Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 9

Thanks for the guidance

While you state that you need reputable sources for your information, I don't think that calling is pseudoscientific, non scientific, or stating that it is "considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and possibly harmful" came from a reputable research source, just mentioning. That being said, I have a few reputable sources studying some naturopathic treatments that show their safety and effectiveness, as well as their scientific method. Please keep in mind, however, that applying the scientific method, as it pertains to traditions pharmaceutical trials, is a rather ineffective way to judge any herbal medicine, or specific modality, because the naturopathic model for treatment generally incorporates multiple modalities, herbal medications at varying doses, and more frequent and in depth diagnosis and care. Because naturopathic care does not treat symptomatically, it is a misconception to say that a single herb or type of treatment doesn't work to treat a single symptom. Naturopathic healing is a process of treatments, lifestyle changes, and medicines to heal the body.

Also, stating that "Over the years, many practitioners of naturopathic medicine have been found criminally liable in the courts of law around the world." is a gross misrepresentation. I guarantee that many more practitioners of western or conventional medicine have been found criminally liable in the courts of law around the world. In addition, Pharmaceutical companies have also been found criminally liable in the courts of law around the world. It is quite unfortunate that Wiki portrays such a negative bias and unfactual opinion in their entry.

That being said, I do not dispute the fact that some, possibly many Alternative medicine providers are lacking in expertise, but you must concede, that in many health professionals in every modality are lacking expertise. I also do not dispute the fact that clinical training for naturopaths often leaves quite a lot to be desired, however, many in the profession are VERY good at what they do, and operate in a true medical fashion. NUNM, in Portland, helps their graduates get into residency programs to aid them in their clinical skills, there is also an onsite clinic for training in that regard. Several of the naturopathic clinics in Portland offer 3 year residencies to ND graduates. Some of the larger clinics have a very intensive 3 year residency program, in which the resident doctor doesn't see patients on their own until at least the middle of the second year. Naturopathic Physical Medicine - Generan

Constitutional Hydrotherapy

Manual Therapy or Chiropractic Manipulation

Dietary Change

Botanicals/Herbal Medicine/Homeopathics Arndt, W., Mitnik, C., Denzler, K.L., Waters, R.F., Jacobs, B.L., Rochon, Y., and Langland, J.O. (2012). Rediscovery of a 19th century cure for smallpox. PLOS ONE 7(3):e32610. Epub 2012 Mar 9

Acupuncture

Given these sources, and the fact that over 75% of the world's population uses what we in the US call "Complementary or Alternative Medicine," I would like to recommend the following edits to this article.

Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of medicine in which the body is diagnosed for abnormalities in function (i.e. dysfunction). The principles of a Naturopathic Physician are to treat the body based on the cause of the symptoms, and in treating, to augment the body's own healing processes. Naturopathic Medicine uses healing practices that have been integrated through hundreds (and some modalities, thousands) years of medicine. In general, naturopathic physicians try to avoid the use of many pharmaceuticals for symptomatic relief, not only because of the harmful side effects of most pharmaceuticals, but also due to the increased toxic load on the liver an kidneys (which can inhibit the body's ability to filter the blood), because they believe that covering up the symptoms with drugs can hide the true cause of the problem until it is much further progressed, and because they try to treat each individual based on a full diagnosis of all of their symptoms and concerns (holistic diagnosis and treatment). Naturopathic healing is generally focused on dietary intake and nutritional support to promote the body's ability to heal. Some naturopathic doctors also incorporate adjustment therapy, homeopathics, herbal medications, acupuncture, constitutional hydrotherapy, electrotherapy, intravenous medications, prolotherapy, and many other methods of treatment. Naturopathic Physicians are pushing for more recognition in the US and Canada due to the limitations of their scope in many areas. Currently, only 17 states license Naturopathic doctors. A doctor of Natural Medicine or Naturopathy (ND) is required to obtain a Bachelors degree, then obtain a medical degree from an approved and accredited medical school, complete a graduate level program in naturopathic medicine, pass the naturopathic physicians licensing exams, and fulfill state and local licensing requirements. Many Naturopathic Physicians also choose to become certified in Acupuncture, or to study adjustment therapy so they can treat the body more functionally across the board. (http://study.com/articles/How_to_Become_a_Naturopathic_Therapist_Education_and_Career_Roadmap.html) Naturopathic Doctors are often confused with other Homeopathic or Alternative medicine practitioners who often have little medical background. Alternative care practitioners and western medicine practitioners are often at odds with one another, both sides accusing the other of malpractice or harm, however, it is becoming more common in the US to find functional medicine practitioners (MD's and ND's) who treat patients through multiple medical modalities. In addition, much research is showing a shift in the beliefs of the medical community. Many pharmaceuticals are being found more and more dangerous, and less and less effective at symptomatic relief, causing more and more patients to seek out "Complementary or Alternative Medicine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpsdudley (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you, Vpsdudley. This is coming along, but I, myself, can't yet support making the suggested edit because many of these references are not up to WP:MEDRS and to my ear it still sounds heavily of POV/advocacy. I hope there are some other editors with this page on their Watchlist who can provide additional guidance. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Transparent bias

Please read the introductory section for this section in terms of transparent bias in perspective and common logical fallacies. Though containing citations the use of cherry picking is clearly evident. There is a clear intention to steer an opinion rather than inform. The quotes around naturopathic concepts is a plainly obvious intention to convey disregard for the ideas without executing intellectual rigor to present an argument or proof against them. The term "self-healing" is treated in this way and, yet, if the words allostasis and homeostasis were used in the scientific and medical commumunity there would be zero issue with the terms - self healing and allostasis are merely different terms for the same phenomenon. The quaity of this article is beneath wikipedia's standards. Edits have been proposed and ignored. The assertion that naturopathy doesn't provide training in differential diagnosis, use laboratory or imaging in develping diagnosis or is adverse to referral or use of allopathic medicine when appropriate is so patently untrue the considerable bias of the contributor who structured is de facto.

"Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of pseudoscientific, alternative medicine that employs an array of practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", and as promoting "self-healing." The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine.[1] Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.[2][3][4][5] Instead, naturopathic study and practice rely on unscientific notions, often leading naturopathic doctors to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.[6][7]

Naturopathic medicine is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and possibly harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice.[6][8][9] In addition to accusations from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society,[10] naturopaths and naturopathic doctors have repeatedly been accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.[6][11][12][13][14][15] Over the years, many practitioners of naturopathic medicine have been found criminally liable in the courts of law around the world. In some countries, it is a criminal offense for naturopaths and naturopathic doctors to label themselves as medical professionals."

I have too many projects to get into this at this time. However, this wiki topic needs attention to meet wiki standards.

It could at minimum be tagged for the problems currently present to be intellectually honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mforcedc (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so what specific change to the article are you proposing? And what sources are you citing to backup those changes? --McSly (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Arizona

There are so many things incorrect about this wiki page it makes me question wikipedia and their motives. First Natropathic doctors in Arizona practice Integrative medicine, they have hospital rights, prescription writing abilities, and receive extensive training that is essentially the equivalent of a medical doctor, a chiropractor, a homeopath and a herbalist combined. They receive vastly more training that a regular MD, not less. This article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2303:7D00:4DF7:1ED3:77C7:528D (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide sources and suggest a change in content supported by those sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Chelation

I have removed the term "chelation" from the list of treatments offered by naturopaths, under the article heading Methods. As the popup definition for chelation states, it is an established medical procedure. Just trying to improve accuracy. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

this may be the case, however in your last edit you also removed a linked citation on which a portion of the text was based. If you do this then the text and the sources will not match and the action is equivalent to adding unsourced text to the article. Please don't do this. If you change a source, please leave a detailed summary explaining how the new source improves upon the old one, change the text of the article where necessary and leave a more detailed summary. Also when you make a talk page entry, please put it at the bottom, as these articles will be archived after the ones above it. Edaham (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

additionally, I checked the source and it does indeed accurately state that a major advocate of naturopathy, ACAM is also an advocate of EDTA chelation therapy. Another source which you did not delete more explicitly lists chelation therapy as being offered by clinics which specifically identify as naturopathic centers. (Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public) Edaham (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the material should be kept. I don't understand how removing it improves accuracy in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

it has been kept. I reverted the removal. It's perfectly well sourced. Edaham (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Edaham. I originally removed chelation from the list of treatments offered by naturopaths, because, although some naturopaths may approve of chelation, and may practice in facilities that also offer chelation, chelation itself is not part of naturopathic theory or practice. Naturopathic theory is quite old, (from the 1800s, as stated in the article,) whereas the medical treatment of heavy-metal chelation was developed in the mid-twentieth century, to treat lead poisoning. The demand for this arose from the lead poisoning which occurred among people working with lead bullets and lead components in munitions, during WWII. The theory base of naturopathy has nothing to do with intravenous treatments or the use of chemical medications. Chelation is a scientifically based, intrusive and drug-based procedure, and has nothing to do with "natural" healing. Further, unless a naturopath was also a qualified medical doctor, he or she could not administer chelation, because such treatment is restricted to qualified medical doctors. It would be illegal in the United States or Canada for naturopaths to offer chelation. I thought that associating chelation with naturopathic practice was simply confusing, and likely to lead to inaccurate assumptions about naturopaths offering chelation. Obviously, I do not know how to remove such a reference without messing up the other citations. Please revise the article to reflect the fact that chelation is not a naturopathic practice. Thank you, Janice Vian Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

...but there seems to be clear evidence from the sources mentioned above that despite everything you say about the roots of naturopathy and chelation therapy, many naturopaths are offering it. Perhaps they aren't aware that it isn't naturopathic? If so, naturopathy needs to get its house in order. If you can find a reliable medical source that states that chelation therapy is not an accepted naturopathic practice then we can change the article to reflect this. Otherwise, we have to assume it's just your opinion. Famous_dog (c) 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

http://bastyr.edu/news/health-tips/2014/09/don%E2%80%99t-settle-heavy-metals suggests that the practice is being taught and recommended. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are we sure we are heading in the right direction?

No discernible edit proposed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, but are we sure we are going in a healthy direction? This article has some fairly obvious mistakes, by, for example, saying this: "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis,[1] and it is rejected by the medical community.[1] Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse.[19][50][51] Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings.[9][10] 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.[52] According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease.[10]" However, naturopathy is a group of medical practices according to the article: "The particular modalities used by a naturopath vary with training and scope of practice. These may include herbalism, homeopathy,[39] acupuncture, nature cures, physical medicine, applied kinesiology,[46] colonic enemas,[12][40] chelation therapy,[11] color therapy,[46] cranial osteopathy, hair analysis, iridology,[46] live blood analysis, ozone therapy,[10] psychotherapy, public health measures and hygiene,[44] reflexology,[46] rolfing,[29] massage therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine. Nature cures include a range of therapies based on exposure to natural elements such as sunshine, fresh air, or heat or cold, as well as nutrition advice such as following a vegetarian and whole food diet, fasting, or abstention from alcohol and sugar.[47] Physical medicine includes naturopathic, osseous, or soft tissue manipulative therapy, sports medicine, exercise, and hydrotherapy. Psychological counseling includes meditation, relaxation, and other methods of stress management.[47]" So, are all of them entirely ineffective? Not all of them. Hydrotherapy is a great example. I once read a naturopathy book, and IIRC, it mentions that hot water helps blood flow, while cold water helps soreness. The aforementioned hydrotherapy article mentions the same benefits. (The swallow-a-liter-a-day part is not too good for you though.) I don't remember the title though. I will post the title and author if I find it. NotAStoppedClock (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Following my previous message, I would like to point out that I am not asking for a complete rewrite, unlike many other people here. I am just asking that the POV lends a tiny bit of credence to some aspects of naturopathy. I know, a complete rewrite would be better than nothing by some people's standards, but this is Wikipedia, where there is a large amount of arguing about random topics, ranging from this talk page (a giant wall of text at times itself due to the flood of users who have had some positive experience with naturopathy and want a complete rewrite,) to the article about Dolly the sheep. I do not want this to become a case of undue balance, but it needs to have some minor adjustments to the parts that have generalization problems. The section I first quoted clearly needs to say "Most of naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis" instead of just "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis." Neither statement is outright pro-naturopathy, but lessens the problems the article is criticized for. Now, I am not trying to wikilawyer, but a neutral point of view is usually the standard, and this article, despite falling under "fringe theories," clearly went off the deep end in terms of criticism. I do agree that acupuncture needs to be regulated so that the needles get cleaned after use, among other regulations to prevent "buyer beware" conditions, but not all of naturopathy is pseudoscience. In fact, a good chunk of naturopathic medicine has some evidence backing it up. For example, going on a ketogenic diet is great for those with seizures, and certified organic foods are banned from having pesticides put on it (including Roundup.) Simply put, the article needs minor adjustments to improve the neutrality of the article and to encourage people to not assume that something is unsafe/ineffective just because naturopaths use it to cure illness. --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC) That naturopathy occasionally incorporates techniques that might work doesn't change the fact that naturopathy as a general practice isn't supported by the evidence. And the use of a ketogenic diet for epilepsy does nothing to support naturopathy in general, and as far as I know, there's no evidence supporting health benefits from "organic" food. --tronvillain (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm not referring to avoiding GMOs, but instead referring to avoiding pesticides. A lot of pesticides are commonly put on GMO crops, and the FDA bans pesticides from being put on organic food. One of the pesticides marketed to farmers growing GMOs, glyphosate, is known to be at least less-than-optimal for your health (hint: It's carcinogenic) in a few ways. Note that I, unlike "Mr. naturpathy devine allh yhwe bhow the way," and unlike quite a few here on this prestigious talk page, do not want a rewrite, but instead a minor edit so that it doesn't imply that everything a naturopathic doctor touches has zero evidence just because he is a naturopath. --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Is there an actual edit proposed here? Using the Talk page for meandering essays is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Well, there is an actual edit proposed here, Alexbrn. I am really sorry for being disruptive, and I seriously apologize for your frustration. Apparently the " Talk:Naturopathy" train is coming as some could put it. We shall truce here so that train doesn't flood the page. Just please encourage others to look up the methods of naturopathy instead of naturopathy itself through the article. I also made a point in those "meandering essays" that this is going to not be a massive rewrite. Truce? --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Vaccination

The vaccination section starts with this sentence, which appears ungrammatical to me:

- Naturopathy is based on beliefs opposed to vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition.

Should we just say 'Naturopathy is based on beliefs opposed to vaccination.'?Girth Summit (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ohio: Increasing Acceptance of Alternative Medicine Practices

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In Cleveland, Ohio, both the world reknowned Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals provide Integrative Health Care. University Hospitals includes Naturopathic Wellness Consultation, Integrative Psychiatry, Accupuncture, and Myofacial Release Therapy, among other services. <ref> http://www.uhconnorintegrativehealth.org/services The Cleveland Clinic offers Integrative Consults in general Medicine and Pain Management (which include approaches such as Accupuncture, Herbal Therapy and Holistic Psychotherapy), as well as many other alternative medical treatments. Of particular note is that most insurance covers these appointments. </ref>https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrative Abigail Smasome (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Abigail Smas

test

recent comments didn't appear --Espoo (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Now fixed. A user wrote {{hat}} instead of {{hab}} at the end of a collapsed section. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Espoo (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

unclear claim of lack of NPOV

My recent well sourced and clearly NPOV edits were declared to be "POV" without any explanation. It's unclear whether @Roxy the dog: feels my edits were too critical or too supportive of naturopathy. --Espoo (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting information that way, especially in the lede, tends to be undue. But to start, it's not clear what was even verified from the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Please remove the word pseudoscientific practice. because it is also evidence based and scientific. Nisargamedicalcentre (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Article breaks clause of neutrality

I totally disagree with the focus of this article, which is non neutral from root to end. The introduction is a charge against Naturopathy: " Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", and as promoting "self-healing"." Nathuropathy can be science-based, and doesn't necessarily promote self-healing. It is not necessarily against vaccines. Please write a neutral article!

