO, which is also considered as a reliable source: The policy is wp:V, which is amplified by wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:EVAL and even wp:USEPRIMARY (...) The American Cancer Society published this book, not wrote it. We are not bound to parrot their errors, even if they came from reliable sources.. I think we have to question the quality of sources and the relevance of this section of the book, knowing that this is a very short article based very few and very weak sources out of 800 pages. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sources do you propose are objectionable? Trhermes (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The ACS says on the cover that this book is authored by "the experts at the ACS". That's as direct as it gets, unlike the earlier WHO attribution. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the book's introduction that supports LeadSongDog's point:

This book reflects the American Cancer Society's commitment to providing comprehensive information to empower patients and the public in making informed decisions about the use of conventional methods as well as CAM in cancer prevention and treatment and in optimizing quality of life for cancer survivors. Since its inception in 1913, the Society has taken on the task of educating the public about cancer and about the safety and effectiveness of cancer treatment. Early in its existence, the Society expressed concern over dubious claims of “cancer cures” and began gathering information on these therapies. In the 1950s, as the organization became increasingly concerned with the exploitation of people with cancer— especially those in the advanced phases of illness— we began to publish information about specific claims, as well as the criteria for assessing the value or merit of particular cancer treatments or diagnostic tests. In the spirit of our longstanding ACS mission— to educate, advocate, research, and serve— the American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary & Alternative Cancer Therapies, Second Edition was born. This book will serve as a comprehensive guide to the wide variety of methods available. Each entry provides critical information such as proponents’ claims, what the method involves, historical background, recent research findings, and side effects and complications. The latest complementary and alternative treatment methods are included, as well as those that have been used for many years. This second edition has been updated with the latest research in the field of integrative oncology, as well as an expanded glossary and resource list.

and...

As in our first edition, this second edition aims to provide readers with a reliable guide to selecting and using treatment methods wisely. Through objective information based on scientific evidence from peer-reviewed medical literature, readers may evaluate the evidence and make informed choices— together with their doctors— about complementary therapies.

and from the foreward to the book written by David Rosenthal, MD:

Informed, authoritative sources within the medical community should address any new claims regarding CAM, and that is the primary reason for publishing this new edition. Experts at the American Cancer Society, along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM have analyzed the most recent research and claims surrounding alternative and complementary treatments. In this new edition, they share important facts regarding what has been proven or disproven in the field during the last decade.

The ACS book is a very reputable source from medical experts who have a clear scientific and educational purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trhermes (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, David S. Rosenthal's own bioblurb (though not itself a wp:RS) is here and here is more. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, what shall I understand about Rosenthal's bio ? Let me paraphrase you again.

Rosenthal is working at The Zakim Center offering clinical services – such as acupuncture, massage therapy, Reiki, therapeutic touch, mind-body techniques, and nutritional consultations. Few practioners of evidence based medicine find merit in acupuncture, massage therapy, reiki, therapeutic touch and mind-body techniques, simply because there is no substantial evidence for these practices being effective. To the extent that Rosenthal working for Zakim center continues to advocate their use, it undermines the credibility of the whole of Rosenthal foreword for ACS publication. Regarding the experts at the American Cancer Society, along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM mentionned by Rosenthal, all these fringe groups have their own wp:walled garden of "experts" who are not recognized as such by the larger scientific community. Such people have a vested interest in the promotion of their worldview.

I am still questionning the primary sources used by ACS for this book and NPOV of the authors of this book. Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please list the references that you find questionable as primary sources.Trhermes (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is determined by assessing content and source together: whole institutions are not given blank cheques for total reliability in all topic areas. There are only 8 sources listed. It's a very limited number for such a large topic. One sources is even only supporting one single sentence in the entire article (Riley RW about CNME). Sarell is annecdotal. Bastyr and NCCAM are engaged in "Traditional Medicine" in one form or another. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is because so little is written on naturopathy from an academic perspective. The available sources are limited. I am still not clear on your objections. There appear to be naturopathy advocates, who seem to only cite pro naturopathy references written by naturopaths. There then is a large body of other citations written by a variety of academic, scientific, and advocacy groups who are predominately wary of the claims that naturopathy proponents make. Here are some other sources that might help understand this division:

• http://oha.ed.gov/secretarycases/2000-06-O.pdf
• http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/naturopath_final_042213.pdf
• http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2001-09_Profile_of_a_Profession_Naturopathic_Practice.pdf
• http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_documents.asp?session=26&docid=5694
• http://www.sfsbm.org/pdf/Maryland_ND_Advisory_Committee_report.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182944/

I think a serious problem is that naturopathy advocates do not accept criticism of their profession, practices, education, and even beliefs, like homeopathy. Trhermes (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Trhermes, I am simply questionning the reliability [WP:RS]] of the source. If there is not enough academic material (in this case not even one single scholar article) then the source is weak according to WP:V, ie. if it is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, then WP:REDFLAG shall apply. Isn't it surprising that one source (out of only 8 sources) is mentionned for one single sentence of low importance ? Is there such a lack of valuable sources for supporting ACS's paragraph on naturopathy in this book ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to pretend that this statement is "According to American Cancer Society". The note to the reader in the first pages of the books says: ""This information represents the views of the doctors and nurses serving on the American Cancer Society's Cancer Information Database Editorial Board. These views are based on their interpretation of studies (...)". It is then explicitely personnal views and interpretations of these people and not those of ACS as an organization. Otherwise, why would there such a note to the reader ? This note to the reader is not matching with the foreword of Rosenthal who says : "Experts at the ACS along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM (...) " It is not only ACS co-authored by unamed doctors and nurses, but also co-authored by unamed "thought leaders". This is one more reason for looking carefully at this source. Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

After almost 3 weeks, I would have expected some comments or reactions about the quality of this ACS source. This sentence is a "copy/paste" sentence into almost all the sections of this book. I do not dare to edit yet, knowing this is probably a very very hot topic that will be reverted withing less than 5 minutes... But I would really like to know if unnamed nurses and doctors working at the Information Database Editoral Board making personal interpretations not backed-up by ACS and unnamed "thought leaders in the field of CAM" can be considered as WP:RS/MC by those who would have reverted my edit. Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for "Naturopaths claim Hippocrates"

According to WP:V, I am question the following statement and its sources:

"Naturopaths claim the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine", Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine, before the term existed"

The first source NCAHF is an organization that seem not to exist anymore, despite the fact a website is still keeping an archive of their documents under this name. This website is not clear about what this former organization really was. The source supporting the statement in the article itself is "Nat'l College of Naturopathic Medicine Catalog, 1984-85.". This catalog dating back to 1984-1985 is not available anymore and cannot be verified. Is a yearly "catalog" a reliable source WP:RS ? The NCAHF source is writing:

"Naturopaths claim to be the "true inheritors of the Hippocratic tradition in medicine,"

This is a "passive" stake (inheritor), which is absolutely not the same meaning as:

"Naturopaths claim Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine"

This is an "active" stake (being advocate). I am proposing to remove this first source not supporting adequately the questioned statement. The second source is an unsourced page on a College's website. This is certainly not a WP:RS. I am proposing to remove this second source as well. Considering there is no remaining source for supporting the statement, I am proposing to find better sources for supporting a similar idea, if it does exist, and to tag the statement with . Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

almost 3 weeks without comments, opposition or proposal. i will edit as proposed, before being archived.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

it has already been reveted by JzG, based on the fact there was no approval. But there was also no opposition !? And the fact remains that these sources are not WP:RS/MC and are not supporting the statement. This is a fact. Not a belief. RIP Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic obstetrics

To avoid an edit war with Paulmartin357, let's talk about what naturopathic obstetrics is and is not. Obstetrics is a medical specialty dealing with pregnancy, birth, and postpartum care, chiefly with risk situations requiring surgery. Naturopaths in North America are not permitted to conduct major surgeries in any jurisdiction. However, in some states they are allowed to practice midwifery, which is pretty much the same minus the surgery during birth. It seems to me that the cited reference misuses the word obstetrics, when they mean midwifery[3]. For example, no where in Arizona Statute 32-1501 to 32-1581, where the laws about naturopathy are written, does the word obstetrics appear [4]. Even naturopaths who claim to oversee the practice of naturopathic obstetrics call themselves midwives [5]. I suggest "obstetrics" be swapped with "midwifery" in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trhermes (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are right or wrong. I have been told that only WP:RS and WP:V count here. Editor's opinion, editor's expertise and editor's WP:OR does not count, unless I did not understand the lessons that I have been given... The only remaining source says "obstetrics". Do you have any clue what the other source was saying ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please check my proposed changes here: User:Trhermes/sandbox. I updated the 2006 AMA citation, which had a dead link, to a 2009 AMA report on naturopathic scopes of practice. It is clear from this report and the other links I gave to naturopathic organizations that when NDs use "obstetrics" in describing practice, they mean "midwifery (natural childbirth)." Only MDs and DOs are certified to practice obstetrics as is known in the medical literature. Trhermes (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The first source (AMA) is writing "The American College of Naturopathic Obstetrics" on page 32 (Feel free to update link to the source, it cannot be seen as edit warring...). "Naturopathic Obstetrics" does not pretend to be "Medical Obstetrics". "Naturopatic Obstetrics" is a "discipline" while "naturopatic midwife" is a profession. I still don't see any WP:V for replacing "obstetrics" by "midwifery". Both sources WP:RS are confirming the wording "obstetrics", in the "naturopatic meaning", not in the "medical meaning". Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: you did by-pass the talk page and revert back to the questioned edit without providing any evidence. Is this called a "concensus" ? The two available sources are contradicting you. These 2 sources are explicitely mentionning "obstetrics" (ie. "naturopathic obstetrics", because this article is about naturopathy, but not about medicine). Please provide a WP:RS source that I can WP:V verify. Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You boldly made the change, I reverted, now we discuss. WP:BRD.

