Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Naturopathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Vitalism

I just reverted a few new changes. The comparison between the education of an ND and an MD is sourced (both for accuracy and relevance), and discussed at length above. So far as I can tell, there is a pretty solid consensus that the comparison should be made. If anyone would like to propose additional sources or alternate wording, please do so in a new section below.

This change also restored the word vitalism to the first sentence of the lead. The connection is well-sourced (in my humble opinion, of course), considered highly relevant by independent sources, and not contradicted by any source that I have seen discussing the underlying philosophy. Is there a better way that we could be presenting this information? - Eldereft (cont.) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to report the comparison made by Atwood. Please see discussion above as to why Atwood's sourced opinion can not be stated as fact. The sourced opinion does belong in the criticism section where it is correctly identified as such. I have no problem with the wording that appears in the criticism section. The wording in the ND section however is pure POV (Atwood's). BTW, is it really necessary to repeat the opinion of Atwood - that ND training is not as valuable as MD training - three times in the article? I smell a little 'undue weight' here. Why is this prominent critic of Naturopathy being quoted three times? Why is the article paroting his opinion as though it were a fact in two out of those three times? 64.235.217.157(talk) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with 'vitalism' references - but they need context/explanation. How is naturopathic philosophy like vitalism? I am not arguing against the comparison, just scratching my head. As someone who thinks he understands the Vis medicatrix and vitalism, I don't really understand how they are being compared. Perhaps some more sources explaining the comparison will make this clearer. Otherwise, the comparison is 'deadwood', unlikely to add anything for the reader. I suspect it has been added here because for some people, 'vitalism' is code for 'quacky', 'mystical' or 'irrational'. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources say that the underlying philosophy is a form of vitalism, as stated under Naturopathy#Principles. From the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (current reference 1): The philosophy that underlies naturopathic medicine is called vitalism. Vitalism is the belief that life cannot be reduced to a collection of physical and chemical data, and that the human body has an innate wisdom or inner drive toward vitality and health. Encarta lists naturopathy as an example of Vitalistic medicine (we used this as a source briefly, but I removed it as the point did not seem contentious and the degree of detail offered by the source is minimal). Bridgeport states The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force., which sounds like a fair description of vitalism to me; clearly, the tendency to heal being referred to by at least some accredited NDs is not merely platelets and antibodies. Probably each of those bullets in Principles could be expanded into a paragraph - would that be good?

Also, writing as the person who added vitalism adhering as closely as I could to our sources, I can assure you that there was no ulterior motive to improving our coverage of this topic. Also also, I think that holistic serves as the same sort of signifier to some people, but it is also sourced. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think expanding the meaning of the principles is an excellent idea. This was done before but wound up being deleted because some editors claimed it was reading like an ad for the nat med colleges. A modern interpretation of the 'life force' to many in the profession describes the sum total of the physiological pathways that have evolved to protect and heal us. Finding good references for this non-magical Vis 2.0 may be difficult, but I will give it a go. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Towards a strategy for criticism in this article

Sorry if this is out of place in the discussion, but the reason I have replaced 'Atwood assessed...' with 'Atwood claims...' is because it is unusual to describe a criticism offered by a single author writing sui generis as an 'assesment'. 'Assessment' implies an judicious review of facts by a qualified authority, often with some sort of binding authority. Atwood has, all on his own, made a controverisal claim that is binding on no-one. (He himself admits an overwhelming number of letters in opposition to what he has written.) He does not seem to have reviewed, studied or 'assessed' anything other than his own feelings in coming to his conclusion. No need to dress this up so that is carries more weight than it actually does. Atwood 'claimed'. The Massachusetts Association of Naturopathic Doctors 'claimed'. It was Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Massachusetts who 'assessed'.72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the above, is Atwood's opinion really worthy of the lead? I will not remove it for now, and appreciate the more NPOV language that has been adopted. In the long term, I would like to see criticism in the body of the article and a general summary (not a repetition) of criticism in the lead:

'Criticism of naturopathy adresses/questions the philosophical beliefs of naturopaths, the safety and effictiveness of specific naturopathic treatments, the quality of training that naturopaths recieve, the lack of consistent regulation amongst jurisdictions and....' (etc).

With a general overview of criticism in the lead, specific criticisms could be placed where they are most apropriate. For example, alongside the discussion of the 'healing power of nature' the article should mention that there also exists a killing power in nature! Mentioning one particular criticism (Atwood's) in the lead is borederline undue weight, since there is nothing particularly special about his particualr criticism. Perhaps when more criticisms are applied in the main body of the article, we can replace the lonely Atwood reference in the lead with a summary statement like the one above? 72.0.222.219 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ND training not equivalent to MD

Is the ND training of equal value to that of an MD? Is the MD training of equal value to that of an MD? This is vague judgment statement that without context seems to imply that one training standard is superior (of greater value) than the other. No references are provided to back up the statement, outside of the opinion of Atwood, an MD who's opinion is only notable because of his opposition to all things naturopathic. This POV is fine in the criticism section but should not be stated as fact in the description about NDs. If somebody wants to cite the differences in hours of training between the two programs, or any other relevant facts I am fine with that, btw. Facts please. 72.0.222.217 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The way to balance POV isn't to delete it, it's to show the other side by citing verifiable reliable sources. There may be valid reasons why ND programs don't need internships and residencies. Just show the sources.LeadSongDog come howl 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another tried-and-true way to balance a POV is to make sure that it is clearly atributed to it's author. And yet another way to balance a POV is to avoid giving it undue weight by restating it three times in one article. And yes, another way to maintain NPOV is to delete POV opinions (no matter how well sourced) that are too vague to be meaningful. We have choices on how to deal with the Atwood ref. Some POVs are best left out of an article. Finding an equally vague but opposing POV isn't always the best way to go. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like eventually to integrate the Criticism section into the rest of the article - would this address your concerns? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article would do better to have very specific criticism 'in-line' rather than at the end. The reason for this is because 'naturopathy' as a concept is so vague that it can simultaneously describe practices and beliefs that are irrational and dangerous or that are highly effective, well researched and generally regarded as safe. A 'naturopath' could be a regulated professional with a BSc followed by 3 years basic medical sciences, 1 year clinical training and 3 million in malpractice insurance. On the other hand, a 'naturopath' could signify somone who took a weekend course, has no clinical training or insurance and is subject to no regulatory standard of practice. The problem with the criticism in this article has historically been that it has been too vague. The trick is to find quality criticism and apply it appropriately. Atwood and Barret, though popular, easy to find, and fun to agree with if you share their POV, seldom get the job done, because they do not use an evidence based model to support their claims. They also have a tendancy to insult NDs and call them names. Great stuff on quackwatch, but not likely to make for a stable wiki page. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that lists jurisdictions that regulate NDs to have internship and residency requirements comparable to MDs? The isolated example of Utah doesn't really provide a worldwide view.LeadSongDog come howl 16:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, there is nothing comparable about ND and medical doctor training. Even a real primary care physician typically has 4 years of college with core science courses, 4 years of medical school, 3 years of postgraduate residency, and ongoing continuing medical education requirement. For specialists, add another 3-5 years of training before independent practice. ND is an alternative to a university undergraduate degree, not an MD and because it has roughly the scientific foundation of aromatherapy or astrology, needs no science, no medical science, and virtually no supervised clinical training. Only a very naive person would expect NDs to be able to diagnose and treat real diseases because they have no exposure to real disease, death, and doctors in their training. No ND would want to be held to the standards and consequences of real medical care that real doctors ignore at their peril. 159.14.242.252 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you are comparing the US allopathic medical education system to, let's say, the naturopathic programs in the UK or India. The 6 accredited ND schools in North America are first professional, post graduate 4-year medical programs with a regulated medically scientific core. Yes, it is correct that these schools don't have required residency programs or fellowships, but to say they are undergraduate programs that "have roughly the scientific foundation of aromatherapy or astrology" is absolutely asinine. These ND's are held to the standards of "real" medical care, do diagnose, treat and often integrate well the the established conventional medical community. Perhaps you have a very limited understanding of the subject matter. Did you know that med students in the UK begin their medical training at age 18 and enter the clinic after 3 years of medical science? --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Allopathic"? Hmm... 3 years? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... An interesting (by which I mean facile) description of UK medical training, which appears to try and debase it by making an apparent false equivalence which in no way stands up to scrutiny. Trying to make MDs look bad doesn't make NDs look better! Hmm indeed. This article should make clear, using RS and maintaining NPOV, that NDs are not and are vastly different (medically and scientifically inferior, to be blunt on the talk page) to genuine, trained, physicians. That is why medical doctor is a protected term. Verbal chat 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's also a lie: The British system is set up so that the schooling done at 16/17 is equivalent to an associate's degree or so, and the Medical school training itself lasts 5-6 years.