Pwjohnson (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pwjohnson: Please read WP:GEVAL: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." If naturopathy was science-based it would be called "medicine". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Comparing Nathuropathy with the claim that the Earth is flat or with other hoaxes or conspiracy theories is misleading and shamelessly narrow-minded, i.e. uncritical and thus unscientific. Many areas of naturopathy - not all - are based on natural sciences and biology. In the same way, conventional medicine is not widely effective nowadays. Allopathic medicines, such as antibiotics, radiotherapy and chimiotherapy are causing heavy side-effects, which cannot be easily ignored, and are recognized by scientific studies. Naturopaths tend to avoid those heavy, chemically agressive treatment on the organism, which it considers as a system, and not a set of organs. This view has been fought by some (not all) scientists and of course major pharmaceutical labs which have strong financial interests in maintaining the chemical dependency of the current medicine. Wikipedia should give a more neutral view of naturopathy. It does in other languages, but not in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwjohnson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pwjohnson: We state how it says it's supposed to work, we list the techniques it uses, we state how you get licensed and regulated. We also state there's no scientific evidence it does work and evidence suggesting it may cause deleterious side effects. I'm guessing you have an issue with the latter and believe that scientists are not really interested in making new discoveries? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN You state articles that comfort your subjective point of view. There are other scientifique evidence that some of the approaches and techniques of naturopathy are as effective and some times more effective than chemical approaches to medicine, in some cases. Your article is partial, and omits the diversity of approaches and scientific conclusions. Pwjohnson (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If you just bring acceptable sources that meet our requirements then you will have no problems. see WP:MEDRS if you want to make health related claims, or just WP:RS for non medical claims. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed this is the most subjective and myopic article I have read on Wikipedia, and unfortunately it is on a major discipline of life. Shame on the author of this article. There is no trace of neutrality. I have benefited from naturopathy all my life, and as I write this contribution, I only came here because I was interested in reading about the medical practice that has helped me all the way through much of life only to come and see quite a mind-controlling and biased article on Wikipedia. It is just unethical and non-transparent from start to finish. Yedid Ben Yechezqel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.29.176 (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just imagine how much healthier you would have been had you used real medicine instead. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy, Zalophus californianus. Though you reference WP:MEDRS and WP:RS above, you fail to follow WP:PA with this individual. A personal attack doesn't help your cause. It would benefit those referencing Wikipedia if you allow all sides of the story. 108.80.63.186 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IP. Don't be silly. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Vague threat

I am postinging to bring to your attention major errors with the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy and to request a phone call with someone at Wikipedia who can discuss with me alternatives for getting the errors corrected.

The page, entitled “Naturopathy” (Naturopathy or Naturopathic Medicine) contains numerous incorrect and/or misleading statements that violate Wikipedia’s own policies and guidelines. Further, the page has been “frozen” by Wikipedia until 2019, which effectively silences anyone's ability to provide accurate, verified information, at least within the Wikipedia platform.

The chief problem with the page is that authors and editors have co-mingled key terms and definitions, which confuses and misleads readers. For example, “naturopathic medicine” can be practiced only by licensed and/or certified naturopathic doctors in states that regulate naturopathic doctors. Naturopathic doctors are trained and educated in, and must graduate from, four-year, in-residence, graduate level naturopathic medical schools accredited by the U.S. Department of Education and pass a state-level board exam. In contrast, “naturopathy” is a term that anyone can use to promote themselves as “naturopaths.” However, throughout this article, these terms are used when discussing both regulated naturopathic medicine and unregulated naturopathic practices. To avoid confusion, the page should be titled “Naturopathic Medicine” and include definitions of terms and content that clearly presents the difference between the two.

This is just one of many issues. In fact, we have detailed documentation of more than 25 specific inaccuracies on the page that, by their nature, violate your own policies and guidelines. We have also corrections to recommend with citations. I would like to hear from someone at Wikipedia by January 31, 2018. If I don’t hear from anyone by that time, we will need to find other channels for distributing the information we have collected. If forced to take that route, we will include that these inaccuracies that violate Wikipedia’s own policies and guidelines have been brought to Wikipedia’s attention, and that we received no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Skeeter15702 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Add: This isn't the "American" Wikipedia. And no one is going to call you. Content is determined by public discussion, not private lobbying phone calls. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

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.

---

1 of more than 25 specific issues: 1. Inaccurate statement: “Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of pseudoscientific, alternative medicine that employs an array of practices branded as ‘natural’, ‘non-invasive’, and as promoting ‘self-healing’."

Citation None Wikipedia Violations • Violates verifiability-no citation • Violates neutral point of view- sweeping statement and label of “pseudoscientific” without acknowledgement of contradictory evidence. • Lacks clear outline or differentiation between licensed naturopathic doctors and lay naturopaths. In addition, there is a lack of immediate acknowledgement of geographic variation, which changes the definition significantly. For comparison, Wikipedia differentiates between traditional osteopathy and osteopathic medicine by having two different pages: “Osteopathic medicine in the United States” and “Osteopathy”. At the top of the Osteopathy page, it states: “For the American medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy). The lack of this key differentiation at the top of the Naturopathy page leads to countless instances of incorrect and unverified claims throughout the article, which propagates confusion and fails to accurately define Naturopathic medicine in the United States. Accurate, Verified Information • Naturopathic medicine and traditional naturopathy are two distinct entities in the United States, especially when it comes to level of training and scope of practice. • “Naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession, emphasizing prevention, treatment, and optimal health through the use of therapeutic methods and substances that encourage individuals’ inherent self-healing process. The practice of naturopathic medicine includes modern and traditional, scientific, and empirical methods.” o Source: AANP (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59) • “AANMC’s accredited naturopathic schools meet both federal and academic standards. Graduation from a naturopathic medicine program that is accredited or is a candidate for accreditation guarantees eligibility to sit for the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), the passage of which is required to obtain licensure.” o Source: AANMC (https://aanmc.org/naturopathic-schools/)

1. Inaccurate statement: “Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of pseudoscientific, alternative medicine that employs an array of practices branded as ‘natural’, ‘non-invasive’, and as promoting ‘self-healing’." Citation None Wikipedia Violations • Violates verifiability-no citation • Violates neutral point of view- sweeping statement and label of “pseudoscientific” without acknowledgement of contradictory evidence. • Lacks clear outline or differentiation between licensed naturopathic doctors and lay naturopaths. In addition, there is a lack of immediate acknowledgement of geographic variation, which changes the definition significantly. For comparison, Wikipedia differentiates between traditional osteopathy and osteopathic medicine by having two different pages: “Osteopathic medicine in the United States” and “Osteopathy”. At the top of the Osteopathy page, it states: “For the American medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy). The lack of this key differentiation at the top of the Naturopathy page leads to countless instances of incorrect and unverified claims throughout the article, which propagates confusion and fails to accurately define Naturopathic medicine in the United States. Accurate, Verified Information • Naturopathic medicine and traditional naturopathy are two distinct entities in the United States, especially when it comes to level of training and scope of practice. • “Naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession, emphasizing prevention, treatment, and optimal health through the use of therapeutic methods and substances that encourage individuals’ inherent self-healing process. The practice of naturopathic medicine includes modern and traditional, scientific, and empirical methods.” o Source: AANP (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59) • “AANMC’s accredited naturopathic schools meet both federal and academic standards. Graduation from a naturopathic medicine program that is accredited or is a candidate for accreditation guarantees eligibility to sit for the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), the passage of which is required to obtain licensure.” o Source: AANMC (https://aanmc.org/naturopathic-schools/)

 Not done No consensus. Note WP:LEDEs do not need citations if the material they summarize is sourced in the article body. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (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.

Edit request 2

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.

---

#2 of more than 25 specific issues 2. Inaccurate statement: “The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and self-healing, rather than evidence-based medicine.”

Citation • [1] http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=hahs_pubs o This is a “Perspectives” article from 2006 and statements refer to “traditional naturopathy” rather than modern “Naturopathic Medicine” Wikipedia Violations • Violates neutral point of view by citing perspective/personal opinion article, and as a result lacks verifiability Accurate, Verified Information • The following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: o Identify and Treat the Causes (Tolle Causam): The naturopathic physician seeks to identify and remove the underlying causes of illness rather than to merely eliminate or suppress symptoms.  o First Do No Harm (Primum Non Nocere): Naturopathic physicians follow three guidelines to avoid harming the patient: ♣ Utilize methods and medicinal substances which minimize the risk of harmful side effects, using the least force necessary to diagnose and treat;  ♣ Avoid when possible the harmful suppression of symptoms; and ♣ Acknowledge, respect, and work with individuals’ self-healing process.  o Doctor as Teacher (Docere): Naturopathic physicians educate their patients and encourage self-responsibility for health. They also recognize and employ the therapeutic potential of the doctor-patient relationship.  o The Healing Power of Nature (Vis Medicatrix Naturae): Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process. o Treat the Whole Person: Naturopathic physicians treat each patient by taking into account individual physical, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. Since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development.  o Prevention: Naturopathic physicians emphasize the prevention of disease by assessing risk factors, heredity and susceptibility to disease, and by making appropriate interventions in partnership with their patients to prevent illness. ♣ Source: AANP (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59)

 Not done. Note the article is not constrained to some American definition of “Naturopathic Medicine”. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (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.

Edit request 3

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.

---

4. Inaccurate statement: “Instead, study and practice are focused on unscientific notions, often leading naturopathic doctors to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.”

Citations • [6] Atwood, Kimball C., IV (2003). "Naturopathy: A critical appraisal". Medscape General Medicine. 5 (4): 39. PMID 14745386.(registration required) o Violates neutral point of view- This is an article written by someone who, according to Wikipedia, is an “active skeptic” and “outspoken critic of naturopathy”. Understandably, the author writes from a biased perspective. He often uses loaded language, draws inaccurate and unverified conclusions from the sources he cites, and states his opinions as facts. After the article was published, so many letters written to the author and publisher that the author wrote a second article to address the different complaints he received. ♣ Source: Wikipedia: Kimball C. Atwood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimball_Atwood

• [7] "Family Physicians versus Naturopaths" (PDF). aafp.org. American Academy of Family Physicians. Retrieved 20 July 2015. o http://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/workforce/gme/ES-FPvsNaturopaths-110810.pdf o This document contrasts training hours between NDs and family physicians. o No mention of “unscientific notions” or “diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit”. o Irrelevant source

Wikipedia Violations

• Violates validity-Contains an irrelevant citation that does not support the statement. • Violates neutral point of view-The statement does not acknowledge that NDs are trained to utilize both conventional and integrative medical approaches and therapies.

Accurate, Verified Information

• “During the first two years, ND students’ credit loads are almost identical to those of MD students. In nearly every biomedical science, ND students are required to complete as many credits as, if not more than, MD students. Specifics vary by school, but a 2010 course comparison of the University of Washington’s MD program and Bastyr University’s ND program shows that during the first two years, University of Washington MD students completed a total of 150 credits and Bastyr ND students completed 151.5 credits, most of them in comparable biomedical and diagnostic science courses.” o Source: Naturopathic Medicine: An Overview of Professional Education. AANP. http://www.naturopathic.org/files/Naturopathic%20Professional%20Education%20-%20An%20Overview.pdf

 Not done. Please note WP:FRIND. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2018 (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.

"Campaining for recognition"

The sentence "Naturopathic doctors are campaigning for more recognition in the U.S. and Canada." is completely redundant and biased, and does not belong to the lede. Of course they'd be campaigning everywhere that somebody calls themselves "naturopath", and on international level as well (the World Naturopathic Federation is currently soliciting donations to campaign for more recognition at the WHO). The sentence was put there just because somebody read about a new campaign in the news, and does not summarize the activity correctly. It's a WP:NOTNEWS problem that user Alexbrn restored twice for no good reason, so I'm asking now for opinion of other users. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article body (and not as "news") and so the lede should reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Even as a summary, it really is inadequate. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2018

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.

---

Change "naturopathic doctors recommend against doctors' orders" to "The good and certified naturopathic doctor, NEVER recommends against doctors' orders but works with them in order to find the best and most suited treatment for the patients. The good naturopath recognizes that the doctor supersedes him and that the final word is always up to the doctor"

Change "The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine" to "A branch of naturopathy employs the principles of vitalism but naturopathic medicine practice is most inherently based on evidence based medicine and research. In fact, Naturopathic studies include research principle courses as to distinguish between faulty and good research. The good naturopath is graded upon his abilities to base his decisions on acceptable and good research evidence."

Change "Instead, naturopathic study and practice rely on unscientific notions, often leading naturopathic doctors to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit" to Naturopathic study and practice relies on scientific notions. It is most important to understand that the good naturopathic doctor does not diagnose, but contributes to the doctor's diagnosis with the acquired notions from rigorous studies. Naturopathic doctors who diagnose and practice medicine outside their scope of studies are faulty at best. Realgdave (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (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.

Worst article?

Greetings,

This is hands-down the worst Wikipedia article I have ever read. Mostly because of its cobbled-together sources with heavy bias and inability to address fundamental parts of Natropathic Doctors and their processes. I do not have time to go point by point because this article is rife with mis-information. Instead, I'd recommend scraping it altogether and allowing someone to re-write it. I would be happy to reach out to my contacts who are professors at accredited-institutions and others who are Natropathic doctors to get quality information and sources. The most heinous offense in this article is that Natropathic doctors DON'T adhere to evidence-based science. That is just flat out false and the very fact that its on the page illustrates how uneducated the author was who wrote this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:C40D:C994:1786:3CCC:9AA (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article has 1,239 authors and is the result of consensus. It reflects decent sources in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS supplemented by WP:Lunatic Charlatans. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Collapse huge wall of text