While we're on the subject of bypassing the Talk page, are you still asserting you have no conflict of interest? You come across very much as a "warrior for The Truth&trade", and you are quite remarkably dogged in your pursuit of edits sympathetic to these quacks. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, I am still on my learning curve. I thought that improperly sourced statements shall be reverted or removed. Trhermes did Bold, I did Revert and he did initiate a Talk. Here we are. What's wrong with this WP:BRD ? We were Talking when you did Revert again. Do you find any kind of "sympathety" for "midwifery" or for "obstetrics" or the other way around ? I am simply looking for WP:V. I thought that WP:ROUGE are caring for WP:V more than anything else. Please present your WP:V sources. If you have other personal topics to discuss with me, feel free to do so on my Talk page. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's what's wrong: naturopaths cannot be obstetricians. You "forgot" to answer the question: why are you so determined to make naturopathy look less like the quackery it is. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, the question here is not if naturopath can be obstetricians or not. Who said that ?!? The question is : are there places where naturopath are practicing naturopathic obstetrics ? Two WP:RS sources are saying YES. What is wrong with these sources ? Does it look more or less quackery to say so !?! This is really not the question. I already answered your question above, with lots of private details. Feel free to come to my talk page if this is not satisfactory or shall i come to your Talk page ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Naturopaths are like any other scammer: they make fraudulent claims all the time. Pyramid schemes never call themselves that, they use weasel words and special pleading to obscure the facts. The definition of obstetrician is fundamentally incompatible with the scope of practice of naturopathy, as noted above. And of course the practice of any form of medicine is fundamentally incompatible with the legitimate scope of naturopathy, since the entire field is founded on quasi-religious belief and the rejection of those elements which distinguish modern medicine from the witchcraft that all forms of medicine used to be. Naturopaths are throwbacks. They want to keep practising witchcraft either because medicine is too hard so they can't learn it, or because they are True Believers. Neither is a good reason for letting charlatans loose on sick people. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, your indictment is driving back to my very simple question: is "editor's opinion" more valuable than WP:RS according to WP:PG ? Please comment about the sources not about "your opinon". My question is remaining unanswered so far. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Paulmartin357, your question cannot be answered. There is no such thing as naturopathic obstetrics. Naturopaths practice midwifery and "natural child birth." Neither of these are obstetrics, as in medical obstetrics. I propose to close this discussion. Trhermes (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Moving on would be good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about obstetrics or not. But it is very sad and very disappointing that a key question cannot be answered: " is editor's opinion more valuable than WP:RS according to WP:PG". I have pointed out a few examples of such WP:BIAS that have remained unanswered, the most obvious one being to rephrase the Constitution... Where can I raise my question if there is no answer here ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What's sad and depressing is that you have chosen to learn about Wikipedia by promoting bullshit. We know how that goes: banning. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, unless you can prove it, I am not promoting anything else but WP:RG. RIP Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

About the lead - vaccination

The lead is often used for introducing sources and sentences which are nowhere found elsewhere in the article itself. The last edit about vaccination is a good example. Why add so many details in the lead, while there is nothing about the same topic in the article itself. I am proposing to move this new sentence into the Vaccination section. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think not. They are for the most part rabid antivaxers, after all, and reducing the prominence of this fact in the article is playing right into the hands of the preventable disease promotion lobby. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, love that unsubstantiated generalization from the so called vanguard of 'evidence basis.' This bears no relation to the majority of Naturopathic practice or education in Australia at least, not that you'd know it because attempts to update the Australian section to more recent government commissioned studies were repeatedly blocked. As for the rest of this article, it's still largely USA-centric, and even more bloated with repetition than last time I checked in on it. Gudz out.Gudzwabofer (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, are you reading the Talk before answering and reverting ? I am not proposing "to reduce the prominence of this fact in the article". According to WP:CREATELEAD, I am proposing the opposite: "to increase the prominence of this fact by moving this statement into the article, where this information is missing". I am following WP:RG, but not beliefs which are making people becoming completely blind. This was my very last contribution, for the time being, to this hopeless and ridiculous article. It's a shame for the reputation of Wikipedia. RIP Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am. I have been here a long time, you claim not to have been (though your editing patterns do raise suspicions in this regard). Wikipedia's "bias" towards scientific rationalism is entirely intentional and is a major contributor to the reliability of the project (see Wikipedia:Lunatic Charlatans). Guy (Help!) 08:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha really? There is no such thing as Minchin's Law of moving the goalposts of medicine. Why? because he has no qualification in any sort of medical science. Acupuncture shouldn't even be mentioned there because under the right circumstances (and all treatments need the right circumstances no matter how conventional they are) has scientific basis so therefore cannot be classed as Lunatic Fringe (a term that is actually offensive to the mentally ill). If you stake such a claim in your scientific rationalism, and the quality of this article, I challenge you to have this page graded as a paper by a reputable university professor. I look forward to seeing what mark your collective efforts get. See also Criticism of Wikipedia. Due to it's departure from the ideas of its ex-co-founder, in the real academic world wikipedia is regarded as good for little more than pop culture and very basic introductory reading which can't be relied on as a solid source of knowledge.Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Guy. Wikipedia increases its credibility by sticking to the science. Overtime, it's becomes more respected. Trhermes (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Then explain why wikipedia is beginning to see a downward trend in traffic these last 2 years.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This page is not a forum. --McSly (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"The father of U.S. naturopathy"

This quote in the article's lead can be attributed to Dr. Hans Baer. I found the article online: Baer, H.A (2001). "The sociopolitical status of US naturopathy at the dawn of the 21st century". Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15 (3): 329–346. doi:10.1525/maq.2001.15.3.329. I believe this is enough evidence to reference a reputable primary source, but I wanted to run it by the page's editors first. Any objections?Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've read that article, and I would say that since it is a review piece, it actually is more of a secondary source. Delta13C (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kerdooskis, I added the citation the other day and cleaned up some other ref. issues flagged in the article. Delta13C (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation (you're right, it is a secondary source, isn't it) and for your feedback.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection?

I've noticed that the page has suffered recently from numerous unexplained content removals from IP users. Does anyone else think it is a good idea to restrict editing to autoconfirmed users? Delta13C (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I want to dispute the neutrality of the article.

Already in the first paragraph there is a subjective statement: Naturopathic medicine is ineffective and contains many pseudoscientific concepts; its practice can be harmful, raising ethical issues. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but I do think naturopathy may be effective, depending on the illness. Even prevention is a common reason to call upon naturopathy.

I didn't read the entire article, but I suppose there is more work to be done to give a balanced view of what is offered through naturopathy and by whom. In certain places naturopathy is regulated and recognized and practitioners can be licensed. In others, where legislation is lacking, any quack can call him-/herself a naturopath (this is were it may become harmful indeed). Jurjenb (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The content is backed up by reliable sources in the body of the article. This is the mainstream view of Naturopathy. We do not "balance" POV by creating a false balance. Rather than placing a POV tag on the article, get specific. Do that here and it can be discussed by all those watching this page. If your concerns are legitimate, improvements can be made, but you'll have to copy the exact wordings you find problematic, and the RS and better wordings you'd propose as improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned: if would be a false generalization that Naturopathic medicine is ineffective. The fact that this was already brought up by an anonymous user and discarded with replies that looked arrogant and with prejudice, makes me seriously wonder about the rest of the article. -- Jurjenb (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jurjenb. That text is well sourced, which solidly reflects the scientific consensus on what naturopathy is. Take a moment yourself and think about what naturopathy is and the plausibility of it being effective. Homeopathy? Hydrotherapy? Supplements? High-dose vitamins? Or any of the other treatments listed in the article? If you can provide reliable sources to indicate that the neutrality of the article is lacking, please bring them to this discussion. Unfortunately, your feelings on the matter cannot resolve the issue or lead to changes to well-sourced text. One more question: do you have a conflict of interest with naturopathy in any way? Delta13C (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do consider myself a scientific man, having had a concentration in physics and chemistry during my post-sec education and having a technical college degree. I've frequented a naturopathic practitioner in the past, whom I still keep in my private circles. I've been shown what they're being thought in school (NDs actually have a medical degree, from what I understand). If you want to state that any and all Naturopathic medicine is ineffective, you are generalizing too much.

I do agree that there are many quacks out there that call themselves naturopaths, I see them on the pin boards in the supermarket claiming naturopathy is done by reading the stars and what not. However, the article should distinct what is naturopathy and why these people are not exercising naturopathy. Calling all naturopaths quacks is surely not true.

On the other hand, medical doctors I've had a chance to talk to them about it, they simply reply I don't believe in it. As if it were a religion. Many of the cited articles require a subscription, so I can't read them, so I don't know if I can agree with the statements or methodologies. I do have witnessed a strong bias from many medical doctors and scientific people towards naturopathy. I do know that naturopathy lacks a lot of research (which has always been defended to me with the argument that the big pharmaceuticals can't make money with it, since it can't be patented).

So, a lack of sources to 'defend' naturopathy does not mean that there is no ground. It does not mean it doesn't work, it doesn't mean it can't be effective (but it depends on the medical condition). Not all naturopaths are incompetent quacks, which is proven by the regulation of the profession and licensing of the practitioners in a large number of states and provinces in the USA and Canada.