Secondly, we have no reliable source of equal weight saying N.D.s are equivalent, so weakening the statement is basically putting NOTHING on equal weight to something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course its not equivelent. A simple glance at the curiculum can tell anyone that. I think what you are trying to say (argue) is that they are as good at providing healthcare (however you might define it). Different things... ChillyMD (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ChillyMD - which curricula you have looked at and why are they not equivalent? The accredited North American schools have anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, and all the same basic sciences as traditional medical schools, which are then tested on a board exam. The same pre-requisite classes are required for admission and maintenance of a license requires ongoing education classes. The only arguable difference is residency, which is not required (largely a function of the small size of the profession), but is rapidly expanding and may become a requirement in the future. The same, no, equivalent, yes. Kpaddock (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I was unable to find any mention about "pseudoscience" or "quackery" in the first three references of the subject. The other sources were secondary references to Quackwatch, which is often considered a opinionated, non-neutral attack that makes claims without merit (scientific or otherwise). This reference should be removed as well as the objectionable language that clearly does not have consensus.--67.171.60.130 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there is significant debate about the verifiability and scientific rigor of naturopathic medicine. However, it does not seem neutral to include criticism of naturopathic medicine in the first paragraph of its description. When terms such as "quackery" are used in the introduction to a topic, it shows the bias of the author and may dissuade some readers from continuing on.Fecund1 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there should be no criticism in the lead. A summary of criticism is appropriate in the lead. I agree however that 'quackery' is not appropriate. Firstly, the term is being applied here to homeopathy - but the article is supposed to be about naturopathy. Secondly, although many scientists have concluded that homeopathy is not supported by evidence, only one or two have been angry/rude enough to use such insulting language. Why are we giving such an inflammatory, fringe characterization about homeopathy such weight? And why are we doing it in an article about naturopathy? If a notable critic has used such unfortunate language, I have no problem with reporting this to show the range of responses to homeopathy. There is no need to promote this fringe view in the lead however. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the lead would be improved if quackery and pseudoscience where left out. They're inflammatory terms drawing too much negativity and a sense of hostility to the lead. How about simply "homeopathy is rejected by the scientific community"? --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The terms 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience' have no place in the objective description of Naturopathy. They are both opinions and should relegated to the criticism section. Jmstoic (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we change the first paragraph starting with the words "Naturopathy comprises" to: Naturopathy comprises many treatment modalities including herbal medicine, nutritional and lifestyle counseling, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, and physical medicine such as manipulation.("An Introduction to Naturopathy". NCCAM publication number D372. April 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-29.) Some of these modalities are accepted by the medical community. However, others, especially homeopathy, are strongly criticized by the medical community for lack of scientific evidence.Fecund1 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the propsed change.Jmstoic (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a descriptive definition I would also like to use this in the first paragraph/ definition: Naturopathy places priority upon these conditions as the bases for ill health: (1) lowered vitality; (2) abnormal composition of blood and lymph; (3) maladjustment of muscles, ligaments, bones, and neurotropic disturbances; (4) accumulation of waste matter and poison in the system; (5) germs, bacteria, and parasites which invade the body and flourish because of toxic states which may provide optimum conditions for their flourishing; and (6) consideration of hereditary influences, and (7) psychological disturbances.

I got this from a source already cited, #3, which is Barrett's opinionated website. If we are going to cite him for critisms, then we should also cite his descriptions. The disription is actually from NANP (nation assoc. Naturopathic Physcians) and Barrett reproduced it.

Jmstoic (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That level of detail probably belongs under Naturopathy#Practice, though I could certainly see mentioning toxins in the lead or otherwise tweaking it. As for citing, we should generally prefer the original source, keeping in mind how to treat primary sources; "NANP, as cited in Barret" or using a convenience link are also possible, though the latter really only applies to complete documents (for instance, I think the HEW report might be to a reproduction, not a *.gov site). In any case, be bold and cite your sources. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Could someone please remove 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience' out of the lead and use a more gentle, neutral tone of "lacks scientific evidence" or "is rejected by the scientific community"? Pretty please? --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience should definitely remain in the lead as supported by WP:RS, but I have moved quackery to the other PS mention in the body, and trimmed the refs slightly (all refs remain in that sentence). Verbal chat 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I still find the tone of the last sentence of the first paragraph to be too critical. Why does the article talk about whether or not the medical community agrees with naturopathic modalities before listing what those modalities are? I have suggested a change a few comments above here.--Fecund1 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy doesn't lack scientific evidence, there has been a lot of research - and the conclusion is it has no clinical effect. To say it lacks evidence would be misleading. If naturopaths use it as a modality then it is worth of mention in the article, (check) and summarised in the lead. Verbal chat 06:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at research articles on PubMed: (searched 'Homeopathy AND efficacy'). There are conclusions that suggest homeopathy does have clinical effect. The most ubiquitous conclusion is that more study needs to be done, and beforehand, a standardization of terms and practices needs to be elucidated. There are large differences between homeopathy theory, homeopathic medicine, homeopathic remedies, homeopathic interviews, and constitutional homeopathy. Generally, researchers are not distinguishing between them, and so conclusions concerning homeopathy are conclusions on varied techniques. Unfortunately, homeopathic practice may have too many variables to control, and can not be tested via RTC/double-blind studies. Did you know that there has never been a RTC/double-blind study on the effectiveness of parachutes while sky-diving?Jmstoic (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Enh, that can be discussed over at Talk:Homeopathy ... but really it has been beaten into the ground. Sure there are problems with the evidence base surrounding homeopathy, but it is perfectly susceptible to investigation, and the aggregate conclusion of medically reliable sources is that there is nothing there. Also, check my userspace for a tongue-in-cheek paper calling for more study to establish the relative risk of a parachute-based intervention in patients presenting with major falling. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 07:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and several recent publications have called for a stop to further research, as we should have found something by now and more fruitful research could be done on more promising treatments. Homeopathy can and has been tested, and has no plausible mechanism. This should take place on the homeopathy page though. Verbal chat 08:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that an opinion of homeopathy's efficacy should not be included in the factual description of naturopathy. Just like I was told this belongs on a homeopathy page, so should the opinion of homeoapthy not be included in naturopathy.Jmstoic (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What Jmstoic seems to be missing is that homeopathy is regarded by the practioners and teachers of naturopathy as an accepted modality of naturopathic practice thereby greatly undermining any credibility the other modalities might provide. Not just guilt by association, but by the actual endorsement and use of it.LeadSongDog come howl 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of naturopaths that do not use, nor endorse homeopathy. In the state of Washington, ND's can use IV therapy, would you suggest that IV therapy is now discredited when a ND uses homeopathy and IV therapy in their practice? And so here is the crux of the problem in defining Naturopathy: a laundry list of modalities (which may overlap or contradict each other), as well as a body of physicians which do not hold the same approach to cases. I think we should use some of the descriptions from The Foundations Project. I'll spend some time in the material and see what I can come up with.Jmstoic (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim, you keep referring to "factual description of naturopathy", and other similar phrases. Well, NPOV requires that we describe all facets of the subject, and that includes criticisms. IOW, we have to describe both/all sides of the coin in the article, and the LEAD must summarize the article.