Edit request 5. Inaccurate statement: “Naturopathic medicine is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and possibly harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice.”[6][8][9] Citation • [6] Atwood, Kimball C., IV (2003). "Naturopathy: A critical appraisal". Medscape General Medicine. 5 (4): 39. PMID 14745386.(registration required) o Violates neutral point of view- This is an article written by someone who, according to Wikipedia, is an “active skeptic” and “outspoken critic of naturopathy”. Understandably, the author writes from a biased perspective. He often uses loaded language, draws inaccurate and unverified conclusions from the sources he cites, and states his opinions as facts. After the article was published, so many letters written to the author and publisher that the author wrote a second article to address the different complaints he received. ♣ Source: Wikipedia: Kimball C. Atwood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimball_Atwood • [8] Gorski, David H. (18 September 2014). “Integrative oncology: really the best of both worlds?” Nature Reviews Cancer. 14: 692–700. doi:10.1038/nrc3822. PMID 25230880. o Unable to access via PubMed • [9]Singh S, Ernst E (2009). Naturopathy. Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial. Transworld. Pp. 197–. ISBN 978-1-4090-8180-7.  o This is incorrectly cited because there is no mention of naturopaths on page 197. However, there is a portion of a later passage (p. 318) which technically supports the original point, stating, “Many naturopaths are against mainstream medicine and advise their patients accordingly– for instance many are not in favour of vaccination.” However, this is not true of the majority of Naturopathic Doctors (the topic of vaccination is addressed elsewhere in this document). o Access here: https://books.google.com/books?id=5m6CKTEr3I0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Trick+or+Treatment:+The+Undeniable+Facts+about+Alternative+Medicine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5z8SdwOvTAhVJ22MKHRA3Aw0QuwUILTAB#v=onepage&q=naturopath&f=false Wikipedia Violations • Violates neutral point of view-Fails to provide unbiased, balanced information that is representative of the majority of naturopathic doctors. Also, attempts to speak for the entire “medical profession”. • Inappropriate content placement-This is a criticism of the page’s topic which is not appropriate content to include in the lead section of an article. If a critical concept is deemed important (applying to the majority) and verifiable enough to include in an article, it should be included in a specific section aimed at addressing any related controversy. In such a section, an author should provide a clear and unbiased description that gives equal weight to different sides, citing verifiable, non-biased sources, which represent the relevant majorities. o According to Wikipedia, the lead section “should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Style • Violates original research- cites biased perspective article with author’s personal interpretations. Accurate, Verified Information • NDs are highly valued members of integrative medical teams in hospitals and clinics. o Sources: ♣ http://oregon.providence.org/our-services/p/providence-integrative-medicine-program/ ♣ http://www.sscim.uci.edu/clinic/clinical-providers.asp • They also serve in core leadership and educational staff positions alongside other medical professionals in organizations such as Institute for Functional Medicine, Academy of Integrative Health & Medicine, and Integrative Health Policy Consortium. o Sources: ♣ https://www.functionalmedicine.org/AboutFM/ourteam/staff/ ♣ https://www.aihm.org/about/staff/ ♣ http://www.ihpc.org/leadership/ • Cancer Treatment Centers of America employs Naturopathic Doctors and funds residency positons for recent graduates. o Sources: ♣ http://www.cancercenter.com/southeastern/supportive-care-services/naturopathic-medicine/ ♣ https://www.nuhs.edu/academics/college-of-allied-health-sciences/residency-programs/naturopathic-opportunities/ • Some NDs also hold additional degrees such as MD, NP, LAc, and PhD. o (*cannot find any broad sources that states this but could include a few links to provider examples): ♣ http://www.bastyrcenter.org/providers/katherine-raymer-md-nd ♣ http://www.naturopathic.org/education ♣ http://www.ihpc.org/team/erica-oberg-nd-mph/ ♣ http://bastyr.edu/people/alumni-faculty-researcher/leanna-j-standish-phd-nd-lac-fabno 6. Inaccurate statement: “In addition to accusations from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society,[10] naturopaths and naturopathic doctors have repeatedly been accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.[6][11][12][13][14][15]” Citation • [10] Russell, Jill; Rovere, Amy, eds. (2009). American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (Second ed.). Atlanta: American Cancer Society. pp. 116–119. o Could not access page 117. However, from what could be accessed (p. 116, 118-119), there was absolutely nothing that even suggested any kind of accusation (the definition of accusation is to claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong). This book just describes a neutral overview of naturopathic medicine, and describes some pros and limitations in considering it for adjunctive cancer care. o https://www.amazon.com/American-Complete-Complementary-Alternative-Therapies/dp/0944235719 • [6] Atwood, Kimball C., IV (2003). "Naturopathy: A critical appraisal". Medscape General Medicine. 5 (4): 39. PMID 14745386.(registration required) o Violates neutral point of view- This is an article written by someone who, according to Wikipedia, is an “active skeptic” and “outspoken critic of naturopathy”. Understandably, the author writes from a biased perspective. He often uses loaded language, draws inaccurate and unverified conclusions from the sources he cites, and states his opinions as facts. After the article was published, so many letters written to the author and publisher that the author wrote a second article to address the different complaints he received. ♣ Source: Wikipedia: Kimball C. Atwood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimball_Atwood • [11] Atwood IV, Kimball. C. (March 26, 2004). "Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: Myths and fallacies vs truth". Medscape General Medicine. 6 (1): 33.  PMC1140750. PMID 15208545. o Supports the statement because it is criticism article. It is written by the same person who wrote the article above. o https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140750/# o Notes from article: ♣ “Mr. Gagnier's understanding of biological plausibility is almost incoherent. He writes, “many therapies used in medicine today were discovered through serendipitous findings in unrelated research.”[4] This is true, but unrelated to the issue of plausibility. Then he writes, “therefore, efficacy of an intervention may be shown irrespective of a known biological mechanism,” which does not follow from the first sentence, even if it is true; and it also has nothing to do with plausibility. We might all agree that aspirin is an example of a medicine whose efficacy was shown irrespective of a known biological mechanism. But a “known biological mechanism” is not the same thing as biological plausibility. Aspirin was perfectly plausible at the time of its introduction in the late 19th century, because it was a chemical that could interact with biochemical processes. That those exact processes were not known for many decades did not make aspirin any less plausible. Compare this with the myriad naturopathic claims that I've already cited. Many of them are known to be absurd (oxygen traversing skin, wet compresses aborting strokes, water “memory,” the iris manifesting a homunculus, “transfer of neural energy” [ie, psychokinesis], etc.); others are highly implausible and easily explained by ordinary mechanisms (applied kinesiology by ideomotor action, colonic “cleansing” by the norm of reciprocity, etc.); and still others are barely plausible but highly unlikely and dangerous and, unlike aspirin, are without any empirical support (eg, St. John's wort as an anti-HIV drug).”- uses examples I have never learned about in my Naturopathic Medicine curriculum. • [12] Barrett, Stephen (November 26, 2013). "A close look at naturopathy". QuackWatch. Retrieved 2015-03-21. o Supports the statement because it is an opinion/criticism article. o Places large emphasis on sources from 1970 and 1989 in its introduction. o http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html o Notes from article: ♣ “Naturopathy, sometimes referred to as "natural medicine," is a largely pseudoscientific approach said to "assist nature" [1], "support the body's own innate capacity to achieve optimal health" [2], and "facilitate the body's inherent healing mechanisms." [3] Naturopaths assert that diseases are the body's effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the patient's "vital force." They claim to stimulate the body's natural healing processes by ridding it of waste products and "toxins." At first glance, this approach may appear sensible. However, a close look will show that naturopathy's philosophy is simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery [4]. ♣ The notion of a "vital force" or "life force"—a nonmaterial force that transcends the laws of chemistry and physics—originated in ancient times. Historians call it the doctrine of vitalism. No scientific evidence supports this doctrine, but a huge body of knowledge, including the entire discipline of organic chemistry, refutes it.”  ♣ “According to a comprehensive report presented to the United States Congress in 1970 by the now-defunct National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NANP):” ♣ “The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) has stated that "naturopathic medicine has its own unique body of knowledge, evolved and refined for centuries" and is "effective in treating all health problems, whether acute or chronic." [5] According to a 1989 AANP brochure:” • “Pizzorno's book Total Wellness: Improve Your Health By Understanding Your Body's Healing Systems contains a chapter titled "Strengthen Your Immune System," in which the following anecdote is used to illustrate how naturopaths regard "immune suppression" as an underlying cause of disease: Several years ago I began to develop large warts on several of my fingers. Warts are an interesting phenomenon; they tend to grow or recede according to how well the immune system is functioning. Although I treated them several times with thuja oil (a standard naturopathic treatment for warts), they had not responded very well. I was perplexed because I was living a pretty healthful lifestyle and using a therapy I'd used successfully for a lot of patients. Then I visited the dentist. As I've only had one cavity, I hadn't been to the dentist for several years. Surprisingly, X-rays revealed an abscess in that one tooth—the filling had not been sealed properly. A week of antibiotics cleared the infection, and within three months all my warts were gone. Even though I had had no other symptoms, the abscess was continually draining my immune system. [30] Any sensible preventive dental-care program should include visits every 6-12 months for professional cleaning (to remove gumline calculus to prevent gum disease), a check for early signs of tooth decay (cavities), and occasional x-ray examination to look for hidden problems. How come Pizzorno—despite all his talk about prevention—does not believe he should have dental check-ups like the rest of us? What does it mean that he permitted large warts to develop on his fingers without seeking medical treatment? (You can decide this for yourself.) Did fixing the abscess actually lead to the disappearance of the warts? I doubt that this has been scientifically studied. However, it is well known that most common warts disappear spontaneously within two years or can be effectively removed with simple, nonscarring medical treatment [31].” • [13] Harvey, Claire (11 July 2015). "Don't duck the law by sending kids to quacks". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2 September 2015. o Supports the statement because it’s an opinion/criticism article. o It’s an Australian article and seems to be talking about lay naturopaths. o http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/claire-harvey-dont-duck-the-law-by-sending-kids-to-quacks/news-story/6ee0fc3e8309651cad4c7bca9ca3ff06 o Note from article: ♣ “IF you take your child to a naturopath, there’s something wrong with you. I mean, something really wrong — way wronger than the ingrown toenail or funny rash or, I don’t know, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia you are seeking treatment for. Because — well, let’s be honest. Naturopaths are quacks. So are chiropractors*, traditional Chinese herbalists, iridologists, palm-readers, homeopaths, Bowen therapists and reiki practitioners. Quack, quack, quack.” • [14] Chivers, Tom (10 November 2014). "How does naturopathy work? A bit like a flying vacuum-cleaner to Mars". Spectator. Retrieved 2 September 2015. o Supports the statement because it is an opinion/criticism article. o Article is from the UK and seems to be referring to traditional, lay naturopaths since the therapies described are not included in naturopathic medical school curriculums. o https://health.spectator.co.uk/how-does-naturopathy-work-a-bit-like-a-flying-vacuum-cleaner-to-mars/ o Notes from article: ♣ “As it happens, the London Natural Therapies group, which the piece cites as a source of all this healing, has been censured before by the Advertising Standards Authority for making unsupported claims about their ‘live blood analysis’, which is supposed to tell whether your liver cells are singing in the right key or whatever. But still, the question is wider than just that group: does naturopathy work? Short answer: of course not, don’t be ridiculous. The long answer is a bit more involved:” ♣ “We can look at the different bits one by one, though. Biopuncture is definitely nonsense, because it involves homeopathy, and homeopathy is nonsense. Bioresonance is, as alternative medicine researcher Edzard Ernst put it, ‘an attempt to present nonsense as science’ and live blood analysis is, as the ASA has wisely noted, also nonsense. Acupuncture is likely a placebo (according to, again, the splendid Dr Ernst). And I haven’t got the energy to find out what oxyvenation and infusion therapy are, but I’d say it’s looking pretty bad for naturopathy at this stage.” • [15] Caulfield, Timothy (22 January 2013). "Don't legitimize the witch doctors". National Post. Retrieved 2 September 2015. o Supports the statement because it’s an opinion/criticism article. Most of the criticism is focused on homeopathy. o Article is from Canada. o http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/timothy-caulfield-dont-legitimize-the-witch-doctors o Notes from article: ♣ “Allow me to lay my admittedly love-of-science, rant-tainted cards on the table. In general, the services provided by naturopaths reside either in the realm of commonsense lifestyle advice (get lots of sleep, eat well and stay active) or they have little empirical evidence to support their use. In fact, many naturopathic practices are based on a semi-spiritual theory (the healing power of nature), and have no foundation in science. They reside largely in the realm of pseudoscience.” Wikipedia Violations • Violates neutral point of view- Fails to provide unbiased, balanced information that is representative of the majority of naturopathic doctors. There is no mention of the large number of people in the medical community who are great supporters of NDs. There is also no effort made to differentiate between NDs and lay naturopaths. • Violates validity (depending on what is stated on p. 117 of the American Cancer Society source) by stating that the American Cancer Society has made accusations and then citing a source that provides no support of that. This makes the statement particularly misleading and malevolent because this was used as the one example in the sentence: “In addition to accusations from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society,[10]“. • Includes criticism of the page’s topic which is not appropriate content to include in the lead section of an article. If a critical concept is deemed important (applying to the majority) and verifiable enough to include in an article, it should be included in a specific section aimed at addressing any related controversy. In such a section, an author should provide a clear and unbiased description that gives equal weight to different sides, citing verifiable, non-biased sources, which represent the relevant majorities. o According to Wikipedia, the lead section “should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Style Accurate, Verified Information • Unfortunately, there is certain amount of confusion that exists in a minority of the medical community who have been misinformed about the training and practice of naturopathic medicine. This confusion is perpetuated by biased critics whose goal is to defame the profession. In their critiques, they cite or refer to outdated and/or invalid information that does not represent modern naturopathic medicine as a whole. The incorrect, biasedly-interpreted information is then seen and cited by others, continues to spread, and leads to the incorrect and disrespectful representation of modern-day Naturopathic Medicine in the United States. That is why it is so important that a source such as Wikipedia offer a clear and unbiased description of Naturopathic Medicine. Wikipedia is considered a reliable source to many and if effort is not made to correct the violations, it will continue to propagate confusion, and will lead to distrust in the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. • Example of an unbiased page on Osteopathic Medicine: o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

 Not done. Please only use the edit request template after consensus has been established for an edit, per the template usage instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

First line of article

Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", and as promoting "self-healing".

This is FALSE. Naturopathic medicine has evolved to become INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE which comprises both conventional and natural treatments. Naturopathic doctors has D.E.A. #s and often write the same prescriptions for the same disease (example a naturopathic doctor will write a prescription for lisinopril for high blood pressure0, so how is this "pseudoscientific when a naturopathic physician does it, but scientific when an M.D. does this? This is sheer discrimination and Wikipedia should be sued). source: ME! I am an ND with a D.E.A. who have written countless prescriptions in the same manner that an M.D. does. I am looking for a lawyer. You need to prosecuted for written false conveying information. Wikipedia is extremely dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Anna Nordin (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You do not constitute a source. You'll have to keep in mind that this is an article on naturopathy in general, not just on the location in which you practice. If North American, that section says "In North America, each jurisdiction that regulates naturopathy defines a local scope of practice for naturopathic doctors that can vary considerably. Some regions permit minor surgery, access to prescription drugs, spinal manipulations, midwifery (natural childbirth), and gynecology; other regions exclude these from the naturopathic scope of practice or prohibit the practice of naturopathy entirely." --tronvillain (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article specifically acknowledges the ability of some naturopaths to prescribe drugs: "U.S. jurisdictions that permit access to prescription drugs: Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington." --tronvillain (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

What does an image of Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment have to do with naturopathy. The image should be removed it is obviously only on the page to portray someone's viewpoint and has nothing to do with current or historical naturopathic medicine. Aeberding (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please only use this template after consensus has been achieved, per its usage instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Is the treatment is expensive..? Vima sekhar panja (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM The talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. You can create a talk section about creating a new section about the price, but if you have the sources to back it up I would just add it to the article. Wyrm127 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There Are Real Practitioners

I feel like there is a whole "alternative" vs "modern" medicine going on with some people. The truth is that some of these "alternative" medical ways are ways that have been around for over a thousand years. Modern medicine is the real "alternative" medicine. Anyway, I just want to point out practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Medical Qigong Doctors like Jerry Alan Johnson who have repeatedly healed people INCLUDING people who had cancer over and over again. The article said that natural medicine is not "evidence-based." Tell that to Jerry Alan Johnson who has repeatedly PROVED that cancer is curable through personal experience and actually doing it repeatedly. He has done it.

What people need to understand is that if you are learning the REAL training, it is not something you can learn from a book. You need a teacher who knows the ins and outs of everything, who has been healing people for years and has embodied the training (not just head knowledge). It is a craft that evolves over time that you constantly test and improve. There is evidence, it's just people are too lazy to look into it and try to understand it. Native American medicine people like Rolling Thunder and others have done some really awesome healings. Modern medicine has its place, and traditional medicine has its place. Can't people let go of their own ego and realize that both systems can help heal people. The whole purpose of medicine is to heal people, not to satisfy your ego. Instead you should open up your mind and find out what is going on and if it works or not. Sure there are charlatans, frauds, and poorly trained dimwits...but there are also good people like Jerry Alan Johnson, Bruce Frantzis, and Shi Dejian who are the real deal, received real training, and have proved that what they do works.

Just so that people understand, a lot of the people learning "Traditional" Chinese Medicine now are learning the Post-Communist way. When the communists took over they actually changed their medicine a bit so that it would be more accepted by the West. But by doing that the power/effectiveness was diminished. Which is why I mentioned Jerry Alan Johnson because he learned the real teachings that work, not the communist controlled way.

My point is that the person/people who wrote this wiki page don't really know what he/she is talking about and hasn't embodied the training. Sorry, but if you haven't embodied the training then you don't know what you are talking about and should not be able to write a full article on it (maybe only part of it that deals with controversies/frauds). Don't make judgements based on what poorly trained dimwits have done and ignore good people who have done good work.

I only speak for those who have received real training. Not those who push "quackery" or are poorly trained "book learners."

Dwsails (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So, have you got reliable sources to support anything you wrote above? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article comprises thousands of edits, and the edits that are supported by reputable scientific evidence are the ones that remain. If you have reputable and scientific sources for your claims, feel free to add them to the article. You will likely have trouble doing so, since naturopathy has, to my knowledge, never been conclusively shown to effectively treat any disease.

You cite personal experience and anecdote as evidence that naturopathy is a valid medical treatment approach. Why is it that naturopathy seems to "work" when explained through anecdote, but it always seems to fail when it's being studied scientifically? Do you really believe that the large pharmaceutical companies would balk at the idea of an easy-to-acquire treatment for cancer that doesn't cause the problems associated with chemotherapy and has a much higher success rate? Do you really believe most doctors are perfectly content to prescribe their patients literal poison in an effort to save their lives when a few ground up herbs can do the trick?

Cancer is not a singular disease. Saying someone can "cure cancer" through herbs is nonsense because there are multiple pathologies for each kind of cancer. There's a reason we need to focus so intently on treatments that target cancer cells very specifically, because cancer cells aren't all that different from other cells in the body. You're really arguing that a naturopath pushing ground up plants knows better than the thousands of scientists who spend 8 hours every day for their entire lives studying this stuff? Your claim that a man can "cure cancer" betrays a serious lack of understanding of what cancer is. Matt18224 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC); edited 22:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

None of this seems to be directed at improving the article. WP:NOTAFORUM. PepperBeast (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right. My intention was to explain why Dwsails' views are not presented in the article, nor should they be. I got a bit carried away. My apologies. Matt18224 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference validity

Hello, I would like to clarify the validity of a couple of references used within this page. Reference 12 is a blog post. References 13, 14, and 15 are online posts which appear to be unsubstantiated opinion pieces, rather than independent, unbiased sources supported by evidence. Reference 54, in particular, appears to be nothing more than hearsay - the reference is made to the quote of an unverified individual within an online post. I have seen that on many occasions, the WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE guidelines are quoted on this talk page. To my understanding, both guidelines clearly indicate that claims should be supported by reliable, high-quality references. Thank you for your clarification. Regards Geophid (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Geophid, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have you read the guidelines at WP:MEDRS? They explain that sources reaching these standards are required to assert biomedical information. The sources you've listed above are not being used in that way.

• Reference 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all used to assert that "have repeatedly been accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery" - that isn't a biomedical assertion, it's an assertion that naturopathy has been criticised, so the sources just need to be regular RS. The particular references you've brought up are Quackwatch, The Telegraph, The Spectator and the National Post - all fine for an assertion of this sort.
• Reference 54, similarly, is not being used to make a biomedical assertion. We are not saying in Wikipedia's voice that the doctor's statement is true - Wikipedia is asserting that he said it, and so the source is appropriate. The relevant policy about whether his statement should be included is WP:Weight - I would personally argue that his statement is relevant, since he is a retired professional in the field. Hope that helps. Girth Summit (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit for the welcome and for taking the time to clarify my question - much appreciated. I had spent some time reading the WP:MEDRS guidelines and did note that they were for health claims, thank you for confirming that these guidelines apply to biomedical information only and for pointing me in the direction of more relevant guidelines for these type of assertions. Considering all of your advice, would the page moderators be open to receiving views from the other side of the coin, provided that the sources were of equal validity to the ones used to cite these opinions? For example, online articles or quotes from professionals in the field? Regards Geophid (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

equal validity probably doesn't apply. WP:FRINGE does apply, making it extremely difficult to present any other side of the coin. Wikipedia strives to be a mainstream encyclopedia.