So, I'd like to claim that I know both sides of the discussion and from that 'balanced' point of view I argue that the tone of the article is not very neutral, even with respect to the articles cited. -- Jurjenb (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, ND's do not have a medical degree - it is a truism that ND stands for "Not a Doctor". They are taught a mix of some reality-based information and rather a lot of complete twaddle, and the naturopathic schools, many of whihc are unaccredited, and their graduates, fail the simplest litmus test of a functional system for telling truth from falsehood: all naturopathic schools and practitioners that I have seen believe in homeopathy. And a belief in homeopathy, to paraphrase Prof. Ernst, exceeds the tolerance of a reasonably open mind. It is bullshit. And teachign it means your curriculum is not grounded in reality, and practising it means you lack the critical faculties necessary to be a trustworthy source of advice. Guy (Help!) 19:52, January 25, 2016‎ (UTC)

NDs do not have a medical degree, even if they went to one of the "accredited" schools. Their curriculum contains a bit of real medicine but is not taught in a comprehensive manner, plus most of what they learn is stuff that is from about 150 years ago, homeopathy included, which is actually even more archaic. Your experience getting the "facts" from the horse's mouth does not matter. I think if you apply your critical thinking skills and research naturopathy on your own, you will agree with the content of the WP article. Delta13C (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jurjenb, If you want to change anything, you need to follow the advice I gave you above. Stick to discussing the subject, not your personal POV, and be specific right here on the talk page, rather than edit warring changes in the article. Make specific suggestions for improvement, backed by RS. We edit collaboratively here (solo editing on controversial subjects does not work), so if you bring serious suggestions to the table, they will be considered. If a consensus backs your suggestion, then good for you. If not, a compromise might end up working. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I did give a suggestion to make the phrasing more balanced, but my edit was reverted.

NDs do have a big medical training, that I have witnessed. Also, the medical training is recognized; ND is a protected title that stands for Naturopathic Doctor and one is not allowed to call himself a doctor without the proper medical training (yes, the schools are accredited) and regulation from the government. Maybe in your opinion it's not 'comprehensive' enough, but at least 25 or so states and provinces disprove with you.

Furthermore I think Guy should be removed all together from Wikipedia, since he has shown so many times arrogance and lack of respect in the discussion. -- Jurjenb (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources being presented to support the position that naturopathy is effective, only suppositions and personal opinion. In contrast, our article currently cites multiple sources to back up the statement that it is ineffective. Unless you are able to bring reliable sources to the table, there is no point quibbling over what a "naturopathic doctor" is, and asking for a "more neutral tone" would create a false balance that is not supported in the literature, as has been pointed out above. Take a gander at WP:NPOV, neutral on Wikipedia does not mean everybody gets an equal say, indeed Wikipedia is precisely against misleading readers by giving WP:FRINGE views undue weight. Cannolis (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk) Here are a couple of Journal articles that look at naturopathic treatment and show significant improvements. , JTND (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet, again, none of the sources actually state that naturopathic treatment is ineffective for any condition, making it a false reduction. Also, citing the same people from QuackWatch over and over doesn't seem to make it very balanced either. The number of times that I could Donald Trump about what the US should be like doesn't make it a balanced position either.

An article that looks a lot more balanced, I just found on Encyclopedia. At some point when I got time, I'll look at their source material. -- Jurjenb (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jurjenb, you should familiarize yourself with WP:GREATWRONGS. You seem to be advocating for naturopathy, which is why I asked you previously to disclose any conflict of interest. To be clear, Quackwatch is trusted as a reliable source, plus the information contained in that source is further verified by numerous other independent and reliable sources. These include the American Cancer Society, Medscape, and Edzard Ernst, among many others. You need to ask yourself why you are taking the stance you are showing to us. Delta13C (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jurjenb I agree with you that the content on this page is extremely biased and anti-evidence based. Apparently only the bias of the administrators is allowed to be published on this site. If they were truly scientific they would allow for debate of the facts rather then make gross generalizations and leaping to conclusions. Most of the page is focused on what the medical community thinks of naturopathic medicine which is like asking organic farmers what they think about Monsanto or vise versa. The medical community's comments are going to be fear based rhetoric because they are afraid of losing their power since naturopathic medicine uses much less invasive and harmful means of treatment.24.235.55.38 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

24.235.55.38 (1) You agree with Jurjenb who questions the neutrality of the article -- but who admits he has not read it. (2) Debate is allowed, and by posting here you are taking part in it. (3) The article is not based on what the medical community thinks, but on decades of scientific experience. Some might want it to include information they think should be included but which is unsupported scientifically. (4) Your statement that naturopathic medicine uses much less invasive and harmful means of treatment would be nice if it ended with the word cure instead of the word treatment, and if it was scientifically supported. Moriori (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Create Traditional Naturopath page?

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the page between licensed Naturopathic Doctors and unregulated traditional naturopaths. It may be a good idea to create a new page titled "Traditional Naturopaths" to focus on the unregulated ones. It would help to make the article a little shorter and more manageable as well. What are other people's thoughts?JTND (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That distinction is best reflected within sections of the Naturopathy page. I don't see how your suggestion would improve the material as it is currently presented. There seems to be very little practical difference between the licensed NDs and those who are unregulated as you say, other than they have the veneer of lawful existence covering mostly pseudoscientific practices and incomplete medical training. Delta13C (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This paper paints some fairly distinct differences between the two and from reading this page I think that it is very easy to them confused.JTND (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that there's enough to distinguish article contents between Naturopathic doctor (which redirects to this article) vs Traditional naturopathy (note capitalization). Even the regulated practitioner NDs from accredited schools are still taught patent nonsense such as energy medicine, homeopathy, and Rekki in lieu of spending their time on useful studies. Licensed superstition is still superstition. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that homeopathy is standard across naturopathic schools but what licensed schools teach energy medicine or Rekki as part of their curriculum? Where are you getting that information from LeadSongDog?JTND (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The names vary, the nonsense sometimes shows as "vital force", "vibrational medicine", "transfer of neural energy" or "distant intention" (see [6] or [7] for instances). Atwood's analysis remains valid. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that you used the books that are in Bastyr's bookstore as proof that energy medicine is taught there... So by your lodgic I guess you support accupuncture since it is taught at the University of Toronto based on there being plenty of acupuncture books in its library. [8] It is also interesting that the vibrational medicine book on that page was written by a medical doctor. Here is the full course sylabus for the naturopathic program at Bastyr. Where is it that they teach vibrational medicine or energy medicine?[9]. For someone who is such a strong advocate of evidence based medicine I would assume that you would use better evidence in proving your points. This is also why seperating the pages makes sense.JTND (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear that any difference exists in real life. Legislative alchemy does not transform a "licensed naturopathic doctor" into a qualified medical professional, only medical training and the removal of the nonsense and pseudoscience taught at naturopathic schools could do that. (Help!) 23:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy From the article that I already listed there does seem to be a great deal of difference in scope of practice between licenced naturopathic doctors and unlicenced naturopaths. For instance naturopathic doctors can bill insurance, in some states and provinces prescribe pharmaceuticals, do intravenous therapy, and preform minor surgery, have standardized education, are starting to have residency programs, carry malpractice insurance, and have the right to diagnose. While Traditional naturopaths can't do any of that. I would say that those are significant dirrerences that exist in real life and deserve distinction on Wikipedia. both groups have separate schools, accociations, and scope of practice so why are they not seperated here? Naturopathic doctors obviously are not western medical doctors by any stretch of the imagination but that is not what this thread is suppose to be about. JTND (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing legitimate scope of practice with legal scope of practice. Naturopathic education is grossly inadequate to any scope of practice at all, and there is no evident difference between the inadequacy of training of any particular group. Accredited schools of nonsense are no better or worse than unaccredited ones in this respect. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the difference between a 4 year post grad program and a online diploma mill or 2 month program. Those are very real differences and thus should be reflected in the articles. The legal scope of practice most definitely trumps your "legitimate" scope of practice since that is just your opinion and the law is what matters since it is legally binding. Again there are some pretty distict differences between the two groups[10]JTND (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you make a section or version of the entire page you would like to see with this distinction made clear in your Sandbox. Also, your recent edits to include the dates that Canadian providences enacted laws for NDs should also go in this Sandbox version along with the same chronological information for the US states. I recommend not including the chronologies, however. Many states/provinces had legacy ND laws on the books from the early 20th century that were then grossly "modernized" through legislative alchemy in the early 21st century to include inappropriate medical scopes of practice and outright quackery like "vaginal, rectal, and intravenous ozone therapy." If you are going to include the enacted dates, then the WP article should also include the dates of the more recently passed legislation, since these are what are relevant today. I am reverting your edits on the dates. Summary: make your edits in your sandbox and then tell the other editors about them here. You are a new user, and thank you for your seemingly good faith efforts. Delta13C (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Delta13CI will go with your advise on creating the edits that I would like to see in the sections. I apologize for my most recent revert it was actually an accident. Pressed the wrong button while exploring the function (like you pointed out still new to the site). I take it your previous comments on style were because none of the other countries or states had the dates their laws were put into place? And you wanted to stay consistent with the other sections? I think from that the dates the provinces or states were first licensed is important from a historical point of view which is what most people go to an encyclopedia to research. It is misleading to say that naturopathy was regulated in 2007 when the first regulations go back to 1925 especially with no deregulation between that period. You are right that earlier laws have been updated, in some cases a couple of times to reflect the current legal environment and scope of practice. I have never heard of vaginal or rectal ozone therapy and certainly wasn't aware that there are states where it is legal for naturopaths to do ozone therapy. Where did you hear about this? You are right all my edits are in good faith. This page needs a lot of work if it is going to conform to all of wikipedia's policies. The references to Atwood were not to refute his claims but just to show that there are other opinions out there in the medical community which is a fact. JTND (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The historical context of ND laws are very important in the frame of legislative alchemy, whereby lawmakers passed laws based on incorrect information given to them by ND lobbying groups. The ND profession nearly died out because it was ineffective at helping people. It came back with a vengeance on the coattails of the holistic health movement starting in the 1990s. Given your track record thus far, it is important to know if you have a conflict of interest on this topic. I see your name includes ND. Are you an ND? Also, you can look up the ND laws in Alberta and other Canadian provinces regarding the specific mentions of ozone and those routes of administration. Ozone is cited in the article already and it is sourced. It would be good of you to read all of the sources if you are going to propose making dramatic changes to a well-sourced and generally quality article. Delta13C (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It takes a lot more then a poorly funded lobby group to get regulations in place. It is positive patient encounters that lead to regulation. How much power do you actually think the naturopathic lobby holds? You are right the ND profession did almost die out based mostly on politics. Just so you know I do not have a conflict of interest. My user name is my initials, I have 2 middle names, wasn't too creative when I made my account. Thanks for pointing me to the Alberta naturpathic page. I am really not sure what they need that for. I disagree with you that this is a quality article, it look very one sided and really doesn't fit with Wikipedia's NPOV. JTND (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem here. You think there is a difference based on the differences between diploma mill ND degrees and those from accredited schools, because you are looking at the curricula, but I am looking at the shortfall between those curricula and a valid medical education, and that is essentially indistinguishable between the two: neither even begins to scratch the surface of what one would need to know in order to become a primary healthcare provider, which is what NDs want to be, or to recommend or prescribe even over the counter drugs, because the ND degree contains, in every example I have looked at, essentially nothing of the pharmacology that is needed to understand these things. Spending four years learning nonsense like homeopathy actually makes you less fit to practice in any kind of medical role, because it confers delusions of adequacy. As far as I can tell, all naturopathic schools teach homeopathy as if it's real (do feel free to show me otherwise). Anyone who has been taught that they are now a medical practitioner because they understand fantastical nonsense like that is a danger to the public, regardless of any laws their lobbying might produce. I have yet to see any example of any naturopathic school whose teaching programme amounts to a fraction of the clinical experience of an MD or DO degree, and those who do get real medical degrees don't practice unsupervised until they have completed several further years of residency and training. Basically an ND is as much use as a degree in unicorn husbandry would be to someone wanting to be a veterinarian. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy, please watch out for JTND. He has already earned himself lvl1 and lvl2 warnings in a little over 12 hours for disruptive editing. Delta13C (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