LeadSongDog has an important point as well. The very fact that someone believes in homeopathy (if they understand how it supposedly "works") undermines their credibility, and when a whole profession does it, its credibility is also undermined. If it can make such colossal blunders in logic and fundamentally critical failures to understand science and medicine, then one can also expect many other erroneous ideas and practices to be present, and that is the case. That's just one of the reasons why it is important to mention the dubious nature of homeopathy here, and why the use of "pseudoscience" and "quackery", which are sourced properly, must not be removed or minimized. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is a discussion that people feel strongly about. I think that this encyclopedia should present both sides of the discussion. If there is room for well sourced criticism, there is room for well sourced praise, and well sourced neutrality.--Fecund1 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy?

The Lead says, "but homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery", when the references are to naturopathy. Ain't that kinda weird? You guys have gotta set it right.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd love it if you left out those words here and also removed them from the article on Homeopathy, where every statement in the article (there) is criticised.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Give it up. This campaign of yours to remove properly sourced information you don't like is disruptive. Actually the mention of homeopathy needs to be strengthened by documenting it as one of their most frequently used methods. It is thus a significant point. It is also part of the very little mention of the criticisms, which, per NPOV, must be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Since naturopathy is a fringe profession, it is undue to not increase the mention of criticisms in the lead. Right now the weight leans too far in favor of their fringe beliefs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd have been disruptive if I'd edited the article, but I haven't (no way am I gonna edit, till I getta know the rules betta). I know most wikipedians are anti Alt Med, but how can Naturopathy be the fringe topic on the article on Naturopathy? I think Naturstud can explain that better.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Here's the simplified version.... "Fringe" simply refers to non-mainstream medical or scientific subjects, IOW whatever is on the "fringes" of proven (by V & RS. See WP:MEDRS) medical and scientific knowledge, and in this case it would apply to all alternative medicine subjects. On rare occasion (previously more commonly) a fringe subject becomes mainstream, and then it's no longer fringe and the V & RS will show it. The relevant article will then reveal the transition. Until then, trying to make a fringe subject look like it's a mainstream subject is disruptive and violates our policies. It's really not complicated at all. For a number of mainstream statements, look here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at a lot of your sources, BullRangifer. Quite a few fit the below-described catagory, as defined by WP:MEDRS.

The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[5] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[6] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease, or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source. They also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms.

A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example with the "laysummary=" parameter of {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help).

Looking up actual studies and avoiding editorials should be the focus of our citation hunts. An editorial is only that, even if it comes from NEMJ. Jmstoic (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. The scientific nitty gritty is covered by MEDRS, while opinions and facts of another nature are governed by our regular V & RS policies, which definitely allow the popular press and other sources. We just use common sense, so I think we are in agreement when it comes to sourcing. -- Brangifer (talk)

Removed minor change by ChillyMD, again taking quakery out of the first paragrah. Roodycar (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was a regular edit, not a minor :-) I think pseudoscience is pretty weak, the lead needs a stronger statement about its "fringe" or "Quakish" status in the scientific and medical communities, imo. And its interesting...people want consenus for it to be in, yet no consensus is needed to remove it. Curious. ChillyMD (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is absurd. It remains. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fecund1, please note the above. This is not an agreement that "quackery" doesn't belong in the lead.LeadSongDog come howl 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quackery is an aggressive and opinion driven term. This article is supposed to be neutral and this term simply does not fit. It needs to be permanently removed from the introduction to a page on Naturopathy, this is not a page on homeopathy. It can remain in the body of the article if expressed as one of the opinions that does exist in the community.Fecund1 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is appreciated, but clearly from the above, it is not shared by all editors and is not likely to be. The use of the term has been discussed at length. It is founded in the sources. So long as naturopaths endorse homeopathy as a methodology the term will be appropriate.LeadSongDog come howl 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'Quackery' has no place in what should be a purely descriptive introductory paragraph. It is an opinion, not a statement of fact. The use of this term in the introductory paragraph sends a message: the editors are not neutral, we are not interested in providing facts and knowledge to people without them, and we are interested in advancing our opinions as facts. This spits in the face of objective reporting and is the opposite of everything scientific investigation and journalism hold as ideals. As far as the sources go, they too are opinions and criticisms. 'Quackery' belongs in the Criticism section. If we are including POV's, then we should include them all (which I think is bad idea anyway). Our sources for what naturopathy is should come from naturopathic physicians, not MD's with a economic incentive. We should use the AANP's description and Bastyr Unversity's description plus the six principles of Naturopathy to describe Naturopathy. With all due respect, why are the sources of the description of Naturopathy not ND's nor other qualified personel? It's like asking a professional baseball player to describe golf and treating their input with deference over a golfer's description of the game of golf.Jmstoic (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out that a substantial number of homeopaths are MDs? This survey was small and confined to the state of Massachusetts, but it's worth noting that a large number of homeopaths in Massachusetts are licensed MDs. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102194866.html Why then does the article on naturopathy have the terms Quackery and Pseudoscience attached to it whereas it's not included in the general 'Medicine' article? The following literature review suggests that a great number of procedures performed by MDs are not evidence-based, which makes them just as much quackery as anything a naturopath does. http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/percent.html I'm not saying that the procedures done by MDs are unfounded, because they are based on informed judgment; likewise, NDs act on informed judgment. Let's try to take the dogma out of the entry on naturopathy. Kpaddock (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You'd have us treat a meeting abstract as a WP:MEDRS? Please at least try to base your case on persuasive sources. LeadSongDog come howl 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A legitimate point, and I've amended my entry slightly, to say survey, not study. Here's that same information published in a journal, available on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10632255. A glance through the practitioner database of the National Center for Homeopathy, found here: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/resources/practitioners.jsp will show a considerable number of MDs on the list, and the American Board of Homeotherapeutics ( http://www.homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board.html ) is a specialty board that will grant diplomas only to MDs or DOs. My argument is that there is bias in this entry, because naturopaths are being disproportionately linked to a system of medicine practiced by a variety of practitioners. Kpaddock (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have defined "who" considers homeopathy to be pseudoscience or quackery in accordance to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. They state that opposing views should include a reference to "who" has that view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Capsule (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "quackery" is perjorative "An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." The term should be removed as it violates neutrality. Also the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page states, "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is." Quackery and pseudoscience are opinions because they are not undisputed facts according to Wikipedia NPOV page "By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." The statement needs a reference to who it is that has that opinion and how large the group is. If this is not included it can not be considered neutral and must be eliminated completely.--Internal Capsule (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Overt anti-Alternative Medicine bias

