Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Inaccurate information

Naturopathic medicine is recognized in over 80 countries, and licensed in 26 states. It is a regulated form of medicine and is backed by scientific evidence. The information presented on this page does not accurately nor scientifically represent Naturopathic medicine. It called Naturopathic medicine a "quackery," even though it is a licensed profession regulated by strict authorities. There are dozens of scientific evidence proving the efficacy of Naturopathic medicine. The author of this article also stated that psychotherapy is considered "quackery." It appears a certain individual (or group) might even require some psychotherapy themselves. It is highly requested that you amend this page or allow for the appropriate amendments without having to hold standards to how many posts a registered user must make. A profession that is offered by national and internationally accredited institutions, and governed and regulated by a licensing committee, should not be allowed to be harassed nor mistreated in such an ignorant way. It is clear this was written with a heinous hidden agenda and requires immediate attention. Phunktown1 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The article has had over 1,300 editors. Waffling on about them needing psychotherapy is silly. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and if they report something is considered quackery, Wikipedia follows. This is called neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There clearly is bias from some editors in placing Naturopathy as "quackery" solely from a couple known critics dating back for over 20 years. Any editor who tries to update the page with current research from well respected journals and acedemics who support Naturopathic Medicine which shows it is a widely accepted legitimate practice of medicine, those edits are swiftly removed. Clearly there is, in fact, an agenda in keeping this outdated and hyperbolic misinformation as @Phunktown1 rightfully pointed out which further confuses the reader.

It's unfortunate that some editors use this platform as a means to promote their rigid position rather than following facts and strong science, which sadly, further delegitimizes Wiki as an authority of factual information. This is why I don't cite Wikipedia for any of my writings/publications any longer as there are just too many agendas and misinformation throughout. SP1111 23:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 (talk • contribs)

This is not a forum. If you have a reliable source that could be added to the article, discuss it on this page. Complaints of "Waily, waily, waily! people are so biased!" you can put into your diary instead. Or Twitter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The usual flawless logic we see daily in Talk pages like this: "If person A and person B disagree on a subject, person A must have a hidden agenda - if person B is me." --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead says these treatments range from outright quackery, like homeopathy, to widely accepted practices like psychotherapy. The term isn't used as broadly as you suggest. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Biased subjective and inappropriate

This whole review on wiki is a bizarre and subjective wildly biased misleading - it should be removed and more universally accepted review with sources provided. For example In France naturopathy and homeopathy are part of normal medical establishment and treatment are included in social medical care 2001:861:E3C1:5AC0:8D26:6C2C:4E35:931F (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have any independent, secondary, reliable sources for your claims, please go ahead and edit the article appropriately. You should then be prepared for WP:BRD. Non-specific complaints on the Talk page are unlikely to improve this (or indeed any) article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Non Neutral Changes"

I recently added relevant, independent, and credibly-sourced information to this article as follows: "The goal of naturopathic medicine is to treat the root cause of illness, rather than just the symptoms, and to support the body's natural healing processes." My sources include WebMD and The Victorian Department of Health in Australia. These are two neutral, secondary sources that are completely relevant according to WP:MEDRS. However, McSly believes that I have made "non neutral changes" with my addition to this article and has removed my addition. This assertion is entirely false, and I am bringing this issue to the talk page in order to shed light on the fact that reasonable, non-biased information has been removed. This article clearly needs more researched information as it has a B-class rating. One should not be accusing perfectly valid additions of being "non neutral," if one has no evidence to back their accusation up. Mrblueskys (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You should understand that after Jimmy Wales' public statement propaganda for alt-med isn't taken lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that we must err on the side of caution when altering alt-med pages due to the polarity of such topics; however, this should not prohibit additions that are solely increasing the clarity of the text. The statement I previously added was not based in opinion as I included two neutral, secondary, independent sources that credit it factually. We are only hurting the quality of the article by prohibiting improvements. Mrblueskys (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of your opponents will claim procedural reasons; I gave you the real reason: some POVs are unwelcome. Let's not beat around the bush. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Which POVs are you referring to? Mrblueskys (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Mrblueskys, claiming to "treat the root cause of illness, rather than just the symptoms" is part of the naturopathic medicine propaganda. By doing so, they are implying that modern medicine traits only the symptoms, which is flatly false. --McSly (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My added statement is being considered "naturopathic medicine propaganda" due to your interpretation of it. Nowhere in the secondary, independent sources that I provide does it mention opinions about modern medicine. Stating that the goal of an approach such as naturopathy is to "treat the root cause of illness, rather than just the symptoms" does not make any inferences about its effectiveness, general safety, or stature versus other medical practices. It is merely stating what the practice aims to do. The current information in the article is cited by similar sources, and those have not been removed due to their "non neutral" nature. I implore you to rethink your claim. Mrblueskys (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If we take your proposed text at face value, then it is pointless and waste of text - of course a medical paradigm aims to treat the causes of illness(with perhaps the sole exception of palliative care), that is a given when you use the term "medicine". The statement only adds something when you take into account the obvious insinuation that other medical systems just treat symptoms, which is also obviously incorrect and so should not be included. Cannolis (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with McSly and Cannolis. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

This phrase is unusual:

The United States IHS (Indian Health Service) began 

It's the only time the service is mentioned; neither "IHS" nor "Indian Health Service" appears in the rest of the article. Consequently, we don't need the acronym. Please change it to:

In the United States, the Indian Health Service began

The only reason for retaining the US bit is that we don't want readers thinking this is something from New Delhi. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching this. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

Equipment for administering large enemas, a bag and a bucket, each holding a gallon.

it looks like a no-serial-comma group of three things being administered by the equipment: it administers enemas, a bag, and a bucket. (Obviously that's absurd, but if you don't know what an "enema" is, you may be confused.) Please change the first comma to a colon, so it's clear:

Equipment for administering large enemas: a bag and a bucket, each holding a gallon.