You can always identify potential references here on the talk page for discussion, and propose edits based upon those potential refs. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Geophid, Wikipedia is always open to anyone's input, but as Ronz notes, WP:FRINGE does apply to this area, so we aren't aiming to give balanced coverage to both sides of the coin. If you would like to propose some additions, with appropriate sources, I'd be happy to review them with an open mind. Remember though that not all online articles have the same level of reliability - the ones cited above are respected national newspapers, and Quackwatch - you can search the Reliable sources noticeboard archive for many previous discussions of that site, it's generally accepted as reliable in this area. Girth Summit (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz and Girth Summit for your time and advice. Greatly appreciated. Look forward to future discussions. Regards, Geophid 110.142.42.40 (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Snake Oil

As has been pointed out in edit description, the snake oil image is probably undue. That naturopathy is pseudoscience is well established in the article, and while much of it would accurately be described as "snake oil" (there's probably a reliable source somewhere that does) given that it's come to mean any "worthless concoction sold as medicine", but an image of Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment itself seems unsupported. --tronvillain (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Images are intended to be supplements to the article's content, but the topic of the image should be referenced in the article. If the article mentioned that naturopathy is often panned by its critics as being akin to snake oil, then an image of Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment might be relevant. Since it is not, I agree that removal is warranted. Matt18224 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This was highlighted to me in a recent IRL conversation with another Wikipedia editor. No idea if she is a Naturopathy fan or not, but I agreed with her that the snake oil image was undue because: 1) lack of reference anywhere in the article to clark stanley or 'snake oil', and 2) following a search I could find no characterisation of Clark Stanley as a 'Naturopath' in any sources I could find, nor any sources linking him or his snake oil to 'Naturopathy'. I have seen some sources linking the term "snake oil" to Naturopathy,[1] or describing Naturopathic remedies as 'snake oil' (again, using the generic term).[2] However, this doesn't appear to connect directly to Clark Stanley's snake oil. Of course, Clark Stanley's Liniment didn't actually contain any Snake Oil, and in chinese medicine the claims about what actual snake oil is meant to treat is much more limited and even somewhat credible.[3][4] In general the most we could say is that Naturopathic remedies are often referred to by the pejorative term 'snake oil' and then link to Clark Stanley's article as the origin of the term; but that seems slightly off topic, slightly WP:SYNTH, and moreover, based on the NPR and Scientific American sources, somewhat inaccurate when it comes to real (genuine-honest-to-got-I-swear) 'snake oil'. In general, given all of this, I think we should really steer clear of the Clark Stanley snake oil image. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The specific historic brand is admittedly off-topic, but there is a need for some contextual explanation of the pejorative. The term "snake oil" is certainly in use for many kinds of alt-med including naturopathic-accepted modalities.[5][6][7][8] Clearly it is used in a figurative sense, but the story that "natural" concoctions are often inaccurately labeled is a very old one which continues today. The question is how to present it.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Request edit

The way this article is written pictures naturopathy as a form of magic that, according to some strange people, is the true medicine and the traditional medicine is a lie. I think this article shows the thought of one person that doesn't know what he/she is talking about and only wants to discredit it. This is not how a Wikipedia article should look like. I would suggest somone who knows more about naturopathy to edit this "article" and make it a valid source of informations. John Fawn (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Formulate your request in the form of "Change A to B", and provide references to reliable sources that verify the change you want to make. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not only magic, but dangerous magic. Read about Britt Marie Hermes referenced in this article. She trained in this bunk, and then saw the light. A brave woman. RobP (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is not a forum, please. PepperBeast (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable and scientific sources on this topic are overwhelmingly critical of naturopathy, and this balance is represented in the article. There have been arguments in the past that the article should give equal credence to pro-naturopathy and anti-naturopathy viewpoints, but this does not proportionally represent the population of reliable sources on the topic. The arguments of naturopathy proponents are indeed represented in the article, but as the anti-naturopathy viewpoint is endorsed by the vast majority of reputable scientific and medical organizations, this viewpoint is covered much more extensively in the article. Matt18224 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Credibility Issues in Multiple Sources

Sources 18 and 38 depict the opinion of "Brit Hermes", and therefore are classified as original research, according to Wikipedia. Source 18 is used for the majority of defamatory criticism against naturopathy. Such opinionated statements as "The primary impact of naturopathy is negative" lack evidence to support this claim.

Sources 88 and 89 quote articles that represent the opinion of the author, which therefore fall under the category of original research, according to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturopathy Fact Checker (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

These are not original research - the text is cited to sources and passes WP:V. A topic cannot be "defamed". Alexbrn (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

There should be a page exclusively for Licensed Naturopathic Doctors. I searched for Naturopathic Doctor, and was referred to Naturopathy. These are not the same.

Please add: Licensed Naturopathic Doctors use some of the world's ancient tools of medicine (i.e. chinese medicine, ayurvedic medicine), they are also trained in current basic sciences from 4 year nationally accredited medical schools, and must adhere to strict licensing standards in the state in which they are licensed to practice. Naturopathic Physicians do not persuade against modern medical practices, they will instead use treatments that are the least invasive first and teach prevention of disease and how to optimize wellness to their patients. EDA2Z (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:NOPAGE these aspects make more sense when treated in a single article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is completely biased, it doesn't even try to be impartial. Since WP is an encyclopedia and should be impartial, this article needs a lot of work. The intro expresses a lot of value judgements and opinions which have no place in an encyclopedia. I deleted the bit about "psuedoscientific" in the intro because it is typical of the bias in this article. How did this article ever get published? The encyclopedic approach would be to describe the subject and what it is all about, then look at the different points of view.

Sardaka (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The content you object to accurately summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about naturopathy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Why did you just delete my reply to you? Sardaka (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

He didn't. See here. You probably made a mistake when you wrote it, since it never made it here. See here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased toward being an encyclopedia. Some editors object to this, but that bias isn't going to change. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe this Wikipedia ruling applies to naturopathy:

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. RobP (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Four groups

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

All they have to do is tone it down a bit. The tone is too shrill and tendentious, which is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. No other encyclopedia would carry an article written in a tone like this.

There, I've had my say. Now I'll leave the article to the gatekeepers who control it, and who make sure it stays the way it is. Have a nice day, guys. Sardaka (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Learn to format your posts properly. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Biased article

This article has many negative opinions being presented as absolute truth. Why not take a neutral stance, and give “criticism” and “support” their own sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B001:6D7C:8DD6:23CB:8405:F83C (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and maybe WP:Lunatic Charlatans. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace. It is far too negative. We don’t yet know what we don’t know. Galileo was considered crazy when he said the earth was not flat. Many people still think the body is a machine and not a living organism with feelings and a mind. Dantalus (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your five sentences are, in order, Appeal to emotion, Proof by assertion, Argument from ignorance/Vacuous truth, Galileo gambit, Irrelevant conclusion. Also, you got Galileo's problem with the authorities wrong; he was not about the shape of the Earth but about its movement.

Also, look at the three pages linked to by Alexbrn, just above your own empty rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

Good Day, The top section, the first entry of Naturopathy is very offensive, miss leading and untrue. Pleas replace it with the fallowing:

Naturopathic medicine is a science-based, traditional modality that promotes wellness by identifying the unique aspect of each individual. It is a dynamic philosophy and profession that recognizes the interconnection of all living things. It utilizes the utmost natural, but least toxic and invasive therapies to treat illness and promote healing by approaching the body as an integrated whole, to restore physiological, and structural balance. Naturopathy is a distinct and complete system of health care. And It follows six foundational principles of which underpin the practice of Naturopathy: 1. First, Do No Harm (Primum non nocere) Utilizes the utmost natural, but least toxic and invasive therapies 2. The Healing Power of Nature (Vis medicatrix naturae) Trust in the bodies inherited wisdom to heal it self 3. Identify and Treat the Causes (Tolle causam) Look beyond the symptoms and identify, address and remove the underlying causes of the disease. 4. Doctor as Teacher (Docere) Educating and supporting patients. 5. Treat the Whole Person (Tolle totum) The holistic concept that recognizes the body as an integrated whole. 6. Prevention (Praevenic)

Promote a focus on overall health, wellness and disease prevention. Nadja.etter (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As for the "miss leading and untrue," can you please provide a source? DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is just plain biased and is not reflective of being an article in an encyclopedia. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia does not value the need for lack of bias. Dantalus (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dantalus, do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article? If so, please make the proposal here for the community to see. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

I feel as though this entire article is extremely biased, and Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. There is a lot of misinformation and misleading sentences that I have encountered. If one does not agree with naturopathy-fine. But Wikipedia is not meant to be an opinion piece, it is to relay FACTUAL information. This page is not doing that.

Specifically, please change a) the definition of naturopathy. It is not pseudoscience. b)Naturopaths are not anti-vaccine. There may be a few but it is misleading to say the whole profession is when its likely 2%.

b) naturopathy is scientific notions 

c) there are many medical professionals that deem the importance of naturopaths.

d) there should not be terms such as "quackery" in an unbiased page.
d) The malpractice rate of naturopaths is SIGNIFICANTLY less than MDs.

All in all, this whole page is very biased and cherry picked, but the description is the worst. The sources are also not good. 207.38.54.184 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish consensus before using the edit request template, per its instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", and as promoting "self-healing". The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on nature cure,it is drug-less treatment which is carried out by air, water, ether, sun rays etc.[1] Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.[2][3][4][5]

Naturopaths are campaigning for more recognition in the United States.[16]. In India, government recognizes it, a ministry called "Aush ministery has also been formed for the promotion of naturopathy. 27.6.209.149 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not an edit request. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A more accurate representation of Naturopathy

This talk page is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Naturopathy is a medical practice that focuses on preventive medicine, herbal treatments, and holistic care. While some who are not familiar with the official practice call it pseudoscience, naturopathy is fairly similar to Western medical practice, with an emphasis in treating the whole person, rather than symptoms, and focuses heavily on nutrition, lifestyle, and preventive practices. Naturopathic doctors (NDs) are licensed to practice as primary care providers in 22 states in the US, currently. Licensed NDs practice standard of care, offering vaccines, antibiotics, etc. Generally, NDs work with chronic illnesses and provide complementary treatments. This means that they will offer treatment options in a addition to the standard-of-care drugs or procedures that are offered by and MD. There seems to be a bizarre agenda by people who have never experienced a licensed ND to promote a damning picture of the medical field. In fact, many MDs are evolving to practice more closely to the way an ND would. More emphasis on diet and exercise, self-care, mental health, and supplements is seen in Western medicine, practices that have been pillars of naturopathy. Naturopathic medical schools are extremely similar to MD programs, except they have additional schooling on medicinal herbs, nutrition, physical medicine, and other forms of complementary medicine. All ND students are taught that vaccines are vital, life changing treatments and that NDs should always offer and insist on standard of care. An obvious difference between NDs and MDs is that NDs are trained to primary care physicians only. Therefore it is unlikely to find an ND with works in acute care settings such as emergency rooms. The goal of naturopathy is to prevent disease and promote health. To attain this, NDs spend much longer with patients than MDs, offering time and attention to each patient to understand the full spectrum of their health history. NDs work to avoid acute disease, but they do not advise against treatment to save lives. Their holistic lens is helpful for many with chronic conditions that have exhausted their options in Western medicine. As for evidence-based medicine, well over the majority of Western medicine practices have no evidence base. Many medical practices have even been proven ineffective by rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials, but are still in practice. Naturopathic medicine is similar to western medicine in that many of their practices are based on generations of practice rather than brought about through trials. Both allopathic and naturopathic medicines are currently highly focused on evidence-based practice, researching novel and established treatments and publishing results to further benefit medical practice. The National Institutes of Health offer millions of dollars of grants to complementary and natural medicine research as well as nutritional research, physical medicine research, and mental health research. Despite your assertions, most of what you said is overwhelmingly unsupported by reliable scientific evidence (and often contradicted by it), with some of it being blatantly false, which is why the article does not attempt to portray "both sides" as being equal in validity. Medical professionals overwhelmingly reject naturopathy as a valid form of medicine; its recognition by state governments is an indicator of public pressure and ideology, not scientific validity. If herbs and plants were capable of treating all these conditions as you have mentioned, pharmaceutical companies would have studied, extracted, and made drugs based on them, similar to what has happened with cannabis and its drug-equivalents, Marinol and Epidiolex, for example. The simple fact of the matter is that drugs have to be rigorously proven to not only be safe, but also work better than placebo before they're allowed to be marketed as drugs; plants do not and very frequently suffer from the placebo effect. Dietary supplements are also generally panned by medical professionals. Naturopathy falls clearly under pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE. The article provides an accurate representation of widely-accepted medical opinions about naturopathy; it is not part of a "bizarre agenda" as you claim. If you have reliable, rigorously-sourced information that you believe would contribute to the article, feel free to add it, but know that adding your opinions and information sourced from pro-naturopathy outlets and "journals" will likely be reverted because these are not valid sources. Matt18224 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Matt18224 that this is not a forum, why do we engage people indulging in these unsourced rantings? ∯WBGconverse 18:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is naturpathy termed as pseudoscience

It has to be changed .since it is providing a wrong information. All The treatments like nutrition and dietetics, hydrotherapy, physiotherapy , acupuncture , works scientifically. I request you to please delete the word pseudoscience. Nimilitta (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please delete the word pseudoscience. Nimilitta (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Please read the rest of this page to see why. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I second what Roxy said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

BIAS

To all you biased "editors" who control this article: Do you think the people who use Wiki as an encyclopedia are completely stupid? Do you think they don't know bias when they see it? Well, you're wrong, guys. They DO know bias when they see it, and they can see it in this article. You're wasting your time, guys, trying to maintain the bias of this article. Everyone except you can see the bias. You can control this article and delete the edits by people who try to change it, but you can't control the readers, and they know bias when they see it. PS: I presume all you people are doctors who are biased against natural therapies. I've noticed over the years, at Wiki, there is a bias against natural therapies; this article is just one example among many.

Sardaka (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[9][10]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The response shows a level of ignorance towards what true science is. True science considers uncertainty and acknowledges challenges in experimentation. To point to peer reviewed journals as the arbiter of science is laughable given the bias in the publication process and the number of published studies that can’t be replicated. Instead, in medicine, some value should be placed on the experience of a population. The same arguments as above were made against all kinds of alternative medicine until enough people, including many scientists, called out the bias. I have a PhD in civil engineering and a masters in seismology. After being told for years that a medical problem was all it head by MDs, a naturopath (who worked in a traditional practice) found my problem, which was actually not all that uncommon. Biased articles do not help people. They harm. Had a believed this article, I would still be sick. Amkammerer (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So, when you study civil engineering and seismology, you become an expert on "true science"? Weird. I thought "experience" was just a word for uncontrolled data collection filtered through the cognitive biases of the people involved, and that science was all about avoiding error sources like that. If you are right, medical scientists should not learn about science, but about "true science" - they should not study medicine and statistics but civil engineering and seismology instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Article breaks 'Neutral point of view' rule

Contentless complaint moving to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view It's very telling that the mods here are unable to act on removing this bias, allowing their own rules on neutral point of view to be broken. They've categorized the article as 'Health fraud', and also more biased choices in 'See Also' section. They've also locked edits so no one can even attempt to remove the bias. Shame on you all. The people can see through this clear bias and censorship - it only hurts Wikipedia's nonexistent credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammervic39 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) You haven't provided examples so we could examine your problem. A sentence or phrase, something we can get a handle on. Yes? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC) But that assumes you're actually interested in the truth or at least being neutral - which is clearly not true simply by looking at other comments you've made. Other users have pointed out reasons it's biased, you're just not interested. It's clear to anyone with a sound/neutral mind that this article is as biased as it gets. You're simply a rogue dog hell-bent on power and censorship. What a joke this article is. I won't respond to you any further - wikipedia advises not to engage with trolls. Have fun playing your little game. -Slammervic39 —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Judgemental Text

The article is far from impartial, and reads as if the author is attempting to make a judgemental standpoint.

It is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia in its current form, and should be fully revised.

It's great, and so shouldn't be changed or messed with.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Roxy is clearly just here to troll people. Wouldn't be surprised if they were being paid to censor/control this article -Slammervic39 —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This write up is very biased and inaccurate. It should be removed or heavily edited. There is no useful information provided. Amkammerer (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

POV concerns

Someone seriously needs to flag this article as biased, especially the opening paragraph. (I would but it appears that I don't have the permissions.) I'm not an expert in the field, nor am I an active proponent of naturopathy, but I can recognize bias. There are several different types of Naturopaths, some of which are indeed quackery and some of which are formerly educated, board certified, state licensed, etc and who undergo rigorous science based traditional medical training. This article lumps the entire concept of naturopathy into the quackery camp and in every paragraph is written to discredit the naturopathic approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roostafari (talk • contribs)

Hello @Roostafari:. So what specific change to the article are you proposing to help resolve this issue? And what source(s) are you citing to backup that change? --McSly (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@McSly, I suspect you won't get an answer. These kinds of bias complaints about this article are frequent, but are never substantiated with any reliable sources by the complainant. The article as written accurately reflects reliable scientific consensus on the topic, which views naturopathy as quackery; the complaints are often just the no true Scotsman fallacy ad nauseum. That said, if reliable, rigorously-tested sources relevant to this topic can be provided, I would be in support of including them, but the bar is set quite high per WP:FRINGE. Matt18224 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, That's fine. Just following the process. --McSly (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This PDF lists 20 incorrect statements in this article, providing sources and explanations. At the very least, I propose these incorrect statements be amended. https://www.naturopathic.org/files/Naturopathy%20Wikipedia%20for%20Presentation%20Jan%202018.pdf. These kinds of bias complaints about this article may frequent because they are valid complaints. "Reliable scientific consensus" is not a good enough reason to allow such bias on what is suppoeded to be a neutral platform. Considering that more than two-thirds of "true science" researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, the bar may not be as high as you set it. "Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time." (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) Slammervic93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammervic39 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Inaccurate statement: “Over the years, many practitioners of naturopathic medicine have been found criminally liable in the courts of law around the world.”