I am deeply concerned about the overt anti-naturopathy tone of the main article. The article fails to live up to neutrality standards. Obviously, many people reject naturopathic practices. Others embrace them. It doesn't seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article to pick a side. There are numerous examples of negative bias without reference to the opposing viewpoint, many of which are discussed above. Merely providing a citation to an anti-naturopathic source does not make a statement neutral. It would be more intellectually honest to either remove the slanted language or relocate it to the "Criticism" section. Harperist (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but deleting r ghettoising criticisms is not neutral, it's just pushing the pro-naturopathy point of view. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you use the term "ghettoising"??? also, your comment doesn't address why "anti-naturopathy" point of view is acceptable without the "pro". If the strong anti-naturopathy view is intellectually honest, it should stand up to the test of a balanced article.Harperist (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who said we should remove all criticism or put it into a criticism ghetto. That's not going to happen. What do you think is missing on the pro-side? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday, I am sure I did NOT use the term "ghetto" or "ghettoising." Furthermore, the "Criticism" section already exists--I am merely suggesting that given the existence of the section, the unbalanced criticism would be more appropriate there. 2/0, your line-by-line is duly noted and appreciated. As my schedule permits, I hope to respond in-kind with sourced material. My general concern remains however that the overall tone of the article is slanted such that the sourced criticism is treated as authority rather than as opinion. Even if the criticism remains unbalanced with equally weighted positive viewpoints, the wording could be improved to clarify that the criticism is opinion rather than accepted wisdom. Harperist (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point to consider here is the Giving equal validity section of the Neutral point of view policy. It is not appropriate for this article to "pick a side", but part of a thorough encyclopedic treatment includes reporting how naturopathy has been described, weighted by the reliability of the available sources. If there are better sources not currently being used, by all means propose them. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While trying to stay out of the argument taking place here, I think it is weakening the strength of wikipedia that so much of what is included in this article is opinion or conjecture. Many of these statements are uncited, and what is cited merely cites opinion. Not nearly enough emphasis is given to fact in this article, with the result that the article is largely a mouthpiece for other websites and authors, rather than being an impartial document written to supply information. Unfortunately, many users of wikipedia are unlikely to check sources, and will accept what is written here without reading about the authors; those opinions are freely available on the web - can we please work together to create an article that presents facts, while acknowledging both points of view? Kpaddock (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Line by line

This edit, line by line:

Eclectic means that naturopaths use many different techniques; this is in contrast to, for instance, straight chiropractic which uses only spinal manipulation. This variety of techniques is a key facet of naturopathic practice, indicating mention in the opening sentence. See, for instance, Naturopathic medicine uses many different techniques and methods.
:The edit inappropriately removed the extensively discussed "quackery" from the lead. Unless there is new justification for doing so, it should be restored.LeadSongDog come howl 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Acupuncture and homeopathy are sourced as core approaches for many naturopaths. To fail to contrast naturopathy with medicine leaves a poor encyclopedic description.
:I would suggest contrasting it with evidence based medicine instead.LeadSongDog come howl 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Some sources in the lead are commented out for stylistic reasons - citations are provided where the same information is presented in the body, leaving the lead summary less cluttered. This style is by no means universal in Wikipedia, but it works well enough that we should discuss before changing it.
:The choice comes down to the question of whether verifiability is just for editors or is for all readers. I'd come down in favour of the latter.LeadSongDog come howl 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The comparison with MD and DO programs is addressed above. Please bring any points which have not been considered there.
The cited source does not say "allopathic"; there are a number of problems with this terminology, the foremost being that we should not expect our readers to know what it means without a lengthy off-topic digression. The relevant passage in Frey is: There has been a revival of interest in naturopathy in the United States and Canada since the 1970s. This trend reflects greater public awareness of the connections between dietary habits and lifestyle and the development of chronic illnesses, as well as disenchantment with the side effects of synthetic medications. Some mention of the cultural changes around that time would be appropriate in Naturopathy#History; please open a new section below to propose changes.
Rejection of medicine is sourced here to an independent commentator. The appropriateness of this source (though not, to my knowledge, this particular document) has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Removal of references. Vitalism is, again, a defining feature of naturopathic practice. Stating more about the measured effectiveness of the system would be great. Please propose additional references below to replace or augment the ones removed.
More removal of sourced content, see point 1. Some of the wording could be tightened if a reference is found defining which particular segments of the loosely affiliated naturopathic community reject vaccines &c.
The groupings defined by the cited source, ACS, are: formally trained with a focus on naturopathy; informally trained through apprenticeship or self-teaching; and using naturopathy in addition to a primary specialty. The first category is not one-to-one with practitioners with doctoral degree in naturopathic medicine from an accredited institution. [Please note, my concern here is that the language used does not distinguish the four year degree as a graduate degree, rather than an undergraduate degree. This ambiguity is somewhat disingenuous in my opinion. Harperist (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)] ** changed to link to Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine - better? New section below if we need more discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) [--better! thanks.] Harperist (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Comparison with MD and DO again.
The clauses some scientific traditions and considered by some are not in keeping with Undue weight, as such a presentation gives the appearance that the viewpoint modern science thinks life is quickened by an unmeasurable force is as widely supported as its opposite. The phrasing is also weasel wording.
The sentence However, in accredited programs, students are required to undergo two years of supervised clinical training. is redundant with the second sentence in that paragraph, which provides a reference.
[B]y some ... others - see point 11.
The cited source (Frey) states: One risk of any alternative treatment that concerns some patients is the possibility of a missed diagnosis. The cited source (Atwood) discusses incorrect diagnoses in the context of the types of medical claims made in the preceding sentence of the article, missed diagnosis as a danger of inadequate, incomplete, or improper training, and the inapplicability of some naturopathic diagnostic modalities. The problems of differential diagnosis are off-topic here, though it may be appropriate to clarify using additional high-quality sources as increased chance of missed diagnosis vs. medical care, treating misdiagnosis and belief in nonexistent ailments separately. It may also be appropriate to clarify by breaking down according to formal and informal training; my suspicion (requiring a source, of course) is that the latter are woefully inadequate, while the former are merely underprepared.

- 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful analysis, 2over0. The edits should be unwound and taken individually if at all. Taken together they amount to a major POV push.LeadSongDog come howl 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please follow this link to see an example of a neutral treatment of this subject by the National Institute of Health: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/ Harperist (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly a neutral treatment - it's from NCCAM, the wholely credulous arm of the NIH. -- Xinit (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

LeadSongDog expressed above a preference for including relevant citations in the lead. The current guideline on this practice is at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations, which I think has changed since last I read it. I also consider that providing easy verification to readers is more important than the minor readability issue raised by densely referenced text. Would anybody mind if I unhide the references in a few days? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. Although I'm not sure about some recent lead edits so I'll open discussion below. Verbal chat 08:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent lead edits

Some recent lead edits have either added extraneous information to the lead, such as a (incorrect) description of homeopathy, or attempted to change the balance of the lead. I feel these edits need further discussion if hey are to be restored. Please propose and justify such edits in this section, so we can discuss them. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Naturopathic doctor subheading

In an effort to improve the writing and content of the entry on Naturopathy, I made some changes last night to the subheading Naturopathic doctors. I am unclear as to why my changes were reverted. All of my changes were appropriately cited and the grammar and structure of the entry was improved, and more importantly, the content was not significantly changed. My main reasons for changing the current entry are:

-That variations on the phrase "homeopathy ... pseudoscience ... quackery" appear no less than three times in the entry. That's just bad writing. Nonetheless, I understand the importance attached to these words, and so left them in, while at least improving the general writing style of the entry.