GuyI see where you are confused. You seem to think that I am proposing to contrast naturopathic medicine with western medicine which I am not. Its seems like this whole article references what western medicine thinks about naturopathy. The result is that there is a completely unbalanced bias on the page and it has gone fairly far away from having a neutral point of view. Notice that in that policy it clearly mentions that articles befit from exploring both sides even if one of the sides in a minority view. I hate to break it to you but there are licenced ND's that are perscribing pharmaceuticals legally, so there are a number of people who think that they are qualified to do so. You may want to take a step back from you beliefs about homeopathy and consider how it has hung around for hundreds of years if there is absolutely nothing to it. Snake oil has come and gone since it was a hoax but homeopathy does have its backers since people do get better after going to a homeopath for treatment otherwise why would they go back to them? Can you explain the results of this abstract?[11] It most definitely suggests that there is some effect. Or this study [12]. As to your comments about residency programs from the reference that I already mentioned in the thread above it mentions that naturopathic doctors desire to have residency programs and would set them up if they got funding for it. If you just compare the a medical degree to a naturopathic degree and actually compare apples to apples you would see that they come a lot closer together. JTND (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is actually a huge difference between a bonafide medical program and a naturopathic program. Please see the references in the lede of the article. I am just talking about "didactic" training. Obviously, clinical training is severely deficient. One can also look at the people who are teaching courses at ND programs and conclude that there are not experts what they are teaching. Furthermore, the fact that NDs learn nonsense like homeopathy, herbalism, hydrotherapy, and other quack modalities means that other legitimate content is being cut out of the curriculum. However, this remaining "medical" curriculum appears to be nothing of the sort that MD/DOs take. ND schools just give their courses the same titles as those in medical school, while the content is inferior. Delta13C (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@JTND: The term "western medicine" embodies a fundamental error. There is no "western" medicine or "eastern" medicine, there's just medicine. Things like naturopathy, ayurveda and so on are alternatives to medicine, atavistic re-emergence of superstition and error from a pre-scientific era before we had any real knowledge of human physiology, disease processes and so on. Naturopathic education is all of a kind: it teaches a grossly insufficient quantity of valid practice and a substantial amount of abject nonsense, and it confers on the student the belief that they know much more than they actually do, and that what they do know is of an objective value which is completely at odds with reality. What you term "western medicine" is reality-based medicine, honest about the extent of current knowledge. Naturopaths use bogus tests to diagnose non-existent disease, doctors usually do not (with the notable exception of a few chelationists and "lyme-literate" quacks). Guy (Help!) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is just medicine. Medicine is anything that helps make a person feel better. There are different ways to achieve that goal throughout medicine. Science does a good job at explaining only what it can observe but it does a fairly bad job at explaining why. The big tension between naturopathy and western medicine is that they work on totally different philosophies. Perhaps we should add a section to this article about naturopathic treatment philosophy since that is a big part of what makes it different.JTND (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with your characterization of science doing a poor job of explaining 'why.' Your opinion seems to be coming from a person who has never deeply studied science because anti-science philosophies, such as naturopathy, seem more satisfactory. I also disagree with your characterization of a mutual tension between science and naturopathy. To me, naturopaths seem to be trying to chip away at science, but to scientists, naturopaths are negligible to the overall scientific enterprise, as they have contributed nothing to the field other than an ideology that exists only in opposition to established scientific knowledge. I think I asked you this previously, which you did not answer, JTND, do you have a conflict of interest you should disclose? Delta13C (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the content he is edit-warring in is blatant WP:SYN. Obviously it's also rather silly in that all medicine is patient-centred, and the idea that we can only make it patient centred by "integrating" bullshit with reality-based care is pretty obviously bogus. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

"Naturopathic medicine is ineffective" should be changed. It should be more neutrally expressed, and preferably it should be noted that different branches of naturopathies have different degrees of agreeableness with traditional medicine (or the concept of effectiveness)". 2001:4645:F04D:0:224:36FF:FEB7:2248 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: see WP:NPOV, neutral here on Wikipedia does not mean giving equal validity to all points of view, but to describe the scientific consensus in a neutral tone. The scientific consensus is that Naturopathy has not been found to be effective and that is well sourced and cited. Cannolis (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Delta13C (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I agree that it shouls be changed. "Naturopathic medicine is ineffective" is a statement heavily biased toward naturopathy, one which implies that it works just not very well. To be neutral it should be changed to "Naturopathic medicine is doesn't work"

I think that's a very bold and broad statement to claim that an entire methodology of healing is 'ineffective' There are thousands of biased, corporate funded Sk8liftlive07 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "methodology of healing", though, it's an ideology with a whole raft of different nonsensical ideas. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Points of Bias / Faulty Logic

I would like to propose the following possible points of bias and faulty logic regarding this article for discussion:

1. This article reads to me as if there is an underlying assumption that graduating from an accredited MD/DO school somehow makes a practitioner immune to pseudoscience and charlatanism. The fact of the matter is that one could pick out just about any so-called "quack therapy" and find numerous examples of MDs or DOs which openly engage in those practices- including, and most notably, homeopathy. (And I haven't found much evidence than anybody is taking their medical licenses away.) One of the underlying threads of reasoning here - as it appears to me- is the notion that no "real" doctor would possibly take practices like homeopathy or herbalism seriously. Or correct me if I am wrong...?

2. There appears to be confusion in the article, as it is written, as to whether naturopathy is primarily an ideology, or a group of "alternative" therapies. The tone of the article switches back and forth between portraying naturopathy as one or the other, and furthermore seems to prefer the mode which is most biased toward an anti-naturopathy stance in each particular instance. If naturopathy is primarily an ideology, then the article should state more explicitly its core philosophical principles, rather than giving a brief nod to "self-healing" or "vitalism" and then dismissing it as unscientific, therefore concluding that any practitioner who believes in such things must be a quack or a charlatan. The article begs the question by assuming that believing in such things disqualified one from being considered an expert, or to be taken seriously by the community at large. Moreover, this assumption is demonstrably false.

For example, according to one survey, 76% of physicians believe in God. One study found that a whopping 91% of primary care physicians interviewed considered prayer "an important treatment modality" in which case the article is again begging the question with the implication that no "real" doctor would possibly believe in supernatural "healing" forces, or our ability as humans to induce those as having anything to do with medicine. The article appears to me to imply that the only philosophical stances concordant with modern medicine, or its schools or practitioners, are materialism and atheism. If naturopathy is primarly a set of alternative therapies, then there should be more discussion about which of those therapies are part of the "core" naturopathic curriculum, and which are on the fringe. Is there a difference between which alt therapies are taught between schools, or is there some standardization of curricula? If certain alt therapies are excluded from naturopathy curricula, then what is the deciding factor for inclusion or exclusion?