123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023 (3)

In this phrase:

qualify for insurance subsidy

Please change "subsidy" to "subsidies", because the plural is normal here (it just sounds bizarre), and the source refers to removing private health insurance subsidies from a range 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

naturopathy

Very poor outdated summary 148.252.132.74 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article with information from reliable sources? — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. So biased and outdated. I was shocked! 176.236.70.99 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article with information from reliable sources? If you do not, you are in the wrong place, since this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Naturopathic practitioners Do Not recommend against Conventional Medicine

One of the biggest misconceptions people have about naturopathic doctors is that they are opposed to conventional medicine. The truth is that many naturopathic doctors work hand-in-hand with medical doctors and other healthcare professionals in integrative settings across North America. According to Statista, 70% percent of Americans believe naturopathic medicines and treatments have a positive effect. Here are a few ways medical doctors and naturopathic doctors work together:

(Integrative Medicine: MDs and NDs Working Together

Aanmc

https://aanmc.org/featured-articles/integrative-medicine-mds-and-nds/)

The above should replace the following text:

Naturopathic practitioners commonly recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery. Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit. Butterflysmassage (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "recommend against" sentence should be removed, and have been saying it for a long time. Good luck. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Would need reliable WP:FRIND sourcing (not a press release from naturopaths). Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BC. Are there any reliable sources to support your desired content, as opposed to the four reliable sources that support the statement you wish to remove? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Well, let's talk about those sources currently supporting that statement. Three of them are studies of students, not naturopaths, and one of them is irectly contradicting this statement by saying Most chiropractic and naturopathic students are not averse to vaccination. The other source is a skeptic magazine that doesn't seem to suport the statement at all. None of them mention recommending against surgery or medical testing that I can see. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right, let's switch statements in mid-statement and replace "conventional medicine" by "surgery or medical testing" or something. I suggest that we check if they recommend against "wearing white coats". If only some of them do, they are all pro-science. Hooray! --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine is just another brand of quackery. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"No factual merit"

Citation Atwood2003 does not support the claim in the lede that "The diagnoses made by naturopaths often have no factual merit."

I adjusted the language to "The diagnoses made by practitioners of naturopathic medicine and the treatments proffered often lack evidentiary support." -- which is what the article supports. The article makes no claim of "factual merit" (or similar terms) but instead focuses (as it should, given its focus on the scientific method) on scientific evidence to support the treatments and diagnoses of naturopaths and naturopathic doctors (just saying naturopaths implies there is no difference in the modalities used by these practitioners). It seems unencyclopedic to insert the unsupported notion of "factual merit" when it's perfectly possible to explain the cited information using the idea of scientific support. Nonetheless, @Hipal removed this reference.

The revert was made as part of a large reversion of my edits, which I'm not contesting here (I'll be suggesting some of other edits in the body, not the lede, as was suggested by the other editor, and suggesting that some of the other information reverted to in the lede also more appropriately belongs in the body). However, this line change was not addressed by the reverting editor, and is not explained by their note regarding the other information not being appropriate for the lede.

I'd also add that the secondary citation (ref name AAFP) is wholly inappropriate for the language quoted. It relates only to the training of naturopaths/NDs vs MDs/DOs, and quite literally doesn't even mention diagnosis or treatment. It should be removed as support for this statement.

I'm requesting some consensus on making the above described changes. >> boodyb ^talk 16:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I removed the large expansion to the lede, suggesting some of the material may be WP:DUE in the article body. I didn't look any closer. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say "no factual merit" or similar, it should not be in the article, and by the way, sounds a little like a phrase you'd hear on Dexter's Laboratory, not in an encyclopedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rev 1185574518 claims Ledebomb - needs discussion

I really don't think my edits were a ledebomb -- the altered material is literally uncited, lacks encyclopedic tone, and is plainly incorrect in one case (two states vs three states).

What I propose in lieu of the uncited paragraph is consistent with the general statements of the previous paragraph, but improves tone, offers some basic citations, and removes some information better suited for the body (which has subsequently been added -- a consideration suggested by Hipal (e.g., information about naturopathic education/schools, etc)).

Statements like "lax regulation" are generally not supportable (without a citation, what are we supposed to infer from a qualitative word like "lax"). Instead, I offer some supported context first -- describing that some state certify practitioners, under various titles, and the describe that other states are more permissive in their regulating, and do not require board certification for practicing as a "naturopath." I left in the reference to "tightly regulated" only because that could at least be supported by the mere existence regulations versus states without regulation.

I'm struggling to see how my edits were a lede bomb. This article struggles in tone, from both directions -- from editors who seem to support naturpathic practice, and those who doubt it. I'm trying not to take a position here, I just think unsupported/uncited statements that imply bias ought to be improved and cited, where possible. Otherwise they should just be taken out. I've tried to avoid just removing that kind of material, since it seems finding citations and adjusting it as necessary is more in the spirit of appropriate editing. >> boodyb ^talk 17:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter version, especially without the name dropping. I suggest identifying the changes at a smaller level. Currently, it's difficult to see all that's been changed much less figure out the justification for everything. --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)