-That the phrase "scientifically disproven" can't be validated. It is nearly impossible to fully prove a scientific theory, and likewise it is nearly impossible to fully disprove something as well. The two articles I cited contradict the statement 'scientifically disproven'. The phrase 'highly disputed' is more accurate.

-The phrase 'irreconcilable with modern science and medicine' was altered only because I was starting a new sentence and I wanted to improve grammar.

-The entry is not clear regarding on what grounds the Massachusetts Medical Society objected to licensing naturopaths, and so I expanded that sentence to reflect the content of the citation given. Kpaddock (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems somebody may need to go refresh their memory on the scientific method. Every experiment is an attempt to disprove the theory being tested, by experimentally falsifying a prediction ("hypothesis") that the theory makes. The absence of any disproof after testing all predictions is as close as we can ever get to proving any theory. Every so often someone comes up with a new or unexpected hypothesis to be experimentally tested.LeadSongDog come howl 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's please show each other courtesy when discussing changes, and not suggest that someone 'may need to go refresh their memory'.

My concern is that many readers will misinterpret the words "scientifically disproven". There is often misunderstanding of scientific terms by lay people, (witness the confusion over the term theory) and I think that lay people may take this term the wrong way. Yes, the hypothetical effects of homeopathy and homeopathic treatment has been shown ineffective in various trials and studies. At the same time, trials and studies have been conducted that have shown an effect. To include all the relevant data, we would have to call homeopathy 'proven' and 'disproven' in the same article, probably the same sentence, and that would be nonsense, especially to readers unfamiliar with the scientific meanings of these two terms. It is totally appropriate to call homeopathy 'disputed' and then represent both the disproving and supporting evidence.

I am also concerned that the vicious dispute over homeopathy, currently being discussed elsewhere on wikipedia is bleeding into this article. Can we please keep these discrete?Kpaddock (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only affecting this article to the extent that editors try to excise content that belongs. It would be disingenuous for the article to disregard naturopaths' continued endorsement and use of a discredited modality such as homeopathy. LeadSongDog come howl 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we should excise any content. The alteration I am proposing would read as such:

"This training differs from that undertaken by MDs in that it includes therapies not taught at medical schools, such as botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, naturopathic manipulation, and homeopathy. Homeopathy is highly disputed, having been called "quackery" by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1842 or more recently "pseudoscience" by the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry, though some studies have shown positive effects from homeopathic treatment. Naturopathic schools also teach vitalism, a concept that has been called irreconcilable with modern science and medicine. NDs are not required to engage in residency training. In 2005, the Massachusetts Medical Society opposed licensure in the commonwealth based on concerns over the facts that NDs are not required to participated in residency, and may also suggest inappropriate or harmful treatments."

Appropriate citations would of course be used, and while the wording would be slightly different in order to accomodate information that would be added, I think this change does not significantly alter the content. Kpaddock (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as in many medical schools you can choose to do course in all those things (I'm not saying that's a good thing), and also the specific attribution for homeopathy is misleading; it is commonly called quackery and pseudoscience and is actually one of the most commonly cited examples of both. The "some studies have shown positive effects" falls foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The best reviews show homeopathy is a placebo at best, and positive studies tend to be small outliers or very badly run (no control, no blinding, etc). Verbal chat 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The specific attributions (I'm assuming you mean Holmes and CSI) for homeopathy are not mine, but I included them - they were added by another editor.

Would you agree to a version of this edit that states that substitutes 'requires' in place of 'includes therapies not taught at medical schools', and which leaves out the statement 'though some studies have shown positive effects from homeopathic treatment'? I feel this edit would still improve readability, while acknowledging your concerns.Kpaddock (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Requires is supported by CNME, which is good enough for me. Also, any rewording which omits in that it would be an improvement. It might also be good to put vitalism first, as it applies even when a naturopath is not practicing homeopathy. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit has been made in accordance with discussion.Kpaddock (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation

I just reverted this edit pending discussion. See this and this. Please note that the accreditation is from the ASPA, not the U.S. Secretary of Education. Also please note that the careful wording of the CNME Faq#11 doesn't exactly claim that the Secretary of Education accredits it either.LeadSongDog come howl 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please look at this list: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg8.html . You will find the CNME in the healthcare section. This list is a list of accrediting agencies formally recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education, according to the following statement: 'The regional and national accrediting agencies linked to below are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit.' [1] Unless there's further discussion, I'll be adding this information in the next day or two. Kpaddock (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better source. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 06:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even I thought the wording was a bit vague on the CNME site. Kpaddock (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

A good wiki article includes criticism. But we must not take sides by agreeing or disagreeing with notable, referenced critics. "Acording to critics, NDs recieve inferior training to MDs" is fine, but the statement "NDs recieve inferior training to MDs" is not, because it appears to agree with the critic's opinion. - 207.112.110.137 17:18, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Basically you are correct, but you need to get consensus before deleting sourced information. Suggest better wordings here and you might get some support. Right now you're engaged in an edit war. Also use your registered account instead of using various IPs. That's not allowed here. One individual, one account is the basic rule. An anonymous IP and SPA doesn't carry any weight around here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you have a strong point, and I think this change is worth making, or at least this sentence requires expansion, but please abide by the norms of wikipedia and register. Also, please don't start an edit war because that ultimately only gets in the way of changes. Kpaddock (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it has been a few months since we did this dance. Essentially, this is an issue of particular attribution - we do not have any similarly reliable source contradicting Atwood's analysis. I think there may be a similar point in the Oregon licensure papers - something about knowing when to work with MDs on complex cases, maybe? If someone can track that down we could reword the current sentence, but really the point does not seem controversial. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My issue with the current wording is that it does not explain why naturopathic training is inferior, or what about naturopathic training is inferior. I think that the sentence should be expanded, and that at least one more source than Atwood should be included to support this statement, because Atwood relies heavily on outdated information. Residency is not currently required in naturopathic training (except for the state of Utah), which I think is the primary difference. The product of this discussion should be the inclusion of more information, rather than less. Kpaddock (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I believe Atwood also compares the coursework of ND to MD, and states that one of them wastes a fair bit of time and contradicts itself. Propose some wording and further independent sources, I think this idea will improve the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection to adding properly sourced explanations of the differences, however let's not turn this article into "Naturopathy in the Unites States" without first discussing that. It is already grotesquely US-centric. LeadSongDog come howl 16:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the entry is US-centric, and that future changes should reflect a more global perspective. Will the anonymous editor who started this thread please chime in??Kpaddock (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is solved by mentioning that it is Atwood's opinion that ND training is inferior to MD training. Current phrasing presents Atwood's opinion as though it were a fact. Inferior in what sense? Anatomy, clinical skills, medical ethics, biochemistry, residency, pharmacology...? This is Atwood's judgment, which although relevant and notable is equally vague and controversial. Such vague criticism can not be stated in this article as though it were a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.252.82 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I think that we have for a while here had broad agreement that the current structure, including a Criticism section, is less than ideal. Rather than edit warring over the section name, can we just leave it as is until we can agree on an implementation that integrates the text? Separating out the text that is relevant to a proposed Evidence basis section would be a good first step. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current layout of the Evidence basis section as a general discussion of evidence related to naturopathic medicine with subheadings on Skepticism and Vaccination. However, the labels that have been applied to my addition are inappropriate for a few reasons. First, they are used elsewhere in the entry and were allowed by consensus. Second, they do not contradict any of the other information given. The existing discussion of traditional naturopaths and EBM cites an article about Australian naturopaths and a German-language opinion piece. This entry as a whole has been accused of being US-centric, with the resulting problem being that poorly-regulated, potentially unscientific naturopathic practice in other countries might appear stronger than it is in actuality. One of the problems of this topic is that naturopathic practice varies heavily from country to country and no blanket statements can be made. I'm going to make an edit to clarify this point unless there is further discussion on the talk page. Kpaddock (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources cannot be used in this way for Evidence basis. See WP:MEDRS. If you want to clarify the point that from country to country naturopathic practice varies please use reliable references. WP:OR is not allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an edit war. Opinions on how to resolve this, anyone? I'll call for a moratorium on edits until this is discussed and consensus achieved. Kpaddock (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how the references you added comply with WP:MEDRS. The best way to resolve this matter is to comply with Wikipedia policy as previously explained. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit complies with the guidelines on primary sources given on WP:MEDRS, "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources." No conclusions beyond those presented in the sources are drawn. The sources demonstrate the existence of these programs. Kpaddock (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also in compliance with the WP:OR entry on primary sources "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." My edit involved facts alone and no interpretation or analysis. Kpaddock (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field."