Wikipedia Violations • Violates validity- no citation • Violates neutral point of view • Does not align with content that would be appropriate/relevant to include in a lead section because would not be representative of a large professional majority. Slammervic39 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content removed. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Remove or ammend inaccurate statement: “Naturopathic medicine is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and possibly harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice.”

Wikipedia Violations:

- Violates neutral point of view: Fails to provide unbiased, balanced information that is representative of the majority of naturopathic doctors. This is an article written by someone who, according to Wikipedia, is an “active skeptic” and “outspoken critic of naturopathy”. Understandably, the author writes from a biased perspective. He often uses loaded language, draws inaccurate and unverified conclusions from the sources he cites, and states his opinions as facts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimball_Atwood)

- Inappropriate content placement - This is a criticism of the page’s topic which is not appropriate content to include in the lead section of an article. If a critical concept is deemed important (applying to the majority) and verifiable enough to include in an article, it should be included in a specific section aimed at addressing any related controversy. In such a section, an author should provide a clear and unbiased description that gives equal weight to different sides, citing verifiable, non-biased sources, which represent the relevant majorities. According to Wikipedia, the lead section “should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Style

- Violates original research - cites biased perspective article with author’s personal interpretations Slammervic39 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please read WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Naturopathic doctors don't have the final say about their practice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Remove “Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of pseudoscientific, alternative medicine that employs an array of practices branded as ‘natural’, ‘non-invasive’, and as promoting ‘self-healing’."

Wikipedia Violations - Violates verifiability policy - no citation provided Slammervic39 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a CN tag. I can't delete the opening sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why can you not delete the opening sentence if it is in direct violation of Wikipedia's content policies? Slammervic39 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be an opening sentence. You can propose a rewrite using a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Remove "Naturopaths often recommend exposure to naturally occurring substances, such as sunshine, herbs and certain foods, as well as activities they describe as natural, such as exercise, meditation and relaxation. Naturopaths claim that these natural treatments help restore the body's innate ability to heal itself without the adverse effects of conventional medicine."

Wikipedia Violation

- Violates verifiability policy. No citation provided. Slammervic39 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done QuackGuru has added a citation needed tag to the statement. Philroc (c) 14:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Under the section "Licensed Naturopaths", please replace "aspiring naturopathic physicians need to complete medical school" with "aspiring naturopathic physicians need to complete school of naturopathy". Schools of naturopathy are not medical schools and "school of naturopathy" is the term used by the CT department of public health-not "medical school". 2607:B400:2E:0:780B:CDE7:4419:A883 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done You're quite right. I've updated the study and examination requirements to match what the source actually says. PepperBeast (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Clear bias: 20 inaccurate statements and 6 statements that are incomplete or inappropriately placed or included

This article contains incorrect and/or misleading information that violates Wikipedia’s own policies and guidelines. Further, the page has been “frozen” by Wikipedia until 2019, which effectively silences anyone with accurate, verified information, at least within the Wikipedia platform.

This PDF by the Instritute for Natural Medicine, which by all accounts should be included in the article, clearly with sources demonstrates just how many content violations exist in this article.

https://www.naturopathic.org/files/Naturopathy%20Wikipedia%20for%20Presentation%20Jan%202018.pdf

On the basis of neutrality, these statements must be included in the article. However I fully anticipate this not to happen, and I'll likely be banned for posting this, and this post deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammervic39 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Slammervic39. The article is not "frozen". Any autoconfirmed editor in good standing can edit the article. There are 1.7 million autoconfirmed editors, though most are inactive. The article is semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. As for the "Institute for Natural Medicine", that does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. See WP:MEDRS. You will not be blocked or banned unless you violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction then, it's frozen to "most" users. Only "approved editors" can change it. Very different. "Vandalism" is a false reason. The entire article is "vandalism". The very first sentence in the article has no source provided yet it is allowed to remain because that's what shows up on the exerpt in Google search results. Can you please explain to readers why that sentence is allowed? The PDF I linked to provides many examples of policy violations in this article - the source is irrelevant and a poor excuse to ignore the evidence. For example, the statement “The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and self-healing, rather than evidence-based medicine.” violates neutral point of view by citing perspective/personal opinion article, and as a result lacks verifiability. I already know that none of the bias in this article will be removed for even the most legitimate reason. That's the entire purpose of Wikipedia - information control. The founder of Wikipedia could say this article is biased - and nothing would change. Let's not play pretend any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammervic39 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction. The article will be unlocked: see "expires 08:09, 16 November 2019". There is no "founder of Wikipedia". That's original research. You can copy the article in a sandbox and propose a rewrite. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The autoconfirmed edit status is granted automatically by the wiki software to any editor that meets that very low threshold, Slammervic39. If you think that the Institute for Natural Medicine is a reliable source, then please go to the Reliable sources noticeboard and see what the community thinks about it. As for the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales does not decide on article content. That is decided by the consensus of editors in good standing who are interested in each article. As it has always been for the last 18 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The mods on this article just admitted that the source I provided was accurate in its descriptions of wikipedia policy violations present in this article - by removing a sentence from the article that did not provide a citation. This was a direct example given in the PDF that I linked to. So, by the mods own actions, the source listing the policy violations was reliable in this matter. How that sentence stood there for so long in violation of Wikipedia's policies beggars belief especially considering how tightly controlled this article is. That in itself is an example of bias present in the editors that put this article together. -[[User:Slammervic39|Slammervic39]

The lede needs a major rewrite. Who is going to spend over 10 hours reading numerous sources and rewriting the lede for this article? If it was simple I could do this myself. QuackGuru (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slammervic39: Where did you get the idea that there are "mods on this article"? There are no "moderators". If you mean wp:Administrators, they serve a different (rather more janatorial) function. Perhaps if you ramp down your indignation a bit and look around at policies (starting from the five pillars) or even at other articles' talkpages, you might see that decision making on Wikipedia is by a process of wp:Consensus. One key part of gaining such consensus is recognizing that the vast majority of editors are here trying to get thing right, though none of us are infallible. Most accomplishments are by small increments, particulary on topics that can be controversial: identify current, high-quality medical sources; find things they say that belong in the article; suggest restatements in original wording to avoid copyright issues; cite the sources; and be prepared to discuss your considered improvements with other editors who may in good faith see them as problematic. Such discussions commonly take weeks or months to reach conclusions. You will see many such if you read the archives of controversial articles' talkpages. Patience is essential on Wikipedia (yes, I see the irony). Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ QuackGuru--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

To some extent the preclusion of publications by an interested party hurts articles like this. Case in point, most biomedical journals and medical research journals ("unbiased" sources) are funded, if not in whole, largely by interested parties on the other side of this argument (pharmaceutical companies or institutions who receive funding from them). While there is little or no documentation for this, it is a fact that pharmaceutical and medical technology companies often "gift" recent MD graduates with their first stethoscope and other such relatively small items. It is often a quid pro quo where the newly minted doctors understand that, if they don't recommend the medicines or products manufactured by these companies, they will have a difficult time finding a hospital that will hire them or even take them on for their residency. Erflover (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum: the government maintains a database of medical research articles at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed these articles might be able to back up claims by NDs and homeopathic (read holistic) MDs. However, it will not refute the claims against the specific associations or their members. I.e. it might vindicate their claim, but not the individual's reputation as a "quack." Erflover (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Naturopathy changes

I'm inviting 178.40.136.239 here because they have made some recent changes [11], [12], [13] that introduce what I think is a certain level of bias into the article. I don't think putting "quackery" into the article summary is appropriate. Note that this IP - I'm assuming it's the same editor - has done some good work in the past fighting vandalism and adding content to articles. I'm not much of an interested party, I just want to get the ball rolling on WP:CONSENSUS. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored what seems a better version of the opening from January. We should mention this is pseudoscientific and is called quackery in the lede; adding quackery in the short desc is probably over the top. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is NOT a Neutral Article

This entire article is riddled with bias and completely false on so many counts that I am not bothering to go point by point. If Wikipedia's standard is too provide a neutral definition of a subject, how is this article acceptable as written? This article should be re-written to remove all bias immediately or alternately- should be fully removed.

To paint with a broad stroke, this article says in many instances that Naturopathy is pseudoscience, a hoax, a fraud a sham. Really? Talk about fraud! This entire article is fraud. 100% biased against. And in this day and age? Who wrote this? Uneducated, un-evolved people. Anyone who has ever been treated by Naturopathy, as well as most doctors with a Western medical degree will likely acknowledge simply that Naturopathy is a form of medicine that takes a holistic approach to the body and the mind and treats with age old techniques and plants to evoke optimal health. Modern day medicine too uses plants and herbs, they are simply repackaged into pharmaceuticals. Western medicine also uses many of the techniques that Naturopathy uses- they simply categorize many of the disciplines as 'specialties'. Naturopaths are also certified doctors.

Many of us in the world have been healed of complicated diseases (that Western medicine is not equipped to tackle) only by seeing Naturopaths. We might find Western Medical doctors to be so narrow minded, or specialized, as to be useless in the face of such complex chronic disease. People like us who have been healed such might write a Wiki article that says that Western Medicine is a fraud and a scam to make the Pharmaceutical Industry outrageous amounts of money. If we were to write that article it would be no more biased, fantastic or fraudulent than is this current Wikipedia article on Naturopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyD1266 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You couldn't write such an article here because of Wikipedia's WP:PAGs, which this article is well aligned with; it has hundreds of authors and has been evolved over many years. I suggest reading the WP:PAGs, particularly WP:NPOV to see what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. But for a quickstart, maybe see WP:FLAT. If you want to advocate for naturopathy, Wikipedia is not the place. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources used for this article are written by people who know more than you. They know that the conclusion "have been healed of complicated diseases [..] only by seeing Naturopaths" is called post hoc ergo propter hoc - if you got better while seeing a naturopath, that does not mean you got better because of your seeing a naturopath.

They come to different conclusions because they are better informed than you and know more than you about what can go wrong when trying to figure out things. Because science is an occupation you have to learn before you can do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Strong bias

Hello there, I'm not an expert on naturopathy, it's something that I've used to great effect to help my pets (when conventional approaches haven't worked) and it's made me very interested in the subject. I came to the net to find out more since it's a big subject and was pleased to see an article about it on Wikipedia, which, to date, I've always found to be an excellent source of information. I was very taken aback to see that the article has been written by somebody with a strong bias against naturopathy. I'm not saying that none of the points are valid, I don't know enough to make that call, but the article very definitely isn't neutral which both surprised and disappointed me. I will think twice before turning to Wikipedia now as a source of objective information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgwenMatty (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed yes, we are biased. Towards reality. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It is neutral in that it reflects what mainstream sources say, which is that naturopathy is largely based on pseudoscientific notions, nonsensical, and that its practitioners promote many harmful and unsound ideologies (e.g., anti-vaccination sentiments, homeopathy, herbalism, etc). I'm sorry to hear that it doesn't jive with your experience, many people say that about CAM modalities, but the facts are clear. As Roxy said, we reflect what's real and naturopathy simply isn't effective.

I am practicing naturopathy since six years..it is not fair that you mentioned this evidence based medicine as a pseudo science...I am naturopathy paractioner,it is the best cure for all the non- communicable disorders, kindly please such idiotic informations..and you all are aware of autophagy and japanese researcher who got noble prize for fasting.. it's all about naturopathy practices ..don't underestimate our system without following Aishwaryailavarasan (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Naturopathy is not evidence-based. It is pseudoscience and several well-respected sources say as much. The information is correct and will remain in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The best way to combat this argument on both sides is to include information not only on the skeptics side but on the naturopathic's side. If I can find any sources for naturopathy (or anyone else can), please feel free to include them. The best way to make sure that the article has balanced information is to improve it as such. Articles usually include both a criticisms section as well as a supporting section. This would be an excellent way to fix this.I understand and respect those on both sides of the argument.

Related Articles: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Naturopathy https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/medicine/general/terms/naturopathy https://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/what-is-naturopathic-medicine#1 https://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/what-is-naturopathic-medicine#2-4 https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/naturopathy Research: https://web.archive.org/web/20150331190355/http://www.health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23630244 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045817?dopt=Abstract https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/research-results https://www.usenature.com/naturopathy-scientific-evidence.html

DNocterum (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do "both sides" for fringe ideas, because of core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn is correct - we don't present both sides as equal when reliable sources don't present them as equal. The idea that we would use a sites such as citizendium, infoplease or usernature as a source flies in the face of RS (and it's MEDRS that you really need to read). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias

This piece is far more bias than anything I've ever seen on WikiPedia. I am working toward a traditional Doctor of Medicine degree, and there are many treatments on the MD side that aren't as supported as we have been lead to believe. This article is heavily slanted and unfair in its assessment of naturopathy. It has fraud as a category. There are licensed practitioners who use scientific research to prescribe treatment for patients. Dietary and lifestyle changes, stress reduction, herbs and supplements, exercise therapy, and counseling are some of the naturopathic treatments used by licensed practitioners of naturopathic medicine, as well as traditional medical doctors. I don't see the same unfair treatment of MDs in this article. This article needs to be rewritten by someone who will remain neutral. There is a clear anger in the writing that makes me question Wikipedia as a future source. This isn't about naturopathy; It's about keeping the spirit and intent of Wikipedia whole. All I see here is the bias I've come to expect from modern media. This article is clearly a passive aggressive attack and is unjust in how it portrays an entire field of medicine. Mattkwarren (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Please provide strong citations that will pass MEDrs if you cannot this is just soapboxing. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ajpolino (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, this pertains to this removal which is further explained at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 December 14. The warning parts of this message are more-or-less a formality since the offending text was added 12 years ago by an account that has been dormant since 2011. Thanks to Tronvillain for rapidly replacing the copyvio text with a new summary! Ajpolino (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Article is unhelpful, and mainly a mix of conjecture and opinions rather than being encyclopaedia worthy

[Removing content copied from User_talk:Bonadea#Naturopathy – please do not copy other people's posts, but linking to other discussions is fine]

See discussion below. --bonadea contributions talk 12:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Is healthy eating advice and exercise really pseudoscience?

These are accepted as mainstream views to improving one's health. Equally the founders advocated avoidance of tobacco - is this pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjowett (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's common for pseudosciences to co-opt elements of rationality; it all helps with the pitch. The question of whether Naturopathy is pseudoscientific is decided by sources that consider the question. From what I see, those sources see Naturopathy as a grand collection of pseudoscientific concepts. If you want to dispute that it falls under the WP:FRINGE guidance, the place for wider discussion is WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

These are not elements, they are founding principles. Still on the plus side, at least there is consensus that elements of naturopathy are rational. That is progress. Rmjowett (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

This article is laid out to be misleading to anyone simply trying to find out what a Naturopath is (as I have done today). The first (and undoubtedly most read) page suggests "pseudoscience" and an overall negative opinion. Yet later in the same article, therefore clearly edited by a known and trusted user, it is clear that not all Naturopaths are "quacks" nor are they focused on the contraversial Homeopathy (as the main picture suggests). The more accurate info is harder to find and requires the reader to scroll and search out any evidence to the contrary. Further down the article, it is clear that there are acredited Naturopaths and proper institutes of training, as well as trained professional Naturopathic doctors. I believe this article has been laid out with a lot of bias and someone who has editing abilties for this article should look into this 2A02:C7D:BBB2:9800:BDAA:F152:EC93:3753 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with needing to change this article. It is highly biased, at least the start, giving the reader the impression that naturopaths are dangerous kooks. Please mark this article with a warning that it may contain biased and one-sided opinions and views on the subject. Otherwise this article represents exactly what Wikipedia is worst at (talk about dangerous) and I will consider discontinuing my monthly contribution. Dave100000000 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidences and proof

Naturopathy is not a pseudo science. It is an evidence based system of medicine. Naveenamuthan (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any evidence that it's evidence based? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many publications that are peer-reviewed, controlled studies comparing outcomes. A few links are below. Where is the evidence that Naturopathic Medicine is not 'evidence-based'? So, NDs are guilty of being 'pseudoscientists' until proven innocent? If NDs are 'quacks' then why are they licensed to practice medicine? Naturopathic Doctors practice in conventional care settings, alongside MDs. Maybe the author of this article is confused about those who complete credentialed programs and those who study 'online' or via correspondence and are given titles of "Naturopath" but these are not healthcare professionals and they don't gain licensure. In Washington State, and others, Naturopathic Doctors are fully integrated into the healthcare system, contracting with insurance companies to provide primary care. I am a ND and have 18 peer-reviewed papers. I have many colleagues with the same or more. Many are engaged in research at major institutions such as the University of California, The University of Washington, Oregon Health Sciences Center, Bastyr University, etc. . .