3. Finally, there appears to be a gross overstatement as to the degree of rejection of naturopathy by the medical community at large. In actuality, there are a number of instances where naturopaths can be seen working in the same setting as MDs or DOs, including hospital settings. Indeed, the reference cited to support the claim, "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis,[9] and it is rejected by the medical community.[9]" is from an altmed journal, and the abstract reads: "Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as a new paradigm in orthodox medicine and as a methodology for natural medicines, which are often accused of lacking an adequate scientific basis. This paper presents the voices of tradition-sensitive naturopathic practitioners in response to what they perceive as an ideologic assault by EBM advocates on the validity and integrity of natural medicine practice. Those natural medicine practices, which have tradition-based paradigms articulating vitalistic and holistic principles, may have significant problems in relating to the idea of EBM as developed in biomedical contexts. The paper questions the appropriateness of imposing a methodology that appears to minimize or bypass the philosophic and methodological foundations of natural medicine, and that itself seems primarily driven by political considerations." This hardly supports the statement that naturopathy is "rejected by the medical community."

Therefore- the article appears biased against naturopathy by making such a bold claim (which isn't even properly referenced) while lacking any discussion about instances where naturopathy has been received to varying degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodofasklepius (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Rodofasklepius (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

By your numbers:

1. Of course graduation from EBM school X doesn't make you "immune to pseudoscience and charlatanism", but neither does it require you to be versed in it. There certainly are MDs that have lost their licenses over the use of quackery, though examples like Andrew Weil leave one to wonder just how much it takes to lose one the US. Lumping herbalism or massage (mechanistically credible, even if not terribly rigorous in execution) together with prayer, meditation, or homeopathy (placebo with faith-healing overtones) is an example of where the logic of the naturopathic method falls down. As for "no real doctor would...", well, EBM practitioners have learned to distrust the practice of placebo medicine. It is altogether too difficult to see where the ethical limits lay once one begins to engage in it. By comparision most of the altmed varieties embrace it, though with differing lables. 2. Yes, the tone of the article is somewhat inconsistent. This is Wikipedia, where most editors edit a little bit at a time, so many articles are in need of work for consistent presentation. However, there really is a false dichotomy between it being "an ideology" and "a group of natural therapies". The ideology may be simply put that a practitioner somehow reaching into the group and pulling out a natural therapy of choice will be better for the patient than using the best evidence the scientific method can make available. It does appear that different schools offer different electives. Sure, the core curriculum looks familiar up to a point. The devil is in the details, which are hidden away from general visibility. 3. One may reject an idea and still recognize it is dangerous to leave unwatched. Given that legislators insist on permitting the various forms of quackery to continue, one might prefer to see the true believers working within sight of people who can clean up the mess when things go sideways, rather than have them sequestered off in a walled garden. This line of thinking (more diplomatically phrased) pervades the WHO approach to "traditional medicine". LeadSongDog come howl! 22:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Following numerical list of Rodofasklepius: 1) The article does not state that conventionally trained MD/DOs are immune to practicing pseudoscience. Your reading of this means you could be brining forth background information based on your own experiences. Is there specific text in the article that invokes this alleged implication? 2) Perhaps this point can never be resolved since secondary sources have referred to naturopathy as both a belief system and a set of practices related to this belief system that leads to the favoring of "naturalistic" health interventions. The article does not say that anyone who believes in supernatural healing powers is a charlatan. I think the article is okay on the point of specifying that naturopaths (whether from the accredited schools or correspondence ones) are not trained to the same standards of medical doctors and learn a lot of quackery. There are many good sources then that discuss how such NDs practice such quackery after graduation. 3) A vast majority of sources indicate that naturopathy has no place in the medical community. Numerous medical professional organizations have said this, including that naturopathy is dangerous and ineffective. I know there are some medical doctors who collaborate with NDs, but my impression is that these are but a small group. Do you have sources to provide additional information on MD/DO acceptance of naturopathy? Delta13C (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks toLeadSongDogandDelta13C for your contributions. These responses take both of your comments into consideration.

1. I did not find anything in the article that explicitly states that MD/DOs are immune to pseudoscience and quackery due to differences in their training. It is possible that I am projecting into this article, however it still reads as having a fairly derogatory tone toward naturopathy in my opinion. A main thrust of this article appears to be drawing upon a stark contrast between training programmes of MDs/DOs and NDs, however there is very little actually mentioned about it, and what is appears biased toward the negative.

For example: "Naturopathic education contains little of the established clinical training and curriculum completed by primary care doctors, as naturopaths mostly train by studying unscientific notions and practicing unproven interventions and diagnoses." is referenced by an AAFP position paper on naturopathy training in the U.S. that actually goes into quite a bit of detail. Assuming this document is correct, the "combined study hours" for naturopathy programme is 2600, as compared to 6000 for family physician. While there is quite a difference, this paper doesn't quite support the statement as written. It would be less biased to simply state the difference in training rather than saying NDs "mostly" train by studying unscientific notions... according to this document there is considerable overlap.

2. I still think whether naturopathy is primarily an ideology or a set of alternative therapies should be flushed out better in the article. How can an article discuss naturopathy without clearly defining it? It's not a false dichotomy because of course naturopathy can be both an ideology and a set of treatments, however one should follow from the other. If it is beyond the scope of this article to make that determination, then I would propose adding a line to point out that there is confusion over whether naturopathy is primarily one or the other.

3. A quick search yielded many examples of NDs practicing in the same office as MDs or DOs. I also found a few employed by hospitals. I could provide links, however it is not my burden to bear at this point. The article as written has a clearly sweeping statement that is NOT substantiated by the reference given. Moreover, I could not on my own locate a single source to substantiate the claim that "naturopathy... is rejected by the medical community"... I don't think that Quackwatch/Naturowatch can claim to represent the medical community at large. Beyond the AAFP and WHO papers, along with several article stubs I found on university a/o hospital websites, I could not find any statements so bold as "naturopathy... is rejected by the medical community." Bottom line is what we have here is an unsubstantiated claim. (It also causes me to wonder how tenuous some of the other references are.) Either substantiating references need to be added, or the claim needs to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the views of the "medical community." Along those same lines, I think it could be helpful to use that WHO paper as a resource for this article.Rodofasklepius (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1) The article does not have a derogatory tone. If there is a derogatory tone read by you, it is the result of the multiple, independent, reliable sources giving you that impression. The truth is that naturopathy is rife with issues that scientific, medical, and academic writers have discussed. 2) Naturopathy is defined in the first sentence of the article. 3) Yes, there are medical doctors who practice with NDs, so what? Medical doctors sometimes practice with acupuncturists. Medical doctors themselves sometimes practice homeopathy. This relationship, and it is not commonly found, does not convey the validity of naturopathy. The claim you are contesting is okay because there are no major medical organizations that accept naturopathy. Many have published material directly against with the sentiment of protecting patients from harm. Just last week a major Australian medical organization warned doctors about collaborating with naturopaths. Delta13C (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Former ND, Britt Hermes

I saw on the requested articles board that there is an entry for the former naturopathic doctor, Britt Hermes. I am not so sure that she meets the requirements for notability, as WP:TOOSOON might apply for a stand-alone article. The sources however seem to be good enough to include a note about her revelations about naturopathic medicine in the US and Canada. I am thinking it might be useful to include some of those sources and info about her advocacy in the Naturopathy article, probably in the Treatments and Practices section, but perhaps someone has a better idea. What do others think? Sources copied from the Requested Articles entry: (Coverage in reliable sources: Vox; CBC Radio + Article; National Post; KPLU interview + article; San Diego News. Advocacy blog: Naturopathic Diaries. Other less prominent coverage: Skeptic's Guide to the Universe; CBC Radio interview; Radio interview; Radio interview.) Delta13C (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Explanations needed

Reading in sub-chapter Evidence basis that "Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability." I came to the convincement that our readers deserve an explanation on what is the significance of expressions like "biochemical pathways" and "bioavailability"'. Carlotm (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I linked that for you: [13] LeadSongDog come howl! 16:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased

This article reads like a paper designed to persuade the reader to "side" with the author. It is not written in a clear, unbiased manner. Very disappointed in Wikipedia for allowing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEEE:C8B0:CC37:62EC:F0C0:1081 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What parts are biased? Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that reality is biased, IP user who hates the facts. Jtrainor (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have completed a Doctorate in Naturopathy and I agree, this article reads completely biased.

This article discredits Naturopathy as a whole and makes it seem that medical is a must which is not a part of Naturopathy.

READ THE ACT OF CONGRESS 1931

I have supplied it below.

The article discredits all Naturopaths and Naturopathic doctors following the true form of Traditional naturopathy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Act of Congress

The Act that our new contributor Special:Contributions/98.224.80.107 is so keen to insert appears to be To amend meaning and intent of Healing Art Practice Act of February 27, 1929 : hearing before the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Seventy-First Congress, third session, on H.R. 12169, a bill to amend the meaning and intention of an act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate the practice of the healing art to protect the public health of the District of Columbia," approved February 27, 1929. January 28, 1931. [14] It took me a while to find the Bill being referenced, and I don't know whether it is still in force. PepperBeast (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/98.224.80.107 I have provided the original ACT of Congress for your viewing. I would not speak on something I am not knowledgeable on. please Educate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

---

This Act is not for The District of Colombia

Read the Act of Congress, United States of America

Read the Congressional Record: Katherine Langley, state of Kentucky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I got my facts from the title of the original Bill, An act to regulate the practice of the healing art to protect the public health of the District of Columbia. I can glean from that title that it applies to the District of Columbia. It's also stated in the pages of the Congressional Record that you helpfully provided. I don't know what the other document is, but it's not the actual Bill, and it's not any sort of official record. I'm guessing it's some piece of pro-naturopathy publicity from 1931, written by someone who either didn't know or didn't care how government works PepperBeast (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the UNITED STATES of AMERICA made their decision on this matter? HINT: CONGRESS —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you go read up on the District of Columbia, because you clearly don't understand that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over Washington, DC. Hint: Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution. PepperBeast (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

It's been mentioned several times, however the tone of this article is not by any means neutral. Anyone with a highschool education can determine this by the language used. It's derogatory, regardless of where you stand on the usage of Naturopathy, the language used is biased and uniformative.