See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated previously, my entry does not contradict the prior entries. The edit I am proposing will include information on research programs at the larger North American naturopathic colleges, information on NIH funding, and on collaborative efforts between naturopaths and medical doctors in an effort to promote EBM. I would also further detail the existing entry to draw a clearer line between 'traditional naturopathic practitioners' and 'naturopathic physicians', as well as delineate the difference in naturopathic practice between countries e.g. Australia and Germany vs. United States. It also doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT, because I'm not throwing weight where it doesn't belong - it is very well confined to where it belongs. I'm writing in good faith here. Kpaddock (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, your edit does indeed contradict secondary sources. You added text that claims naturopathic schools are involved in research when the sources state after naturopaths come out of school they are against research.

Collaborative efforts between naturopaths and medical doctors and drawing a clearer line between 'traditional naturopathic practitioners' and 'naturopathic physicians' should be written using secondary sources. Primary sources would violate WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your concerns, but these divisions are not novel ideas that I am proposing - they are written about elsewhere in this entry. I'm going to make an appeal to common sense here. WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS were put in place to prevent people from writing total nonsense like "You can get AIDS from shaking hands with a person with AIDS because my cousin said so", or even "Homeopathy is a perfect system of medicine because this small, poorly-designed study on Arnica showed a minor, non-statisically significant effect". They were not put in place to keep out obvious truths, such as the existence of a research center or the existence of NIH funding. Including more information in the entry does not negate the points you have made. Kpaddock (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the claims that naturopathic schools are involved in research from primary sources are being used in a way to contradict secondary sources that state after naturopaths come out of school they are against research. This is the definition of a WP:MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a citation from the University of Minnesota (UMN) which addresses the relationship of naturopathic medicine to EBM: http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/naturopathy

Here is a citation from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMM) which draws the line between 'naturopathic physicians' who have attended 4-year accredited colleges, and those who have not: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/naturopathy-000356.htm

The edit I am proposing would read something like this, with all appropriate citations (using citation numbers from the entry) included:

"Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as an appropriate methodology for investigating natural medicine such as naturopathy, which has been characterized as non-scientific.(75) For this reason, members of the medical community may show a critical or even rejecting view of naturopathic medicine.(73) While naturopathic physicians often rely on traditional methods of treatment based on clinical expertise, many have begun to integrate evidence-based therapeutics and to contribute to research, further developing and validating the profession (UMN, 74). This may vary to a greater degree depending on education level. Naturopathic physicians in North American states or provinces that license naturopaths are required to attend a four-year naturopathic medical school and pass a rigorous licensing examination.(UMM) The larger naturopathic medical schools have research programs, some of which receive funding from the National Institutes of Health.(Bastyr, NCNM, CCNM) In states, provinces and countries that do not legally license naturopaths, persons who have not attended accredited schools may present themselves as naturopath or 'traditional naturopathic practitioners'.(UMM) Among these practitioners, resistance to EBM may be higher, as evidenced by a survey of Australian traditional naturopaths, which discovered that many viewed EBM as an ideological assault on their beliefs, and that these practitioners may have difficulty understanding or implementing EBM.(72) With greater scientific knowledge of naturopathy, better therapeutic approaches could be achieved, resulting in improved therapy models and an economic benefit for the health care system.(74)"

It's a bit wordy, but I'm open to comments and will do some editing.Kpaddock (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is an advertizement. The information about schools and funding does not belong in this section. Anyhow, funding is mostly duplication from Naturopathy#Practice. Schooling is duplication from Naturopathy#Practitioners. Mixing UMN and 74 to verify a sentence is odd. You are using a primary source to come to a different conclusion than the secondary source. The text "For this reason," is sourced using another reference so how could it be for that specific reason from the previous sentence using a different reference. This is making an assumption. On Wikipedia, we don't come to our own conclusions, add duplicate information to different sections, or undermine secondary sources. This proposal is not up to Wikipedia's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To characterize this as an "advertizement" is inaccurate to say the least. Information is duplicated, but it is germane to the topic - it may be that we remove the information on schools and NIH from the 'practice' section, where it is less pertinent. UMN and 74 are in agreement. I can reword the sentence so that "For this reason" is excluded, and that no assumptions are made. I'm also disturbed by your decision to edit the entry after I suggested a cooling off period until this could be settled, and I don't think that constructive headway is being made in this discussion. Perhaps we should have a third party offer an opinion in the form of a WP:RfC?Kpaddock (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information is duplication and should not be misused in Evidence basis. I don't understand your objection to the improvements I made to the article? My most recent edits were not part of this specific dispute. I made constructive edits. Perhaps you should acknowledge your proposal is not up to Wikipedia policy to include it in the article. There is no reason to dump UMN and 74 together to go beyond the secondary source. These two refs draw different conclusions and no specific reason has been given to mix different views together and draw our own conclusions. I have shown your proposal violates policy but you want to start a RFC. Adding text not relevant to Evidence basis such as schooling and funding is not acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful not to confuse the NCCAM with the NIH as a whole. It has a CAM specific mandate that was thrust upon the NIH by lawmakers. This query will list all pubmed entries for papers supported by NCCAM grants.LeadSongDog come howl 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to the varying opinions about NCCAM and can modify the edit so it says NCCAM, not NIH, if that is agreeable to you. That said, Bastyr first received funding in 1984, 7 years before NCCAM was instituted. Kpaddock (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thnks, that would be helpful. It occurs to me that grants of US federal public funds are a matter of public record. It should, in principle, be possible to cite the grants and quote the relevant paras (they'll presumably be PD-USGov).LeadSongDog come howl 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I will incorporate that information as well - I'll probably say something along the lines of 'Bastyr first recieved federal funding for research in 19XX, and since 19XX, has received funding from NCCAM' with similar statements about NCNM, etc. I found some funding information through nih.gov, but given the objections raised regarding primary sources, I didn't want to inflame the situation.Kpaddock (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to QuackGuru:Let me first start by saying that I am a happy, well-fed mastodon. All I really want to do is to eat grass and reproduce. Yes, I am large, hairy, and have pointy tusks, but I'm pretty sure that we can share this ecosystem. Your teeth are evolved to eat fruit, seeds and small animals. My teeth are evolved to eat fibrous material. We occupy different evolutionary niches.