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24899792/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19500011/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24899792/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22070439/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16597192/ [threat redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.115.97 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue, and you'll be blocked if you make further threats. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is completely biased. The last commenter had good points and then there’s reference to some kind of threat? I doubt it. Can someone please get in here and bring some balance to this sorry excuse for an encyclopedia-like article? Dave100000000 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Highly biased - urgent request to fix

Can someone please get in here and bring some balance to this sorry excuse for an encyclopedia-like article? It should be marked, at a minimum, with a warning that it may contain highly biased viewpoints on the subject. The introductory paragraphs, which is all most will ever read, should be rewritten to indicate varying points of view exist on the subject and that many accredited training schools and peer-based reviews exist, just like mainstream health care. For evidence see the other comments here, and also bump forward into the introductory section more of the balanced information found later in the article. Otherwise this article appears to make naturopaths look like dangerous unscientific kooks rather than the holistic health professionals that they are, and many of whom have the same length of training as mainstream MDs. Dave100000000 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Dave100000000:, to make this request useful, please provide specific changes. Make sure that they are in the form of "Please change X with Y" or "please insert X between Y and Z" followed by the reliable sources used to back up the changes. Keep in mind that no change will happen to the article without those sources. --McSly (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the phrase "dangerous unscientific kooks", is there any way we can incorporate it into the article? It does seem appropriate. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

"employs an array of pseudoscientific [THIS STATEMENT IS UNSUPPORTED] practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". Tperego (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It's supported repeatedly throughout the article. See references 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 42, 55, 63-65, and 99-102 (and probably most of the rest of them as well). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

Change: Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM).[2] Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.[3][4][5][6] Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.

Change to: Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of medicine that employs an array of practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". The ideology and methods of naturopathy are incorporate vitalism and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Naturopathic practitioners do not recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery. Instead, they often prescribe these therapies. Naturopathic practice relies on scientific notions, and are trained in diagnosis to a similar extent as medical doctors. 2001:569:7F05:9300:5DF1:375:5BB:41E5 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also note that the existing paragraph, in contrast to what you have proposed, is supported by several sources and probably doesn't need a rewrite at the moment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

1. Take out the word "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence as there have been many studies showing the efficacy of natural remedies (JAMA has articles and pubmed: Perceived efficacy of herbal remedies by users accessing primary healthcare in Trinidad - YClement 2007).

2. In the second sentence, change "The ideology and methods..." to "The original ideology and methods..."

3. After the second sentence, add "Naturopathic physicians are currently the only medically trained doctors to learn both synthetic medicine and natural medicine for prescriptions." Source is https://www.oanp.org

4. "The progression of professional naturopathic medicine in the 21st century... [includes] principles [that] are laudable in the age of patient-centered care..." North American naturopathic medicine in the 21st century: Time for a seventh principle - Scientia Critica, A. Logan, D.L. Katz, et. al. Science Direct, Vol. 14, Issue 5, September 2018, Pg. 367-372

As others have mentioned, this article reads extremely biased and could use updating. I hope the sources I have mentioned above will assist with providing the world a more accurate description of naturopathic medicine. JulyBoltz (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean we have to present both sides of issues like this as equals. That would actually be undue weight and not neutral. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Still there are facts to add regardless of giving the other point of view and sources were given. JulyBoltz (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Then bring sources that meet our sourcing requirements that support your claim about facts, and we will be able to incorporate these previously unknown facts. The sourcing requirements for medically related claims are WP:MEDRS. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Highly biased article

Shouldn't all the critics be resumed in a separate "Criticism" topic? Just as most of the other pseudotherapies pages. Pardon my English, I saw this article in Spanish originally and started wondering if the "critics" creator was from the Spanish language community but it was just a translation. Cheers 86.31.129.127 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally not, per the advice at WP:CRITS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

I would like to add a citation for the call to remove the pseudoscientific study of homeopathy from the curriculum of all naturopathic schools (PMCID: PMC6343431, published in the Journal of Evidence Based Integrative Medicine, 2019). The URL for the paper is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343431/ Phigeas (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Primary source in fringe journal; would need some secondary attention to esablish WP:WEIGHT. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request - Second Sentence of Lead

The citation used in the second sentence has issues as outlined below and should be updated.

The article's conclusions are drawn from interviews conducted in a small focus group with the authors and 4 alternative medicine practitioners/educators. The practitioners consist of 1 herbalist, 1 homeopath, 1 naturopath, and 1 educator in a naturopathic institution. The article presents these interviews along with summaries. An article with data from one practicing naturopath as well as one educator should not be considered a good source of information on the industry overall - especially for use in the lead of the article. Incidentally, the source is 15 years old at this point.

The authors of the article themselves state that they are not attempting to provide this type of information. Quoted from the article: "The authors do not claim to represent all CAM and naturopathic practitioners, because this is a paradigmatically di-verse group, but to the extent that these practitioners embrace holism and vitalism as core beliefs and practices, these views may be seen to resonate with what the authors contend is a more traditional standpoint. This perspective does not reject science, evidence, or empirical research, which will become more apparent in the following. Rather, the authors simply contend that these more traditionally based beliefs and practices are often marginalized and excluded by opponents and fellow practitioners keen to mainstream and/or scientize."

Essentially, Jagtenberg et al. are arguing that these positions are those held by practitioners with a more "traditional standpoint" and that these views are opposed by fellow practitioners as well as others.

Currently, this article is being used as a source for the statement "The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM)." [2]

Given that the authors of the article themselves argue that they are referring to a specific subset of practitioners in the field rather than the whole, and that the methodology of the article represents a very low level of evidence, this statement should be edited either through the use of reliable sources or to accurately reflect the content of the article it is currently citing. This would mean specifying that the article refers to a specific subset of those with a more "traditional standpoint".

E.yorke0 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

JAGTENBERG ET AL. Article

The citation used in the second sentence has issues as outlined below and should be updated.

The article's conclusions are drawn from interviews conducted in a small focus group with the authors and 4 alternative medicine practitioners/educators. The practitioners consist of 1 herbalist, 1 homeopath, 1 naturopath, and 1 educator in a naturopathic institution. The article presents these interviews along with summaries. An article with data from one practicing naturopath as well as one educator should not be considered a good source of information on the industry overall - especially for use in the lead of the article. Incidentally, the source is 15 years old at this point.

The authors of the article themselves state that they are not attempting to provide this type of information. Quoted from the article: "The authors do not claim to represent all CAM and naturopathic practitioners, because this is a paradigmatically di-verse group, but to the extent that these practitioners embrace holism and vitalism as core beliefs and practices, these views may be seen to resonate with what the authors contend is a more traditional standpoint. This perspective does not reject science, evidence, or empirical research, which will become more apparent in the following. Rather, the authors simply contend that these more traditionally based beliefs and practices are often marginalized and excluded by opponents and fellow practitioners keen to mainstream and/or scientize."

Essentially, Jagtenberg et al. are arguing that these positions are those held by practitioners with a more "traditional standpoint" and that these views are opposed by fellow practitioners as well as others.

Currently, this article is being used as a source for the statement "The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM)." [2]

Given that the authors of the article themselves argue that they are referring to a specific subset of practitioners in the field rather than the whole, and that the methodology of the article represents a very low level of evidence, this statement should be edited either through the use of reliable sources or to accurately reflect the content of the article it is currently citing. This would mean specifying that the article refers to a specific subset of those with a more "traditional standpoint". — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.yorke0 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@E.yorke0: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,400 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"generally recommend against following modern medical practices"

I am not here to wave the flag for alternative medicine and I strongly believe in science and the scientific method, but in the first paragraph it states that naturopathic practitioners "generally recommend against following modern medical practices" and lists vaccines, surgery, etc. The sources provided do not support this. I doubt that the majority of naturopathic practitioners tell patients not to get surgery if they need it. Maybe in certain cases, but to say "generally" is quite a disparaging statement that would need to be backed up with evidence. This part should be removed. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Checking the sources, I'm seeing pretty strong support for the sentence. You're right that the sources do NOT support the notion that naturopathic practitioners generally advise against surgery when the patient needs it, but that isn't what our article says either.

• Source 1"...the possibility that some CAM providers might advise against established conventional therapies, such as vaccination... Children present for naturopathic assessment for diverse reasons, are high-level consumers of CAM products, and have lower rates of vaccination than population averages."

This backs up the statement regarding vaccines, but does not support the word "generally".

• Source 2While the majority of the students were not averse to vaccination, we found in both colleges that anti-vaccination attitudes were more prevalent in the later years of the programs."

Same assessment.

• Source 3: "Previous studies have suggested that providers of alternative medicine may harbour anti-vaccination attitudes... We found that only 12.8% (40 of 312) of the respondents would advise full vaccination; however, 74.4% (232 of 312) of the respondents would advise partial vaccination. Importantly, both willingness to advise full vaccination and trust in public health and conventional medicine decreased in students in the later years of the programme."

This 'does' support "generally", as partial vaccination is contrary to recommended modern medical practices.

It is possible that the word "generally" should be changed to something less... general... but the overall statement appears to be true, and should likely not be removed in its entirety.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "commonly"? I would be inclined to say "too often", but that feels like editorializing.VdSV9•♫ 02:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with commonly. I think that communicates the idea (that it is a regular occurrence) without communicating any ideas about prevalence that may not be warranted. I'll make the change now; if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer "generally" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Those statements don't support "commonly" either. It's the minority of practitioners, so it does not belong in the lead at all. And the Naturopathic Association is explicitly in favor of COVID vaccines. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Commonly is perfectly suitable. It is an all-too-common occurrence, per the sources, especially source 3. Only 13% advise full vaccination. That's a majority advising against (at least some) vaccines.VdSV9•♫ 15:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the Naturopathic Associations official stance is to absolutely get vaccinated for COVID. Secondly, those were students, not practitioners being asked that in a survey, third, the fourth article was not in a scientific journal (no, the Skeptical Inquirer is not a journal), fourth, even if this were the case, it does not imply that surgery, and the other things mentioned belong in the sentence. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about Covid. One association taking a stance in favor of one vaccine doesn't change the history of naturopaths too often (even if it is a minority, it is often enough to make it too often) being anti-vaccines and anti-science. SI is not a journal, but it is a very reliable secondary source of information on these matters and this article in particular was written by two experts in the field. There are more references in the section Naturopathy#Vaccination. VdSV9•♫ 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not one association, though. It's the official association of Naturopaths, which is article's topic. If it's a minority, it does not hold weight in the lead. Bad doctors also "too often" recommend against vaccines, but should "commonly recommend against" that be included in the lead of the "Doctor" article? I wouldn't think so. Also, again, where does any source say anything about surgeries? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we intend to say "too common", we just intend to say "common". Common does not imply "more than not". It implies that it happens at a notable frequency, which the sources back up amply. All 3 sources currently in use support this. They did not support "generally", although I personally believe we could have found sources which did. If a change is warranted, new sources are probably warranted too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the sources above, we're using these in our article below the lede:

• Downey: "Children were significantly less likely to receive each of the four recommended vaccinations if they saw a naturopathic physician... published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination".
• Herzog: "They found that the physicians trained in naturopathy reported that they prescribed fewer vaccines... although the difference was not statistically significant. Likewise, the physicians trained in naturopathy had a significantly lower proportion of patients with up-to-date vaccinations "
• OANP "because naturopathic care is by definition patientcentered, many NDs will customize the vaccination schedule to address the patient’s risk factors, environment, and personal beliefs."  — Jess· Δ♥ 15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a big difference between "recommending against" something and not actively supporting something, and the second one said it was "not statistically significant". Seems clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk • contribs)

I included the 2nd because I'm trying to neutrally represent the sources and not push an agenda. All the sources listed so far (including that one) show that NDs give fewer vaccines than are recommended by the mainstream medical community. Their own literature even indicates as much. Your point in the RfC that these sources are focused on vaccines and not surgery is a good one. We absolutely should expand the sources to cover other treatments outside of vaccinations. Does anyone have any sources which cover that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's not in the sources (surgery) it should be removed. I assume you know that we don't write whatever we want on Wikipedia and then hope someone eventually finds a source for it. And I assume that if I were to remove "surgeries" you would have no objection? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're taking an antagonistic approach to this conversation. I'm not your enemy here. Since there is an open discussion about the topic which is attracting outside attention (because of your RfC), we should prefer to discuss changes and come to a consensus before making major alterations. I'm inviting others, including you, to do that, by providing new sources that might help us to word this section correctly. Boldly changing the lede without a consensus would confuse outside participants to the RfC that you started.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I should not have taken that tone and I appreciate you telling me that. I also appreciate that you're trying to bring sanity to this conversation. According to guidelines, at the very least a cn tag should be included "If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template ( will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. " Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A CN tag would probably be appropriate if we can't find sources immediately on hand. I don't know if it would help bring in new participants to this discussion (which is its purpose). I think we should probably take things slow while the discussion continues. In the meantime... A quick search for sources outside of ncbi turned up a few hits about surgery. Almost everything discussed ND's legal ability to perform "minor surgeries", and there was very little discussion of Naturopathy's view on major surgery. Several sources implied that NDs will delay surgery in favor of other treatments, but few stated in explicitly in a way we can use. I saw a couple statements from individual NDs saying that they personally don't avoid surgery, but that also doesn't really help us.

• Washington Post: "Naturopathic practitioners resist drugs and surgery, relying instead on giving patients lots of attention and personalized advice, and turning to a variety of “natural” or “holistic” treatments."
• evidencebasedmedicine.org: "the claim that they can treat cancer without the toxicity associated with known effective treatments for cancer, such as radiation, surgery, and, most feared of all, chemotherapy. Unfortunately, when patients with highly treatable cancers believe these claims, the result can be fatal"
• Medcape: "Naturopathy... discourages drugs and surgery in favor of supplements, herbs, and other so-called natural treatments."

I'd prefer something more scholarly than these if it exists, but I don't have the time to search right now.

Also worth noting that later in the article is a sentence claiming that all Naturopaths always completely avoid surgery or drugs, which isn't true, and should be softened. I don't have access to the first source for that sentence, but the 2nd didn't back it up. Can anyone view the first source and see what it says?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are good finds and do appear to back up the surgery statement. I would point out that the WaPo was bylined by Consumer Reports, and Medscape is owned by WebMD which should be cited with caution. But these are great finds and certainly come as a surprise to me. I still think "recommend against" implies they tell people not to get surgery who need it, and I think "resist" would be better, if true (which I still don't see any actual data cited by Consumer Reports or WebMD). As for the other sentence you found later in the article, that's a good point, and I agree. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

the first article cited for this statement: "Characteristics of Pediatric and Adolescent Patients Attending a Naturopathic College Clinic in Canada" is out of date. The naturopathic clinic the research was done at was in Toronto, ON. As of 2015, Naturopaths in Ontario (including the ones at this particular student clinic) are no longer allowed by law to discuss vaccinations with patients as it falls outside of their scope. From the policy doc:

"As a result, when asked by a patient about vaccinations, members shall inform the patient that vaccinations are outside of the scope of naturopathic practice and that the patient should consult with a health professional who has the ability within his/her scope of practice. The member shall refer the patient to a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario who holds a certificate of registration as a registered nurse in the extended class or a member of another health profession College where vaccinations are within the scope of practice who may provide information about the vaccination as well as deliver the vaccination, should the patient elect to proceed in that manner." linked here: https://cono.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PP04.0a-Vaccination.pdf So the data in this article hasn't been relevant for the last 6 years. E.yorke0 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

This article is severely biased and defamatory against naturopathic medicine and is not in line with Wikipedia as a source of information. Calling homeopathy 'quackery' is an example of this bias. As always with doctors who are against natural medicine, the author has over-inflated the footnotes to 'prove' his point of view. I request this text be taken down and replaced with a more informative rather than 'political' text from someone with an ax to grind. ps- I live in London next to the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine formerly known as the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, part of the National Health Services of the United Kingdom where they practice research based homeopathic medicine by UK certified doctors- no quackery here but a long standing, prestigious institution visited by the Royal family and many others for over a 100 years. 86.18.132.79 (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a request in the form "change A to B", so no change -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Education section.

The education section, if not the lede, should go on to address the 'they have the same training as regular doctors' that is parroted by believers in this nonsense. It is a deadly killer, and those words have been used to fool millions! 124.190.192.20 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Informed edit required

Suggested edit by AlexisJane (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)AlexisJaneAlexisJane (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC):

Change A: "It employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing"."

To B: "According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Naturopathic Physicians diagnose, treat, and help prevent diseases using a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals. May use physiological, psychological or mechanical methods.

Sample of reported job titles: Doctor (Dr), Naturopathic Doctor, Naturopathic Endocrinologist, Naturopathic Medicine Doctor, Naturopathic Oncologist, Naturopathic Oncology Provider, Physician.

Core competencies include:

Document patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, previous medical or family histories, or psychosocial characteristics.

Educate patients about health care management.

Advise patients about therapeutic exercise and nutritional medicine regimens.

Conduct physical examinations and physiological function tests for diagnostic purposes.

Administer, dispense, or prescribe natural medicines, such as food or botanical extracts, herbs, dietary supplements, vitamins, nutraceuticals, and amino acids.