'Naturopathic medicine contains many pseudoscientific concepts and is considered ineffective and can be harmful, which raises ethical issues.'Bold text

The statement above should be changed to "Naturopathic medicine contains many concepts considered controversial, which may raise ethical issues within CERTAIN CULTURES. It is however, a practice registered and overseen by government and often used alongside conventional medicine."

[1][2][3] Naturopaths have repeatedly been accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.[1][4][5][6][7][8] This is unnecessary, as it is again a biased opinion, unless you are using statistical comparison. Much of the ideology and methodological underpinnings of naturopathy are based on vitalism and self-healing, rather than evidence-based medicine.[9] This does not make sense. It implies that naturopathic treatment is established by mysticism as opposed to evidence of illness. All naturopaths practice diagnosis (through symptomatic assessment, via tests and patient discussion) therefore is also evidence based...

I would continue, but I will assume this will be ignored because you see this discussion very one dimensionally. That is fine, however it is unethical to impose a single biased view in a fucking encyclopedia.

The problem here is that the statements are entirely accurate. Naturopaths have been accused of quackery, and not without reason (a child was killed by a naturopath just this week). Guy (Help!) 00:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"A child was killed by a naturopath just this week" I assume refers to a court case in Canada in which the deceased child's parents were found to be at fault by the court. The naturopathic physician in question (per court testimony) told the mother to take the child to the emergency room, advice the parents did not comply with. The child was not even a patient, the mother just called the naturopathic physician's office out-of-the-blue for advice. The child later died of meningitis. The testimony of this court case is available to the public. I, therefore, question your judgment of what is accurate and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.102.51 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is the case that many (if not all) branches of medicine and science, have been attacked and widely doubted. Remember when scientific evidence told us WITH NO DOUBT that blood was made in the lungs? To a reader knowing nearly nothing about naturopathy, I found this article biased and untrustworthy. To give the reader a helpful picture of the subject in question, an honest and informative description is necessary. This discussion has clearly been heated, but such bias is clearly unethical in a wiki. This article is in need of a journalistic rewrite, particularly in light of the (metaphorical) shots fired regarding the Canadian child. I hope such action is taken soon. 216.169.82.27 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

But thanks to the progress of medical knowledge we now know that the lungs don't produce blood and adherence to this view in the face of evidence would be ridiculous, right? See how evidence-based medicine works? Show us some WP:MEDRS sources demonstrating efficacy for naturopathy and myself and my fellow Wikipedians will add them forthwith and rewrite the article. I also find it curious that your proposed solution to a question of bias is to propose a "journalistic rewrite". In my opinion, journalists are way more biased than scientists. Glowing reviews of "natural remedies" on Oprah and the Huffington Post are part of the reason why some of us still adhere to quackery. Famous_dog (c) 06:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization and future work

It would be great if some others would be willing to review the changes I recently made to the organization of the article's subsections. There was too much redundancy in the content. It turned out that there is kinda a "remainder" subsection that contains quotes about a naturopathic textbook and the Mass. Medical Society's criticism of ND schools. I renamed this "Criticism of education," but now this likely needs to be expanded to include other published criticisms or merged into other sections. Anyone want to help with this? Delta13C (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I merged the text to Naturopathy#Evidence basis and Naturopathy#Licensed naturopaths. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Image

An image was recently added, but QG removed the image because the text FV and because the image was not about naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Proper Sources

Before the development of antibiotics and most vaccines pediatricians accompanied children through childhood diseases with only topical treatments and direct observation. My pediatricians were such--doctors who had trained before World War II--and they knew the course of each disease and diagnosed without tests--and this was typical of all doctors back then. Naturopathy comes from a similar origin of observation and experiential knowledge. As other comments here note this article entirely violates the Wikipedia rule of neutrality. San Juan College, Farmington, NM USA.205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And before that, there was bloodletting, also based on the experiential knowledge of the day, or what passed for it. Neither treatment is considered scientifically valid today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Biased article: I attempted to add valid information and was immediately revised

Special:Contributions/98.224.80.107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel this article listed is VERY biased. I attempted to add the Act of Congress 1931 defining what Naturopathy is and the definition of the field, as well as, Naturopathic Philosophy. I changed wording discrediting Traditional and Classical Naturopaths. There was nothing wrong with my edits , yet, was instantly revised back? I also listed links to prove my edits were valid and that the article is biased towards Traditional Naturopathy.

There are many Naturopathic Doctors who did not attend Medical School or take the NPLEX exam. The ACT of Congress 1931 clears all this, as well as, The Congressional Record confirming this.

NATUROPATHY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL SCHOOL! But, a medical Doctor can be a exceptional Naturopath! However, it is not a requirement as the Wikipedia article bias wording states.

Please take the time to review these websites to realize the requirements to be a board certified Traditional Naturopath. The education requirements are usually a masters degree or higher. AMERICAN NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AMERCAN NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL CERTFICATION BOARD AMERICAN NATUROPATHIC CERTFICATION BOARD

The wiki page is also biased as it states that most Traditional Naturopaths only have online educations. This is another false statement. In fact, many online training now includes live seminars, web videos, live conferences and practicums, and required some intense all day training.

I tried to upload the Act of Congress for your viewing with no success. Failed to load the configuration for file uploads to the foreign file repository. I can email it to you for your viewing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF NATUROPATHY IN AMERICAN. Ultimately, superior of all state LAW and Supreme Law of The Land! please view my revisions and please fix this biased article on Naturopathy.

ACT OF CONGRESS 1931

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Act_of_congress_1931.png

Congressional record page 1

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Congressional_record.jpg

Congressional record page 2

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Congressional_record_2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments like "Traditional or Classical Naturopaths' practice Naturopathy in its true and original form" reflect your point of view, not a neutral point of view, and are not supported be reliable sources.

An American law from the 30s defining what naturopaths can do in the District of Columbia simply isn't all that significant. It's not even a definition meant to apply to all of the US. PepperBeast (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the "FATHER OF NATUROPATHY" Dr. Lust, Naturopathy does not involve synthetic medicine and surgery. --Lightofabraham

"And as any Act of Congress is a SUPREME RULING above any contrary laws of the individual States, -- this Act at once exempts any and all NATUROPATHIC PRACTITIONERS from the medical and legislative restrictions in the various States; giving Naturopaths freedom to practice NATUROPATHY in any and all its departments according to their professional schooling and training." and subsequent comments are demonstrably false, and even if correct, wouldn't belong in this article. This is the Naturopathy article, not American Civics class.PepperBeast (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy is not under the umbrella of the American Medical Association because naturopaths DO NOT PRACTICE ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE. (Traditional Naturopath) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Where do you get these facts from?

What is your intention?

My intention is to create a neutral Wiki article about naturopathy, Your intentions seems to not allow ANY edits to your biased article. "JUST SAYING" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If the article on Naturopathy is not more Neutral and revised I will be reporting this to all the Naturopathic Associations listed above.

This is NOT for the District of Columbia? READ THE ACT  : Untied States of America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You're going to report what, exactly? Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? I'm pretty sure people in Naturopathic associations have heard of Wikipedia, but go ahead, have fun. PepperBeast (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(YOUR FALSE REPRESENTATION OF NATUROPATHY) lightofabraham ( NOT A THREAT, LETTING YOU KNOW OTHERS WILL BE INVOLVED) lightofabraham

Please stop inserting your comments in the middle of mine, and sign your comments using four tildes. And stop trying to threaten me. PepperBeast (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope one may stop with the stubborn ego, biased viewpoint, and adjust the Naturopathty article to be correct in wording and neutral in tone.

I hope "one" will desist from personal attacks.PepperBeast (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

( There are NO personal attacks here you are misrepresenting the truth and I am trying to make things correct) lightofabraham

Lightofabraham talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your use of words are so extreme.

please stop making me appear as the one in the wrong.

Hope you can consider the truth, Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofabraham (talk • contribs) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "making" you do or say anything. I'm pointing out that some the claims you are making are simply not valid. In return, you have been rude, suggested that I'm being paid by the AMA to thwart you, and threatened to report me to some sort of naturopathic association. ENOUGH. PepperBeast (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@lightofabraham, read WP:TPG, particularly the bit about signing comments, not editing other users comments, and indentation. Your comments are nearly unintelligible. Also, stop fisking. thanks. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I am passionate about the topic, and am new to editing on Wiki

---

I have stated my apology, I am amazed at your twisting of words, I have never made a threat to you, I was never intending to be rude, you have altered my words to paint a false picture. I have deleted my statement, which you keep redoing.

My statement about the AMA was out of sarcasm, I jokingly asked that question because if you read the act, "Quote" THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION OF NATUROPATHY was passed by the United States Congress on February 7, 1931, without a dissenting vote. There was very great opposition by 35 medical doctors present, by the Board of Commissioners of the Healing Act (allopathic), and by special representatives and attorneys of the American Medical Association and other allopathic forces. "End Quote"

Your persistent agenda falls in line with this group. I have apologized, please stop redoing my deletes, I thought this talk section was to come to a conclusion or agreement. I am not the only reader who has felt this Wiki Naturopathy article is biased.

I have attempted to present my reasoning which has only been forcefully smashed down. My intention of this talk was to hope for a more neutral view of Naturopathy which obviously won't happen. This experience with Wiki is unfortunate, I will probably NEVER edit a Wiki page again, nor trust its information as valid.