Regarding the most recent edit you made - I have been refraining from editing, and thought my comment above made it clear that that paragraph is part of the discussion we are having here. We are, after all discussing the evidence basis section, not just one paragraph of it. Thank you for refraining in general - I don't want to see this discussion devolve the way discussions have on other boards.

The information that is found in other sections is completely necessary to mention in Evidence basis. If we are discussing evidence, doesn't it make sense to include information about efforts by naturopaths to include evidence and to conduct research? I want this information included. It is also important to clarify which portions of the naturopathic community are involved in research production and which are not.

My proposal is completely up to Wikipedia policy, and I don't understand why you are trying to edge me out based on technicalities, especially given that I could equally accuse you of WP:MEDRS violations. One of your cited articles is in German, making it very difficult to verify the content of the article - it is also not clear if this is an actual study, an editorial, or what. One article is from 1992, and could be cited as being out of date, given the numerous changes in naturopathic medicine that have happened since then, and could also be called out for being an editorial, not a study. The source written by a CCNM professor is an expository piece, not a study. The only study cited is one that pertains to Australia, not North America - this is an important distinction to make. These criticisms are based on the section of WP:MEDRS that calls for source evaluation. Yes, they are on PubMed, but that doesn't guarantee quality.

Having stated my criticisms, I want to make clear that I do not want to exclude your work from this entry. Your points are valid, even if the sources are not unassailable. I think my sources are equally strong, and help to flesh out the full picture. Ideally, I would like the section to be a more elaborate, well-phrased version of this, "EBM is important to medicine, and naturopathic medicine isn't up to speed on using it. Medical doctors don't like this. Some naturopaths are doing EBM more than others, and their schools conduct research. Other naturopaths don't, and here's some evidence that they don't. Naturopaths should use more EBM." I think we can both agree that this is a true statement. Can we make this happen?

Before you respond, please take a minute, have a bite to eat, and watch something you find humorous on YouTube. Might I suggest [2] followed by [3]? I just want a calm, collected, constructive conversation.Kpaddock (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The information that is found in other sections is completely irrelevant and is also duplication to mention in Evidence basis. I know the primary sources are very weak, and are being misused to distort the picture. The previous proposal was inappropriate and know new proposal has been made. If the 1992 source is outdated then we could compromise and shorten it or you could take the source to the reliable source noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit claimed No MEDRS violation, as this is purely a social claim, not a medical/scientific one but the text also mentions "unscientific methods" which is a scientific view. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by "I know the primary sources are very weak, and are being misused to distort the picture"? Is this a defense of your sources? It just seems like a non sequitur.

You are objecting to my proposed edit, but are doing so only by saying it's "inappropriate" but offering little in the way of constructive criticism of how to improve it (though I will take your suggestion of shortening the entry based on the 1992 source). LeadSongDog proposed an alteration, and I will be incorporating those suggestions. Please suggest specific changes that should be made to my proposal that go beyond saying I can't use my sources. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in an effort to see good work done on this entry. We should be able to agree to changes and make an edit after two more responses from both of us. If we're not there, an RfC is in order. Kpaddock (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix an advertizement. Please start a RFC or make a specific proposal that will meet WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, I drawed a clearer line between 'traditional naturopathic practitioners' and ' modern naturopathic physicians'. I used a reliable source instead of a primary source. Before shortening the entry on the 1992 source I would like a good reason why it should be shortened. QuackGuru (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these changes. I recognize that you're making an effort to incorporate my proposals. I'll write up my proposed changes tomorrow morning.Kpaddock (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am done with my small improvements to this article at least for now. I suggest starting a new thread and RFC at the bottom of the talk page because this thread is too long and other editors could help. QuackGuru (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well here are my suggested edits, to be agreed upon by all editors. This version incorporates criticism from LoneSongDog, QuackGuru, and edits done by BullRangifer.

The numbers used reference the citations in the article, UMM and UMN refer to the sources I gave above, and I also have these new sources:

http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/noprft8500.txt (NIH1)

http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/FindOrg_Detail.cfm?OrgID=1604501 (NIH2)

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/D372.pdf (NCCAM)

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as an appropriate methodology for investigating natural medicine such as naturopathy, which has been characterized as non-scientific. There is concern that non-scientific treatments harm the public, especially the elderly.(75) Members of the medical community may show a critical or even rejecting view of naturopathic medicine.(73) There is some disagreement within the naturopathic community over the use of the scientifically-based treatments, such as those of conventional medicine. (NCCAM) A host of naturopathy alternative treatments are sold as reliable science such as reflexology. However, reflexology is an unconventional method that has nothing in common with serious naturopathic treatments and any scientific value to reflexology is not merited. Contrary to reflexology, scientifically genuine naturopathic methods are not an alternative, but a supplement to modern medicine. (76) While naturopathic physicians often rely on traditional methods of treatment based on clinical expertise, many have begun to integrate evidence-based therapeutics and to contribute to research, further developing and validating the profession (UMN, 74). This may vary to a greater degree depending on education level. Naturopathic physicians in North American states or provinces that license naturopaths are required to attend a four-year naturopathic medical school and pass a rigorous licensing examination.(UMM) The larger naturopathic medical schools have research programs, (Bastyr, NCNM, CCNM) some of which receive federal funding for research. (NIH1, NIH2) In states, provinces and countries that do not legally license naturopaths, persons who have not attended accredited schools may present themselves as naturopath or 'traditional naturopathic practitioners'.(NCCAM, UMM) Among these practitioners, resistance to EBM may be higher, as evidenced by a survey of Australian traditional naturopaths, which discovered that many viewed EBM as an ideological assault on their beliefs, and that these practitioners may have difficulty understanding or implementing EBM.(72) With greater scientific knowledge of naturopathy, better therapeutic approaches could be achieved, resulting in improved therapy models and an economic benefit for the health care system.(74)

Any comments or proposed amendments? I'm trying to make this as reader-friendly as possible, so that it reads as a coherent statement, not as the cobbled-together result of an extensive argument. That said, I want to make sure that no one feels that there have been distortions, or that information is left out. I left the word 'quackery' out, because I think it's a political term, not a scientific one, though the criticism of naturopathy as unscientific has been left in, and I've added an NCCAM source that further verifies the criticism. Hopefully we can be done with this soon, and get back to lazing around and reverting when people take out the intro sentence saying that naturopathic education is not up to par with MD or DO. Kpaddock (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, I included collaborative efforts between naturopaths and medical doctors. As for your proposal, I suggest you stop trying to use unreliable sources and stick to MEDRS. The information about schools and funding does not belong in this section and is duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll just call this good for now. I might include some more material later, but for now, I'm done trying to add material. I appreciate the material you've added, but think you're trying to exclude other voices. Hopefully I've encouraged you to think critically about your own opinions. Don't forget that a good skeptic reassesses and re-evaluates his or her own beliefs based on new information, which he or she is open to receiving. I have found this entry illuminating in this respect (thanks to 2over0).Kpaddock (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is against Wikipedia policy. For example, unreliable references, editorializing, and duplication from other sections is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shelton