Interview patients to document symptoms and health histories.

Diagnose health conditions, based on patients' symptoms and health histories, laboratory and diagnostic radiology test results, or other physiological measurements, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalographs.

Administer treatments or therapies, such as homeopathy, hydrotherapy, Oriental or Ayurvedic medicine, electrotherapy, and diathermy, using physical agents including air, heat, cold, water, sound, or ultraviolet light to catalyze the body to heal itself.

Consult with other health professionals to provide optimal patient care, referring patients to traditional health care professionals as necessary.

Order diagnostic imaging procedures such as radiographs (x-rays), ultrasounds, mammograms, and bone densitometry tests, or refer patients to other health professionals for these procedures."

Reference https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/29-1299.01?redir=29-1199.04

You copied that from your source, which would be a copyright violation if we used it, so no. Also note that that source is not reliable according to our sourcing policy WP:MEDRS so we could not cite anything to it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:AlexisJane - that topic/content seems reasonable, but the material is too long for line 2 of the lead -- perhaps it could be folded into the Methods section ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  It's definitely a more neutral-toned description. If it's folded into the Methods section, a truncated version could be added to the lead, as the lead is currently meant to be a summary of what's in the article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Did either of you read my comment, just above (^^^ points up a bit ^^^), where it says that the source fails WP:MEDRS and is also a copyright violation? WP:COPYVIO? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  I read it. I don't think the lead is currently sourcing anything that passes MEDRS without heavy OR. But there are plenty of MEDRS sources that describe the practices that I'm sure align with the BLS that we could use. So it reads less like a conspiracy theory blog trying to pass as a WIki article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Roxy - My post was addressed to AlexisJane, to say the topic/content of actual information that is identifying the methods of Naturopathic Physicians seems reasonable but too much for the lead. Sorry if my mis indenting made it look like a response to your input. As to your input — I do not think your objection to materials found via bls.gov is valid. This is describing the occupational activity so is not a matter of MEDRS - in this context the RS would be BLS and those certifying Naturopathic Physicians, and nobody else. Also, putting content at Methods should be a reworded synopsis and wiki linked so is not a COPYVIO matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID vaccine stance

My addition of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians statement to the Vaccine section was removed. I would like to discuss here and avoid an edit war. I'm not sure why the editor believes this is a "doswhistle". I am open to hearing objections, but this is seems like a rather useful addition to that section to add their stance on the COVID vaccine to the vaccine section. Without it, the section implies that they are against the COVID vaccine, which they (as the major association) are not. I'd love to hear you thoughts, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's OK, I have restored the thingamummy ante per BRD so that we can discuss. Well done for coming here, not so well done for restoring disputed content. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well I won't edit war, but I'd really like to have a level-headed discussion, if possible. I'm not sure I agree that adding the association's stance requires more than their own official statement, for one. Secondly, I believe this is not only due, but useful to the reader. I, as a reader, would want to know this. 16:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Where's the weight? The statement looks like PR designed to counter the idea that naturopaths "are against the COVID vaccine", while carefully not supporting vaccination. To relay knowledge about naturopaths' "stance" on COVID vaccination, I'd like some decent independent sources (e.g.[14] or [15]) rather that regurgitated US talking points. The edit warring is bad too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  If there is evidence that they are in fact against the COVID vaccine, that information should be there, too. But that does not mean that their official statement should not be there, or is PR. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't generally act as a conduit for the trixy rhetoric of quacks. Please see WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  That doesn't explain anything or answer anything. It's not a PR statement like "NBC doesn't condone sexual harrassment". It's a statement to the public about the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine. Please stay on topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  That is an ingenious reading of the statement. Find a decent source if you want to add content, and beware WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Seems to be WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE as referenced. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Other vaccination sources

Here's a 2017 study from Canada called "Injecting doubt: responding to the naturopathic anti-vaccination rhetoric " that might be a useful source and here is a commentary by Edzard Ernst. ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Should the second sentence of the Naturopathy Article be removed/rewritten as the current content isn't supported by the associated citation. See further discussion on talk page. E.yorke0 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• For clarity, the line in question seems to be “The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM).” And cite was to “Jagtenberg2006" in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Lead edits moved things, and added the caveat “although some practitioners may use techniques supported by EBM.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What further discussion? (I note that the cite supports the contention, as does the body text in the rest of the article, so no to your question anyway.) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• No to question per User:... wooF above. Tom94022 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• No I have just added another citation for it, its pretty clear that its origins are from folk medicine, and that many of its tenets are not based on rigorous scientific study. Remember, a lead also summarizes the body and does not need every little thing to be cited in the lead. In fact, most FA class articles have no citations in the lead, because the body is appropriately cited and formed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I realize I've kind of thrown in a wrench here by reworking the lead, but I believe I have now thoroughly cited that sentence and provided an appropriate caveat, and think this discussion now moot. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No per responses above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Remove - neither half of the now conflicting line seems adequately supported, and it does not serve per WP:LEAD to summarize the article, since this is not a significant part of the body nor a summary of what’s there. This seems just creative writing rather than substantive material, and the article would be more reputable with less WP:LABEL throwing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ozone IV Therapy AMA Skincare.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Naturopathy definition

I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, and a donor. However it’s definition and description of Naturopathy is insultingly inaccurate. Naturopathy, not to be confused with Homeopathy, is virtually all based on science and clinical data. Naturopathic doctors (ND’s) must successfully complete medical school just like MD’s and DO’s.

Wikipedia chooses to call a lot of things “pseudoscience”, like integrative and alternative medicine, as well as the highly respected Bastyr University in Washington State. More insults.

I am usually complementary of Wikipedia. I count on it for accurate scientific info almost daily. That is why I am very disappointed in them. They have insulted and belittled entire industries with this rubbish.

Sincerely disappointed user,

Paul Six Pssix13@gmail.com Psix13 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What we have is well-sourced. You provide no sources. This English Wikipedia is not going to make stuff up on the say-so of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on should this statement be removed from the lead

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.

---

You can read the original, ongoing discussion above.

Should this statement be removed from the lead?

Naturopathic practitioners commonly recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.

This statement was added back in (but with “generally” changed to “commonly”) after it was originally removed a while back (by me).

Is this statement supported anywhere? Do the sources provided support it? Based on the sources provided, should this statement be removed from the lead? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This is my first time closely reading any of this page, and I have not edited it before. I have looked at the four citations of that sentence, and they seem to support it. I think it has similar tone and content to the other sentences in the lead. However, I don't feel strongly, and I think the beginning of the sentence could be worded a little better for readability, such as, "Most naturopathic practitioners reject modern medical practices." Jmill1806 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  I want to add that in another thread Jess provided a helpful list of some sources that explicitly mention surgery, in case they are helpful for rewording this sentence:

  • Washington Post: "Naturopathic practitioners resist drugs and surgery, relying instead on giving patients lots of attention and personalized advice, and turning to a variety of “natural” or “holistic” treatments."
  • evidencebasedmedicine.org: "the claim that they can treat cancer without the toxicity associated with known effective treatments for cancer, such as radiation, surgery, and, most feared of all, chemotherapy. Unfortunately, when patients with highly treatable cancers believe these claims, the result can be fatal"
  • Medcape: "Naturopathy... discourages drugs and surgery in favor of supplements, herbs, and other so-called natural treatments."

  Jmill1806 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The statement is balanced and supported by the references given. --Slashme (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  So you can show me where the sources mention that surgeries are "recommended against?" Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Pyrrho the Skeptic, See Naturopaths focus on a holistic approach, avoiding the use of surgery and conventional medicines. American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. The sources support it, and nothing indicates that the sources are poor or atypical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can show me where the sources mention that surgeries are "recommended against?" For starters. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I think the change to "commonly" softens the statement and was an improvement, given the sources we have. I also think the sources very broadly and unequivocally support the notion that the practice of Naturopathy is frequently at odds with evidence based medicine, and given how often it is discussed in the literature, that should certainly take up some space in the lede.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sources on Wikipedia should not "broadly" support a statement, certainly not on a controversial topic. That's synthesis. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal. The statement is not supported by the sources. Nowhere is "surgeries" even mentioned. None of these sources say anything about naturopathic practitioners recommending against anything. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. False or bad - not a decent representation of the article content (nor reality) and poor cites. So delete it until and unless something decent is offered. The article body is saying a Naturopathic group is “neither support nor oppose” vaccination, that they prescribe drugs, do minor surgery, and doesn’t speak to testing. The line “recommend against following modern medical practices” does not match the body, and only the vaccination bit is prominent in body. (The vaccination stance sort of makes sense, a herbalist has no professional standing or involvement with doing shots to go speaking about virology.) And the four cites seem just about the vaccination part of the line and not even good for that - one deadlink, two paywall links to the same not-notable study, and one to a quack watch-type critics site. Could have used large press third-party sites (e.g. Forbes) or more authoritative cites (e.g. nih.gov) or even just cites from the body text.

It seems reality is it just varies - some advocate for vaccination or even say vaccines are naturopathic, others say support parents who do full or part or the unvaccinated child, and others oppose vaccination. Logically it seems also a chicken-and-egg practitioners are less inclined - or those not inclined have to find something and wind up here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, though it could be reworded per Jmill1806. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Cited in the body. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal rewrite or substantiate - The cited sources as quoted in the earlier discussion don't support the statement. These studies have as population patients and/or students at alternative medicine colleges in Canada. It is an error of external validity to make the faulty generalization that naturopathic practitioners commonly/generally recommend against following modern medical practices. Terjen (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Moreover, the sentence is original research based on primary sources. Per WP:WEIGHT such a majority viewpoint should be trivial to substantiate with references to generally accepted reference texts. Terjen (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Right, and I don't understand why this is so hard for other editors to grasp, though I respect their good-faith efforts. It wouldn't be questioned on a different article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Striking rewrite as an option, as making the statement reflect that the cited studies are limited to naturopathic schools in Canada would make it WP:UNDUE for the lede. Terjen (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Striking substantiate as sourcing continues to be wanting. Terjen (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal, because the references do not back the statement. Idealigic (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Rewrite I think this is an interesting case, and here is a source that might be interesting. Statements like "Modern orthodox medicine, apart from all its positive and beneficial attributes, does not subscribe to this idea of wholism or to the importance of prevention.", although probably arguably false (on the "orthodox" medicine not considering prevention important), at the very least shows that the benefits of modern medicine are recognized. On the other hand I would imagine that, by the very nature of it, practitioners would recommend "orthodox" treatments less often (and going by the sources presented above it seems that indeed this is the case). Not sure if this necessarily equates with "recommending against"...Cealicuca (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal; can't comment on rewrite unless specific verbiage is proposed. As CaptainEek and others have said, this content is supported by high-quality sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Without sources to substantiate the current language, the sentence will have to be rephrased to recognize that the findings are limited to patients/students at alternative medicine colleges in Canada, not Naturopathic practitioners in general. Terjen (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sources have already been provided above to support the current language. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Which alternative sources do you favor to replace the current ones? Terjen (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Mm. I'm not sure that I've said anywhere that I think the sources need replacing. There are several listed further up though - you would be free to add those if you like. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  If you review the cited studies you will find that they don't substantiate the broad claim in our sentence but are WP:PRIMARY with scope limited to a few naturopathic schools in Canada. Without adequate sourcing, the sentence will have to be removed as original research. Terjen (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for explaining your question. There seem to be good sources cited above that could be added to support the assertion. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Dont remove well sourced. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal well sourced, the above additional secondary sources support the language. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal Changing from "generally" to "commonly" was enough of a change in tone. This is pretty much blue sky territory, IMO. VdSV9•♫ 22:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  If the statement was obvious, it should be trivial to substantiate with references to generally accepted reference texts. Alas, the cited studies are primary sources that don't stand up to scrutiny as substantiation for the claim, including after the change in tone - see my !vote above for further explanations. Terjen (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Naturopathy

The term "naturopathy" originates from "natura" (Latin root for birth) and "pathos" (the Greek root for suffering) to suggest "natural healing".[22]Naturopaths claim the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine", Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine, before the term existed.[22][23]Modern naturopathy can be traced to the 19th-century Natural Cure movement of Europe.[24][25] In Scotland, Thomas Allinson started advocating his "Hygienic Medicine" in the 1880s. Allinson promoted a natural diet, exercise, fresh air, and bathing combined with an avoidance of tobacco, coffee, tea, and overwork.[26][27] He was among the first naturopaths, as he opposed the medicines that doctors were using at the time, believing that there were more naturalistic approaches.

The term naturopathy was coined in 1895 by John Scheel,[28] and continued by Benedict Lust, whom naturopaths consider to be the "Father of U.S. Naturopathy".[29] Lust had been schooled in other natural health practices in Germany by Father Sebastian Kneipp. Kneipp sent Lust to the United States to promote his naturopathic methods.[18] Lust defined naturopathy as a broad discipline rather than a particular method. Lust included such techniques as hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, and homeopathy, as well as eliminating overeating, tea, coffee, and alcohol.[1] He described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms, with "absolute reliance upon the cosmic forces of man's nature".[30] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first known use of "naturopathy" in print is from 1901.[31]

From 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". In September 1919, the Naturopathic Society of America was dissolved and Benedict Lust founded the American Naturopathic Association to supplant it.[29][32] Naturopaths became licensed under naturopathic or drugless practitioner laws in 25 states in the first three decades of the twentieth century.[29] In 1930, Dr. Edward Bach, a British doctor, bacteriologist, and homeopath, made strides in the world of naturopathy. Bach believed that internal conflicts between the purposes of the soul and the personality caused imbalances of energy in the body that lead to physical disease. Dr. Bach sought solutions from flora that would level the energies of the body. Naturopathy has been adopted by many chiropractors. Several schools offered both Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) and Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degrees.[29] There were estimates of about two dozen naturopathic schools active in the United States during this period.

Methods

Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine and take an antivaccinationist stance.[15] The particular modalities used by a naturopath vary with training and scope of practice. These may include herbalism, homeopathy,[45] acupuncture, nature cures, physical medicine, applied kinesiology,[52] colonic enemas,[18][46] chelation therapy,[17] color therapy,[52] cranial osteopathy, hair analysis, iridology,[52] live blood analysis, ozone therapy,[16] psychotherapy, public health measures and hygiene,[50] reflexology,[52] rolfing,[32] massage therapy, floral therapy and traditional Chinese medicine. Nature cures include a range of therapies based on exposure to natural elements such as sunshine, fresh air, or heat or cold. Nutrition advice such as following a vegetarian and whole food diet, fasting, or abstention from alcohol and sugar are also considered ‘nature cures’.[53] Physical medicine includes naturopathic, osseous, or soft tissue manipulative therapy, sports medicine, exercise, and hydrotherapy. Psychological counseling includes meditation, relaxation, and other methods of stress management.[53] Dr. Edward Bach has been credited among the first to explore therapeutic value of flora. Bach aimed to investigate the germ theory of disease. Some people acquired certain diseases while others did not, and he believed that this difference was due to variations in the connection between body and mind. In 1930, Bach began exploring various plants and flowers and assigned emotions to certain plants. Bach would sit with various plants and flowers and feel the emotions that each one brought him. These emotions were linked to a plant’s essence. Bach would mix the dew from that specific plant with brandy, in order to create the ‘Bach Floral Remedy’ tincture. Although Bach’s treatments are not scientific or empirical, Bach paved the way for floral therapy in the field of naturopathy.

Floral therapy is a significant component of naturopathy. In practice, floral therapy has been refined and reintroduced in 2019 by Heather McFarland whom founded Floral Healing Therapy. Floral therapists have also incorporated color as well as fragrance in their therapy treatments.

A 2004 survey determined the most commonly prescribed naturopathic therapeutics in Washington state and Connecticut were botanical medicines, vitamins, minerals, homeopathy, and allergy treatments.[45] An examination published in 2011 of naturopathic clinic websites in Alberta and British Columbia found that the most commonly advertised therapies were homeopathy, botanical medicine, nutrition, acupuncture, lifestyle counseling, and detoxification.[46] Maddimontebianco (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs updated

Naturopathy is actually illegal in 8 states. 72.216.145.100 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? VdSV9•♫ 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Please change from "Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession" to "Naturopathy is considered by some medical profession Clinic by Nature (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:WEASEL. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Could you modify the sentence breaks in part of the introduction? Right now it reads like this:

It employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". The practices of naturopaths, the practitioners of naturopathic medicine, vary widely and are difficult to generalize. Treatments range from outright quackery, like homeopathy, to widely accepted practices like psychotherapy.

Putting "neuropaths" in the third sentence doesn't seem like the best idea (might as well mention them earlier), and having "practices" and "practitioners" so close to each other isn't ideal. I'd like to have these three sentences replaced with the following:

Practitioners, known as naturopaths, employ a wide array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from outright quackery, like homeopathy, to widely accepted practices like psychotherapy.