Shalom. . . regards, Lightofabraham (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that this is the English Wikipedia, not the "American Wikipedia as defined by the U.S. Congress", right? Proclamations of the U.S. Congress matter little for a worldwide topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, whatever that paper is, it is *not* the original Act of Congress. Acts of Congress don't contain newsy comments about who opposed the bill. It's some sort of piece of publicity of unknown origin, and its contents do not belong in Wikipedia. The bill of amendment is available [15], as is the original DC regulatory bill it that it amends [16]. You haven't been 'forcefully smashed down' (whatever that means). You've been asked to stop making extraordinary claims based on unsuitable sources. You are still welcome to edit here, but I suggest you actually *read* some of my comments, because you still don't seem to understand what the scope of the bill is. You should probably also read WP:RS, and try to be WP:Civil to other editors in future.

Oh, and accusing me of "altering your words to create a false picture" is untruthful and not OK. PepperBeast (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with PepperBeast, Roxy the dog and NeilN on this, lightofabraham. I suggest you calm down, read WP:TPG, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and stop throwing your weight around and making ineffective threats. Famous_dog (c) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This article may be biased, but be wary of attempting to remove the bias by replacing it with your own biased writing. Two wrongs don't make a right. 5Asticks (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead Image/Bias

The current photo is of a old glass container containing a homeopathic preparation. Here's two issues I noticed with this:

1. Bias: it is possibly biased and completely unnecessary to use a photo of an old container (vs. a new one.) although it is important to acknowledge the history of the practice of naturopathic medicine, the lead photo should reflect naturopathy today. for example, the wikipedia page for medicine shows a poignant image of a doctor using a stethoscope.

2. Homeopathy: although many NDs practice homeopathy, not all do, and it is merely one facet of it. this image would be appropriate in the article, but not as the lead image.

I would recommend a photo similar to that of the Medicine article page; one that depicts a typical interaction during a consult with an ND. If someone doesnt make a bold edit soon, I probably will - I am new to Wikipedia editing so it will take me more time to find an appropriate image with appropriate licensing.

Cheers. 5Asticks (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The image here is entirely appropriate to represent naturopathy, as homeopathy is a historical part of the system and still widely used by licensed and traditional naturopaths alike. I'd guess that the number of NDs who don't use homeopathy is about the same as the number if physicians who don't use a stethoscope, so should the image at medicine be changed also by your logic? Delta13C (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

... and I would certainly object to any image portraying an ND as a real physician. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Delta, thats a good point about the stethoscope. But the stethoscope is an icon of medicine. An old bottle of homeopathic concoctions is not an icon of naturopathy; coming from a city with quite a few NDs in practice, I get the feeling that the image is a too "narrow" depiction of naturopathy. What I like about the medicine image is that it shows action, instantly recognisable as a doctor practising medicine. I think that if there was a photo of a ND practising Naturopathy, it would be a more appropriate picture - and to bring up Roxy's cocerns, it should be obvious that the ND is vastly different than an actual MD. For me personally, I think of herbs and other natural looking things. 5Asticks (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is biased towards empirically verified reality. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the word "Bias." it causes everyone to immediately get defensive.5Asticks (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the picture is fine. Homeopathy is a defining element of naturopathy, along with a variety of other dubious "treatments." Delta13C (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The dubiousness should be made obvious by the cited text of the article, not by the poorly chosen picture. I appreciate your black-and-whiteness about it, but you don't have to overcompensate if something is already BS: I feel that people who want to see the truth might get turned off by the misleading and bait-y image. You would be extremely hard-pressed to find an ND who uses expired old homeopathic medicine; just because you disagree with the idea, doesn't mean you have to misrepresent it. People come here to see the whole picture. It almost seems that the us of the old bottle image is intentionally "trying too hard" to make it Naturopathy seem like an old unchanging practice. In my opinion, the lead image shouldn't show any bias. Show a cabinet full of a variety of common products that Naturopathic practicioners would ACTUALLY use, including up to date homeopathic "remedies." Do you understand where I'm coming from? 5Asticks (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you find an image? Delta13C (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Change to lead

[17]] This isn't the "American Wikipedia". Things like "An emerging new wave of naturopathic physicians combine traditional medicine with a modern scientific understanding of the body and current research results" need sources to show if this is the common throughout the world, or a trend in only certain parts of the world. And "causing critics to call it a pseudoscience" is not NPOV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I may not have made perfect revisions, as I am new to editing. But I can see the article is entirely biased. I was simply trying to learn about the profession when I read the page, only to get frustrated by how biased the page was. I am a physicist who is the strongest promoter of science. Yet this page states facts in an entirely skewed view and then adds on things that are simply lunacy, like the aforementioned "considered ineffective and can be harmful". That is obviously a strong point of view, as many people (some I have personally talked to and other testimonials) who have used naturopathic physicians come away much healthier. It also omits other facts that would balance the article. I tried to include some of these facts in the lead where they were as prominent at the negative facts, but they were immediately undone. Many MDs also view Naturopathy as complementary and helpful, which I tried to provide citations showing this, but again, was immediately revised.Benders001 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Benders001

Recent spate of bad edits explained

http://pastebin.com/rZN9SR3p Guy (Help!) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is troubling. Delta13C (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Father Kneipp passed away in 1897 the term Naturopathy was utilized in 1900/1

Father Sebastian Kneipp passed away on the 17 June 1897.

The term naturopathy was coined in 1895 by John Scheel.

Benedict Lust around 1900, purchased the name Naturopathy from his colleague Dr John Scheel.

In 1901, Lust founded the American School of Naturopathy in New York.

In 1902 the original North American Kneipp Societies were discontinued and renamed "Naturopathic Societies".

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that the first known use of the word "naturopathy" in print is from 1901.

This of-course was a very sad event by Benedict Lust to rename the Kneipp Societies in America to his purchased name of Naturopathy.

This was a sad event and one whereby Hydrotherapy was being rebranded into something else.

Kneipp Hydrotherapy was created long before the word Naturopathy was invented. Thus Kneipp Hydrotherapy has nothing to do with naturopathy.

In fact no one knows what naturopathy is, and Dr Jon Wardle who has a clinical backgrounds in naturopathy and nursing and postgraduate training in public health and law, and is a lecturer at the UTS Faculty of Health, holds visiting positions at the School of Medicine, University of Washington and the School of Medicine, Boston University, stated the following:

“Naturopathy too broad description thus becoming a dumping ground for anything alternative” Dr Jon Wardle (Channel 10 News of Australia July 2016)

Father Kneipp was the promoter of the Water Cure which is an advanced system of Hydrotherapy.

The name Naturopathy was established after the death of Father Kneipp and invented just 2 years before Father Kneipp passing. Further more the term was invented in America Father Kneipp was in Germany. So it is unlilely that Father Kneipp knew or was in agreement with renaming Hydrotherapy into something called Naturopahty. Therefore the name of Father Kneipp should be only used in relation to things of methods by which related not to inventions of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabirro (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Kneipp's relationship to naturopathy is well sourced. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What I think about this article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is NO reason why people should be calling naturopathy pseusdoscientific. Using that term for a medical system that has been documented to work is nowhere near NPOV. Here are a few resources to check:

http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59 http://bastyr.edu/academics/areas-study/study-naturopathic-medicine/about-naturopathic-medicine https://www.trinityschool.org/

I hope you editors learn something. Bye!GetResearchFunction (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

They are reliable secondary resources. Did you read them? NPOV applies to medical articles too, and NOT listing information on naturopathy that is actually from a naturopathic doctor is not very NPOV at all. I hope you actually read the websites. GetResearchFunction (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's see... from the first link (emphasis mine): Naturopathic practice includes the following diagnostic and therapeutic modalities: clinical and laboratory diagnostic testing, nutritional medicine, botanical medicine, naturopathic physical medicine (including naturopathic manipulative therapy), public health measures, hygiene, counseling, minor surgery, homeopathy, acupuncture, prescription medication, intravenous and injection therapy, and naturopathic obstetrics (natural childbirth). From your own link, at least two reasons to be calling naturopathy pseudoscientific. --tronvillain (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence does not follow WP:LEADSENTENCE. When anyone can edit funny things can happen. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In what sense does it not follow that? It seems to fit If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Its pseudoscientific elements are an important part of the context. --tronvillain (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... now that I look at it again, I suppose it is missing something. Perhaps (stealing from the second link) something similar to "Naturopathy is a form of alternative medicine that emphasizes prevention and the self-healing process and employing a wide array of pseudoscientific modalities that are branded as "natural," including homeopathy, herbalism, and acupuncture, in addition to diet and lifestyle counseling."--tronvillain (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, except for the word "modalities" which seems to be an "in bubble" altmed word. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Try this:"Naturopathy is a form of alternative medicine that emphasizes prevention and self-healing, while employing a wide array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural," including homeopathy, herbalism, and acupuncture, as well as diet and lifestyle counseling." --tronvillain (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess we'll see if the tweak sticks for a while. --tronvillain (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not long, apparently. --tronvillain (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps we should be careful of how we invoke "self-healing" since it is at best a questionable concept. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, in that there really isn't any other kind of healing, but it seems like the lede sentence needs something in there that provides an actual definition.--tronvillain (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Determining if it is pseusdoscientific or scientific is not an "actual definition" of naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that maybe you guys are upset, considering the definition of trolling is trying to say something to get others to respond, usually in rage. I feel like people who hate-comment for no reason naturopaths are trolls. Also, just because you don't know something does not mean it is false. GetResearchFunction (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We do know the first sentence violates WP:LEADSENTENCE. Policy and guidelines are not enforced on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the "self-healing" as being a part of the brand of naturopathy correctly captures that the profession has its own idea about what it is versus the reality. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy is not a fradulent profession. This very wiki is not perfect. As to point out, the Joseph Mercola page states that thimerosol is safe, but the Thiomersal page states that same chemical is toxic in the hazard symbol. How odd, considering this wiki is so old, that people are trying their hardest to keep the naturopathy page biased. GetResearchFunction (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about fraud? Self-delusion is a perfectly viable alternative explanation for their behaviors. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that the emphasis on vitalistic "self-healing" is an important part of the definition. That they emphasize it doesn't mean that it's a real thing, as established in the rest of the article. Also, this article is pretty good: "Message to naturopaths: Magic isn’t medicine". --tronvillain (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop the trolling. GetResearchFunction (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:TROLL?--tronvillain (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Look at the archived sections here, WP:TROLL is not good. And it occurs in a lot of those discussions. All thanks to trolls. GetResearchFunction (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

GetResearchFunction, don't accuse people of trolling, just don't. Please read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facts left out?

Very biased article, not to mention all relevant facts are left out. One fact being that standard medicine is often based off naturopathic medicine, examples are ibuprofen is based off wintergreen, and aspirin is based off willow bark. Companies find the active ingredient in natural medicine, then synthetically produce it bringing side effects. This article needs to be revised today as it bears false witness. Also it does not include the the successful treatments of diseases like yellow root (goldenseal) and tuberculosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.57.88 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a revisionist view at odds with the documented facts. Naturopathy as documented here is a modern-day cult. There is no single strand of historical practice, but if there were, then naturopathy and medicine would at best have a common ancestor, medicine is not descended from or informed by naturopathy in any meaningful way. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your exacting response, Guy (Help!). Delta13C (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The bias on this page and related pages (e.g. alternative medicine) is so clear and troubling that it's impossible to know where to begin. So I'll start with my credentials: I'm a board-certified practitioner of internal medicine in the US. That is to say, by credentials I'm about as mainstream as one can get. I find it interesting that I'm finding it most appropriate to learn a lot of hardcore biochemistry from what the detractors believe is the lunatic fringe. Thanks for guarding us all against homeopathy and astral projection and chakra balancing and whatnot, but maybe it's time to recognize that the world of "alternative medicine" is bigger than just what your biases allow you to perceive. For starters, a great deal of the material that falls under the category of naturopathy is rooted first and foremost in nutritional science - an area that too many of us mainstream doctors know woefully little of until something forces us to confront our biases and start fact checking. I've met too many clueless certified nutritionists who don't know the first thing about diabetes and who only know how to make the problem worse--despite the fact that Type 2 diabetes can largely be managed with diet ALONE. I've met far too many doctors who can't think beyond whatever new medicine is being promoted by a pharmaceutical company. Conversely, it was a naturopath who turned me onto the virtues of alpha-lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy... ...and diabetes in general... and a few minutes worth of research shows... well... what? Why don't you self-proclaimed skeptics go find out about what actually works in the real world and then come back? Because in the meantime, you're not helping. Slowgenius (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First off, the argument from authority will get you nowhere here. If you have sources, that meet WP:MEDRS by all means bring them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Information

WP:NOTFORUM. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources I chose were accurate, independent, and reliable. Thanks for locking the thread to prevent trolling, but you may want to use "allopathy" in those articles instead of "modern science." Why? Because the term "modern science" 1) not normally used in relation to allopathy, but instead "modern medicine" is used instead, and 2) "allopathy" is a far more accurate term. Note that allopathy has dangerous side effects with its medications, which is common knowledge among practically everyone. Thanks to you, I had to start a new discussion, and I will point out the problems within this page and the pages closely related to it. Apparently, Guy locked my thread. This infuriates me. I truly feel offended by the outrageous censorship campaign trolls are doing to the naturopathy article, which includes people who keep bullying naturopaths on wikipedia. That is not NPOV at all when people bully others to keep an article biased. GetResearchFunction (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC) You should read WP:NPOV, it doesn't say we do 'fair and balanced'. We use the scientific consensus. You should also read the archives here. Finally, if you think there is some sort of massive conspiracy or coverup or censorship or whatever you should mention that at WP:ANI, that's where editor conduct problems are taken care of , not on talk pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Read www.naturopathic.org at least. --GetResearchFunction (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC) That's not a source that meets WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC) No, it's quack central. Look at this BS for example.[18]. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) I didn't know that locking a discussion meant just start a new one to keep complaining that science is biased. Natureium (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Pro-industry PR sources don't meet WP:MEDRS. GetResearchFunction (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) .. but we aren't using any non MEDRS sources. Roxy the dog. bark 14:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

GetResearchFunction, here's how this works. If you identify a statement in the article which is incorrect, or you think a new statement is needed, then suggest it here. Do this in the form "paragraph X, please change to Y based on Z source". The sources must meet WP:RS and especially WP:MEDRS. If you want to rail against the scientific community's unfairness towards unsubstantiated claims, or make philosophical points about the need to accept much lower standards of evidence for products that can't meet the normal scientific standards, this is not the place. You can do that on your user page. Policy is what it is, and this is the place to discuss improving the article within policy, not how to change, bend or subvert policy to make the article conform more closely to your belief system. There are lots of experienced editors here who can answer any specific questions you might have about the reliability of individual sources, the applicability of policy to specific claims and so on. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Read lower comment. GetResearchFunction (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Read upper comment. GetResearchFunction (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Spelling errors/typos

There are several spelling errors/typos through the article, but since it's not up for edit, we can't correct them. Who can?

The page is currently semi-protected which means unregistered editors and newly registered users can't edit, but established editors can make changes to the article. You can just suggest edits just by typing here or by using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

natropaths -> naturopaths 78.99.133.75 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I find it quite unfortunate that Wiki and it's users adhere to the slanderous propaganda of "mainstream medicine" when it comes to Naturopathy. I would like to see the article changed, at the very least, to something neutral regarding natural medicine. Naturopathic medicinal practices have been utilized by healers as longs as healing has been around. Hippocrates is widely considered the father of Naturopathic medicine and was a great healer of his time. His philosophy was that the body has the ability to heal itself as long as we treat it the way it was designed. That being said, if we eat natural unprocessed foods, it is widely known that this will (in most cases) present with better overall health. In contrast, if we toxify our bodies with chemical laden foods and other toxins (ingestible, inhalable, injectible, absorbable chemicals), then we are prone to poor health. Naturopathic Physicians combine the benefits different modalities of medicine, from ancient healing arts, such as Ayurveda, Acupuncture, and Herbal medicine (and more) to Modern "Conventional" medicine such as laboratory analysis, medical imaging, chiropractic manipulation, oncology, biology (and more). Just as in "Conventional" Medicine, there are many practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine. Also as in Western medicine, some practitioners are quite skilled in healing, others less so. Licensed Naturopathic Physicians are trained in multiple modalities of both Western and Eastern Medicine. A large difference, however, is that Western Medicine physicians are trained to treat symptomatically (mostly with prescription drugs or surgery), while Naturopathic Physicians are trained to find the root cause of the symptoms and fix the problem causing the symptoms. Their training is very much diet/nutrition based because improper nutrition is, most times, the initial cause of illness. With all of the faith that is put in Western Medicine, how much does it actually benefit? In the United States, "medical errors" is now considered the 3rd leading cause of death (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/ The point of this is not to say that Naturopathic Medicine is a cure all or a magic fix. My point is only to show that it is, in fact, a legitimate science and medicinal modality, and should be reflected as such, especially when described by such a widely used information source, such as Wikipedia. Here are some articles that speak to the legitimacy of Naturopathic Medicine, for what it's worth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-weeks/integrative-medicine_b_1584998.html http://optimalintegration.org/project-perl/achieving-competency-in-evidence-informed-practice-a-resource_guide/ep4-analyze-the-research-base.php http://www.naturopathy-union.eu/en/naturopathy/ https://nccih.nih.gov/health/naturopathy https://www.anme-ngo.eu/en/364-swiss-recognize-homeopathy-legitimate-medicine.html http://www.thenddc.com/know-naturopathic-doctors/ Vpsdudley (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions are welcome, but for an article such as this one that has been through many hard-fought discussions, you need to make concrete and specific suggestions based on sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

Naturopathic doctors do not harm people, please remove the second paragraph from this definition it is not true. Naturopathic practitioners take the same oath as any doctor practicing medicine in America. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed and accredited in most states in America. It is not the normal though in America or anywhere else in the World that naturopathic medicine harms people or is unscientific. Remove Pseudoscience from your definition of naturopathy. That word is a false representation of the definition of naturopathy. Remove the second paragraph from this definition as well, it is not true. Naturopathic doctors do not harm people nor is this the normal thought in America or anywhere else in the world. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed in America and naturopathy is viable form of study with accredited materials and degrees of education. Do your research Wikipedia!!! 2601:280:4900:3BD5:218B:D1A6:279E:8275 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Clinical Training

The second paragraph: "Education in naturopathic medicine often contains little to no clinical training, nor follow curriculum designed by established primary care doctors." It is unsourced in the lede. I made this change for now. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's actually contradicted by later sources in the article, like this. The "clinical training" may be garbage, but it clearly isn't accurate to say that it doesn't exist. It might be more accurate to say that it isn't adequate to be an actual primary care physician? --tronvillain (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe add something else to replace it. The lede needs a lot of work to summarise the body. It is too much work to fix the mess. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017

60.54.68.242 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Naturopathy are devine need ALLH LORD GOD MADTER to bhow the way

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)