Thank you. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to A wide array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing" are employed by its practitioners, who are known as naturopaths. Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from outright quackery, like homeopathy, to widely accepted practices like psychotherapy. ––FormalDude talk 04:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am a qualified naturopath with a bachelor degree in naturopathic and herbal medicine. My degree in approved by New Zealand Qualification Authority NZQA and is a legitimate medical degree. I am practising natural medicine which does not include homeopathy. Where are your evidence that my degree is pseudoscientific? Clinic by Nature (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Clinic by Nature: The article does not claim that your degree is pseudoscientific. ––FormalDude talk 02:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Although looking at what's being sold at clinicbynature.co.nz straight away one sees stuff for Adrenal fatigue. The username is in violation of Wikipedia WP:SPAMNAME policy, BTW. Alexbrn (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My degree in approved by New Zealand Qualification Authority NZQA is a fact belonging to mainstream juridical science. That naturopathy is legit is not fact belonging to mainstream medical science. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most obviously biased articles on all of Wikipedia.

First, let me state that I have no association with naturopathy or traditional medicine, I visited the article simply because I am considering a new primary care physician and a highly recommended one happens to be a naturopath. Thus, I came to my favorite reference source to find out more about naturopathy.

Everywhere else on Wikipedia the style and content are impartial and balanced. Here, the word "quackery" appears twice in the introduction and "charlatan" once (not to mention that that sentence is very poorly written, using two synonyms in the same clause).

The objective of the article therefore appears to be not to discuss naturopathy per se, but to attack naturopathy on merits defined by allopathic perspectives.

I notice that this article only refers to the practice in the United States, Australia, UK, and Switzerland. What about the rest of the world? That seems to have been conveniently excluded. The tone of this article makes me wonder why that is the case.

When I visit the article on naturopathy in Italian, for example, a much more balanced view is presented. It presents an entirely different history of naturopathy, down to attributing the birth of the profession to a completely different person than Lust. This difference in basic fact seriously calls into question the validity of the processes by which the page has been edited.

I am a regular donor to Wikipedia because I believe it is a valuable resource. A premise of Wikipedia is that a large number of people can come together and rationally discuss any subject and collaboratively arrive at a balanced, rational, and complete picture of the subject. This is very obviously not the case in this topic. I am appalled at the quality and bias of this article. It seriously damages my perception of Wikipedia as a whole. The people who have been placed in charge of moderating it should be banned and replaced.

I have no confidence whatsoever in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmiq (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to read the cited sources in the article. Also see WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:MEDRS. These are policies and guidelines which will hopefully explain why things are the way they are. Cannolis (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. The tone of the lead and article is far too heavy-handed to qualify as a good Wikipedia article. And it is poorly written in some parts. That's why we will continue to see comments like yours on this Talk Page. But they will likely get a reply with vague condescension about Wikipolicies that have nothing to do with tone and style. Much of this article could be rewritten without giving any false balance to the topic. But most attempts to make any edits to this article will be reverted. Editors think "oh, people keep complaining about this article, so there must be a lot of agenda-pushers out there!" But the reality is, people read an article expecting the typical high-quality Wikipedia, see something like this that's written like a public service announcement, and come here to voice that. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the lede could do more to explain naturopathy itself, but the homeopathy article is also very heavy-handed, yet it also has good article status. Whitewashing alternative medicine isn't going to help us. X-Editor (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I take issue that cleaning up an article to be less heavy-handed is "whitewashing". It's about tone and redundancy and not beating the reader over the head. If the article on diesel engines said Diesel engines are engines that use diesel, with diesel powering the engines, as opposed to regular unleaded gasoline which is decidedly not diesel, diesel being very different than regular unleaded, according to these twenty sources, and all auto industry leaders have pointed out that diesel engines are "definitely, 100% NOT regular unleaded gas engines, that would be a problem. The reader would think "umm....okay? That was odd." And that's the argument I'm making here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

When you try to be very clear, redundancy is not a sin.

Also, in engines its equivalent is the water-fuelled car/water engine. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I lolled a lot at this!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why we will continue to see comments like yours on this Talk Page. We see comments like theirs on the Talk page of every pseudoscience article all the time, and that will always be the case unless we turn those articles into fringe fests. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Except... read the comment: Thus, I came to my favorite reference source to find out more about naturopathy. Everywhere else on Wikipedia the style and content are impartial and balanced. Here, the word "quackery" appears twice in the introduction and "charlatan" once (not to mention that that sentence is very poorly written, using two synonyms in the same clause).

One should assume good faith here, and assume this reader is in fact a rational reader, which they 100% appear to be (if you actually read the comment). You truly believe this person with style/tone concerns is a wacko nutcase? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"wacko nutcase" is probably not the right description, but writing "attack naturopathy on merits defined by allopathic perspectives" is indicative that the OP has some fringe views or at least does not believe in mainstream medical science. We are of course going to be describing any medical subject from a "allopathic perspective" as per prior consensus and MEDRS. Also do not believe OP was merely expressing concerns about tone and style, they were pretty explicitly complaining about the content and balance of the article, which is why I linked what I linked. Cannolis (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but that one assumption ignores any valid concerns the commenter could have. Like many people criticizing this lead/article, it's really just a matter of "why are you beating me over the head with this like I'm stupid? Why can't this read more like the descriptions you see from actual medical sources, who write in a more descriptive style, and not like a public service announcement?" It's not a fringe or not fringe thing. It's obviously fringe. It's about how to write a good article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

PtS, you have made your point. Several times. So how about trying this next: edit the article so that it matches your desired style. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason I repeat myself is because no one is addressing the issue of style/tone, only going back to the fringe/pro-fringe angle. If I were to edit the lead, it would be reverted, and we'd be right back here where we started, with me saying, "this is written like a PSA, not an article" and someone responding "we are not going whitewash it!" Because we have off-Wiki coordination with GSoW, and no equivalent group of coordinating editors to provide different opinions on tone, it's unlikely that there would ever be a consensus to make a change like that. I'm only trying to guide the conversation back to a reasonable discussion about style/tone. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How is GSoW relevant here? Sounds like a red herring. If you are trying to guide the conversation back to a reasonable discussion, you are doing a very bad job of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(ce) So now you're claiming, without any evidence, that off-Wiki coordination with GSoW is an obstacle to you editing this article? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. I just said I think it's unlikely. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because we have off-Wiki coordination with GSoW speaks for itself. And telling another editor to "calm down" is bad-faith gaslighting. Please do not go there. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I do apologize for the "calm down" comment. As for the off-Wiki coordination by GSoW, that's well-established. They admit to that: A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next. Source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. Indistinguishable from trolling. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 01:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

And your comments are always so helpful, aren't they? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not. What gives you the crazy idea that I truly believe this person with style/tone concerns is a wacko nutcase or that I do not assume good faith? You should try not to read too much into what people write. Just take what they write at face value instead of inventing additional content and putting it into people's mouths, and your debates will become healthier and more productive.

That's why we will continue to see comments like yours on this Talk Page is simply wrong. Even if one "quackery" is removed from the lede, even if the article becomes extremely tame - as long as it obeys WP:FRINGE, we will continue to see comments like yours on this Talk Page. It is naive to assume that improvements within the guidelines will make everybody happy enough to cease complaints. And the people who complain about fringe worldviews not getting respect are typically neither "nutcases" nor bad faith actors, just people who have been misinformed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

And the people who complain about fringe worldviews not getting respect Again, that's not what the commenter was complaining about, is it? That's the point I'm trying to make here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally to that point, you are making a lot of other points which are just plain wrong. For example, nobody is saying that that's what the commenter was complaining about. Stop doing that. Stop inventing stuff and putting it people's mouths. That's the point I'm trying to make here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If I did that, I apologize. That's not what I'm intending. I understand how it could look that way, though. My bad. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The original poster, Rmiq, raised some legitimate points. There are a number of articles in this topic area that are suffering from the same issues: A) an unnecessarily narrow and restricted focus on the opinions of a few individuals in a limited area of the Western world, i.e. lack of global context B) bludgeoning of the reader to such a degree that it insults the intelligence of anyone coming here to get an overview on a topic, including those aligned with and/or sympathetic to skepticism. When an article is this heavy handed, it has the opposite of the intended effect. Invariably readers are going to come here from all over the world.

Examples of basic mainstream writing on naturopathy that provide readers with a basic summary of what defines the topic:

• from WebMD here
• and Medical News Today here.

For addressing the broader and more global definition it would be best to review how and where naturopathy appears in the two World Health Organization studies:

• from 2001
• 2019

The article could use an update, at minimum. Cedar777 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So why don't you go ahead and, you know, do what editors do at Wikipedia, edit the article? WP:BRD, and all that. If your updates are supported by reliable, secondary, independent sources...well, you know the rest. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks JoJo :) Don't worry, I will get to it. I'm rather deep into a few others at the moment that happen to share these issues. Too many windows open on the desktop already. (You did see my one edit to this page today was swiftly revert, no? Separate thread regarding the matter below.) Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The first "quackery" refers to one end of the naturopathic spectrum, homeopathy, where it is appropriate according to an overwhelming consensus. The second, together with "charlatan", is a more general comment and well sourced. This article is worded that way because that is what the sources say, and there is no good reason to change the article toward a more positive picture. It would be whitewashing.

Maybe you should consider the fact that if you hear conflicting accounts from Wikipedia and another source, it does not necessarily follow that Wikipedia is wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Further reading section has quality issues

The guidelines for Further reading per WP:MEDMOS section 5.8 are: "Further reading: The Further reading section lists books and other publications (not usually websites) that were not used as references and that editors recommend to readers. These may be historically important publications, significant textbooks, or popular science works. (It is best if when adding a journal it is of a general review type.)"

The two existing articles listing under further reading, sourced to the website/blog Science-Based Medicine, should be removed or replaced with something better quality, i.e., not a WP:SPS blog or website. Cedar777 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the subject matter (the FRINGE aspects), it would be better to incorporate them as references if possible. As this is a FRINGE topic, MEDMOS isn't the only guideline that applies. --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The two refs in fact already were cited in the article, so this is moot, except to note that Wikipedia does not regard SBM as low quality or as a "SPS blog or website" (see WP:RSP), and it is in fact one of our very best sources for health fraud and pseudomedicine. Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Point noted and verified at WP:RSP, thank you Alexbrn. The organization that manages the source, the New England Skeptical Society, describes it as a blog themselves here as does the Science-Based Medicine Wikipedia page (lede & infobox) making the status of SBM rather unusual. I do see that editors have weighed in on the matter at RSP, most recently in 2021, and there is a consensus that SBM is generally reliable. In addition: Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. I did find it odd that prior to removal, the Further reading section included quotes. I can't recall seeing that in any other article. It suggested readers were being advised to read these specific articles but also give predigested sound bites. It is an improvement that they were removed. I see that in this topic area, peer reviewed publications are at the top of the pile. Cedar777 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

"Naturopaths are known for their frequent campaigning for legal recognition in the United States. It is illegal in two U.S. states and tightly regulated in many others. Some states have lax regulations, however, and may allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs. While some schools exist for naturopaths, and some jurisdictions allow such practitioners to call themselves doctors, the lack of accreditation and scientific medical training means they lack the competency of true medical doctors."

^This is just not accurate and poorly written. Naturopathic doctors do not lack the competency of true medical doctors. They are doctors. The schools are accredited medical colleges, with all, and more of the same science classes as regular medical doctors. The first 2 years of Naturopathic medical college are the same as regular medical school. ND's are trained in additional courses that MD's are not, like nutrition, botanical medicine and even immunology. They need clinical medicine hours before graduating, many getting those hours in medical clinics and hospitals. I am saddened that Wikipedia has this complete inaccuracy of a medical profession, on their site. It is true that many United States aren't regulated, but many of them are, along with Canada and many other countries such as Australia and European countries. Not to mention the last sentence of "some jurisdiction allow the practitioners to call themselves doctors"... you literally are a doctor IF you go to a 4 year medical school - there is absolutely no argument in that... which is why the page needs to distinguish between naturopaths and naturopathic doctors. States would not regulate naturopathic medicine if they weren't doctors.

Proposed Paragraph: "Naturopaths/Naturopathic Doctors are known for their frequent campaigning for legal recognition in the United States. The profession is regulated in 26 U.S. states, with many other states having current bills or advocacy initiatives pending. The scope of practice for naturopathic doctors vary state to state, some allowing them to perform minor surgery and prescribe pharmaceuticals, while others do not. Naturopathic doctors attend a 4 year accredited medical college, after receiving a 4 year bachelor's degree. Once they graduate from an accredited school, they take board examinations (NPLEX or CONO), before they can legally practice. There are 7 accredited Naturopathic medical schools in North America; 5 in the U.S., and 2 in Canada. 174.88.169.170 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This article

This page is clearly not a balanced and unbiased view and I’m my view should be taken down. It is opinionated and derogatory and even carries a sense of anger and resentment. At least it should include the view of a naturopath to explain their perspective. 2A0B:E541:66E:0:99B:C729:3EF4:923B (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

agreed - this article is so unbalanced it's kinda crazy. The American Association of

Naturopathic Physicians has been actively trying to correct this for years but Wikipedia’s senior editors seem to be set against it, which is sad and ironically kinda superstitious 72.174.2.62 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Chapman, Guy (1 July 2015). "Homeopaths to Jimmy Wales: please rewrite reality to make us not wrong". Guy Chapman's Blahg. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I extremely recommend to Wikipedia that they amend this article. It is simply bigoted and undeveloped, and extremely offensive to those that rely on this page (which would be many to most, quite frankly) in whatever capacity. Not the least bit professional. Kthorneconservation (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. No problem, as long as you have some reliable sources WP:RS or medically reliable sources WP:MEDRS to support whatever changes you wish to make. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

This page needs to be reviewed. Naturopathic medicine is growing in its acceptance and practice and is most certainly not quackery. This is literally libel and should be taken much more seriously. To defame a practice that is beneficial and empowering to patient health is absolutely disappointing to see from Wikipedia. I understand this is a self- editing site, but to have the restriction against changing such libel on a practice (and a practice of healers who want to help and benefit health, mind you) is absolutely wrong. 2600:387:15:518:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

"accupuncture" should be "acupuncture".

Posts to talk pages should be signed with four tildes like this ~~~~. Spelling fixed anyway, thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Who hurt you

Naturopathic doctors provide evidence based, standard of care medicine and are taught to do so in medical school. This article is completely biased. The cited articles are opinion pieces which is actually ironic given what the article aims to accomplish regarding science based claims. 174.21.23.49 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There are 130 references that the editors who created this article based it on. Do you have any references at all that support your strange contention? If not, you are wasting our time. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right. 209.222.228.4 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Naturopathic doctors are also trained in medical schools. And there are tons of references that they can base on. 209.222.228.4 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you give us examples of these "tons of references" that you noted above? Bear in mind they must meet WP:MEDRS. I would happily help you write something supported by your references. Thanks. -Roxy the English speaking dog 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you daft?

This is pure gibberish. Naturopathy focuses on the use of herbs and plants to cure disorders, which is what healers have been using for literally the entirety of human history before pharmaceutical companies began taking such plants and herbs and making compounds and synthesized versions of them and convincing most of the population (and paying doctors to engage in such convincing) that these are the only cures available. There are obviously quacks in every profession, but well-trained naturopaths, many of whom are also MDs, can provide safe and effective cures for conditions where modern medicine often fails, or only treats symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition. You also include psychotherapy in your description, which has nothing to do with naturopathy. This is an opinion piece that has nothing to do with facts. It makes Wikipedia look very bad. 2603:7000:9600:1109:0:0:0:10F9 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Markborovykh (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Change the introductory paragraph for the naturopathy. Delete the word pseudoscience, it is a study of alternative and preventative medicine that has been used for many centuries and currently takes 4 years of medical education to practice.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Biased, non-objective composition

I decided to read about naturopathy because I have heard it discussed. I was expecting a detached truth-seeking stance. Instead I found terms like quakery and pseudo-scientific. In an encyclopedia, these are conclusions to be drawn by the reader. This author is doing a marketing, not an expository job. I could not read the entire article because the tone was so, what, ... vengeful. 1seeker (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The best way to suggest a change is to be specific about what you want changed, or make a change yourself. If you believe parts of the article are written in a non-neutral tone, you are welcome to suggest a rewrite or rewrite yourself, as long as you are following what the sources say. I do agree that a lot of these alternative medicine articles read a bit heavy handed, and that's due ( I believe) to the polarization of editors in these topics. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I found terms like quakery and pseudo-scientific Because those are the precise terms used by the secondary, independent, reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Endorsing WP:PSCI could be seen by outsiders as non-neutral, but it is website policy and all editors are expected to abide by it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Accusing the Science/Practice of being Psuedoscience is a "name-calling behavior"

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.

---

Claiming a Science, a Theory, a Science Practice as being a Psuedoscience amounts to (name calling, and the behavior is defined as most Adolescent, reactional, and overwhelmingly occurs when the accuser is not fully informed on the definition of Psuedoscience and/or fully informed on the Subject, it's resource references, data, and relative Outcome Studies)

I would suggest, if after a thorough review, one has a need to do object, a reference that would offer a Higher Minded value would be: "It remains a subject or practice that's pending Mainstream Science acceptance." (As that is the Standard that is obviously driving the perspective.)

I suggest an Authentic Academic Standard, as they follow the "Standards of Science and Research"

I am available to answer/respond to any relative questions and hope my suggestion inspires a higher, evolved range of understanding. 107.77.234.191 (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2022 (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.