Copied from my talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the section on Shelton in the Naturopathy page? I can't work out your summary comments - do you have a reason? Zanze123 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Shelton is covered by independent sources as being important to the history of Naturopathy, it is inappropriate for us to do so here, as making the connection ourselves would be original research. The main sources for that section currently being used are the ACS brief and Baer (2001), currently sources 5 and 9, respectively. Neither of these mentions Shelton, hence [4]. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Now if this was really so important how curious that you failed to provide such justification without being prompted. If you really believe that Shelton has nothing to do with the advent and evolution of Naturopathy, then this shows that there will be other flaws with this article. Besides which, you delete the Shelton section before even giving me any chance to add such a reference. Just because the main sources for the section are ACS and Baer should not prevent other sources and other references being used, unless of course, you have a grudge against natural hygiene? Zanze123 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose any sources you did not add to this article for a day and a quarter before I removed the text that was placed in such a way as it appeared to be supported by references which make no such mention. I did my best to search out the most salient sources when revamping that section, but there is always room for more detail from better sources treating the history of Naturopathy in more depth. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A day and a quarter. I didn't know that there was a time limit on how long I could take before adding a reference. So you believe that naturopathy and natural hygiene have nothing to with each other and Herbert Shelton is not connected in any way shape or form with naturopathy, even if just by association. Lol. Zanze123 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Will the Editor of the Naturopathy page, please explain why Herbert Shelton should not be mentioned in the article. Zanze123 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some WP:RS here showing that they are related and an important figure in Naturopathy. If you do that we can decide if a link and text should be added to the article, but I see no reason to add a person to the see also section - either they should be in the body or not. My feeling is from looking at the article that RS wont be forthcoming. Verbal chat 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not add a person, I added a HEALERS IN HISTORY link to the SEE ALSO section. HEALERS IN HISTORY does not need to be referenced. It is a Link to people mentioned in the Naturopathy article. As for 'I see no reason to add a person', then delete the person QUACKGURU just added to that section, without providing any reference or justification, whilst deleting the HEALERS IN HISTORY link which covers people mentioned in the Naturopathy article in greater detail. Zanze123 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That was removed as you added an external link to the "see also" section, which is reserved for internal links. It is unrelated to the above. Verbal chat 22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And what prevented you from creating an ==External links== section and adding it instead of just deleting it. Answers on a postcard. Zanze123 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor 'Verbal' removed the content for Shelton claiming 'unreliable' sources, as well as deleting other links, on the basis that these were 'undiscussed changes that use unreliable sources' yet his deletions were undiscussed changes on this talk page, without citing any explanation on this talk page. The further removal of links in External and Internal Links was also erroneous. This article is clearly slanted by those editors with an interest in slating Naturopathy. This article is therefore a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of bounds criticism

The current section on Evidence Based Medicine is so POV that I am begining to suspect that it was written by a nat-med proponent as a sort of straw-man argument. ("See how rabid, uninformed and biased criticism of naturopathy is.") The following gave me the giggles:

"According to the U.S. Congress, quackery was determined to be the most harmful consumer fraud against elderly people such as non-scientific naturopathy. These practitioners use unscientific methods and deception on a public who lack in depth health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trust of providers."

... So I left it in. The irony of such an irrational non-evidentiary approach in a section about "evidence" was just to delicious to delete. Perhaps one of this article's long standing anti-naturopathy editors could come up with something a bit more intelligent and presentable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.252.82 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody paraphrased it and left out crucial words. It is now fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion of the "Evidence basis" section above.Kpaddock (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My last comment was not directed to you, BullRangifer - it was for the originator of this thread.Kpaddock (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a section with that title. Please quote any specific wordings you're thinking of. BTW, please be more careful to log in. When you edit as an IP, then go back and fix it with your username. Otherwise you're guilty of misusing your IP as a sock. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That was close to an edit conflict! I was writing while your comment was entered. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not the person who started this thread. And I realized that my comment could be misinterpreted moments after writing it. I was suggesting that the anonymous author read the discussion happening in "Criticism section". Kpaddock (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Internally Contradictory

This article is a bit confusing as it contradicts itself in a few places. Unfortunately I think it may be accurate in its representation of what the Naturopathic movement believes, but nonetheless it would help if a proponent cleared up the obvious flaws with better explanations.

How can something be apposed to synthetic medicines, whilst accepting of chelation, iridology, chinese medicine, homeopathy, et al which use manufactured medication and differ only from EBM in issues of regulation?

The vaccination section is useful as it does focus on actual practice and opinions of practitioners, it doesn't however make any attempt to explain what the basis of their opposition is ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.184.221 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article appears accurate in it's representation of what the Naturopathic Medicine movement believes, however Naturopathy as defined by it's founder (Dr. Benedict Lust), those organizations and schools created by it's founders (American Naturopathic Association, Benedict Lust School of Naturopathy etc.) is quite different in both philosophy and principles than Naturopathic Medicine. (I have expanded on this in the Traditional Naturopathy section).

A little history might help to create some perspective. In 1901, Dr. Benedict Lust founded the American Naturopathic Association and the American School of Naturopathy (Re-named the Benedict Lust School of Naturopathy after his death). In the mid 1940's a splinter group broke off from the ANA and adopted many aspects of conventional Medical philosophy - diagnosing and treating disease but rather than using patent drugs showing a preference for "natural drugs". This group, founded the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (Now called the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians) started their own schools and were generally known by ANA Naturopaths as the "pseduo-medicalists" regarded as charlatans and frauds. After the unexpected death of Dr. Lust (smoke exposure in a suspicious fire) this group took advantage of the resulting disorganization in an attempt to take over the profession. They failed to corrupt the ANA and American School of Naturopathy but they gained enough footholds, particularly in the west, to where we have a situation where there are to distinct groups the CNME "Naturopathic Medicine" group, and the ANA traditional naturopath group. The CNME group tries to assert there is only one naturopathy, by representing Traditional naturopathy as (sometimes known as naturopathic medicine) when in reality the correct disclaimer should read (Not to be confused with Naturopathic Medicine)...

I hope this makes it easier to understand why there seem to be some internal contradictions...

Ndma1 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ndma1 (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is useful ... I think I'm getting that Naturopathy is not an independantly definable concept, it is a philosophy put forward by a movement, a movement which itself seems to be in schism. I guess it's a wikipedia conundrum as it is not for anyone here to point out that the philosophy might have problems, that would be editorial rather than factual. Some rewording is clearly needed, or a much better definition of what is meant by natural or traditional medicine, or perhaps that great long list of alt meds should be organised better to show what is naturopathy, what tends to be accepted alongside it by the practitioners and what some are claiming is compatible. Referring back to the list I gave before, each of those fail either traditional or natural as a layman would understand the terms.

Doesn't help that Naturopathic medicine has no article and redirects to this one, unless I misunderstood your point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point!

Naturopathy is well defined has a clear and understandable philosophy and established principles. The same could be said of Naturopathic Medicine. It cannot be said that these two philosophies and principles are compatible. I am perfectly comfortable with both standing on their own merits as distinct professions. However the articles I see on wikipedia suggest they are the same - which only stands to confuse the reader and by it's very nature sustain a bias one over the other.

Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathic Medical Degrees should have its own articles representing clearly it's philosophy and principles. Naturopathy, and naturopathy degrees should have it's own articles representing clearly it's philosophy. Wikipedia should present clear accurate articles representing each profession while leaving it to the individual reader to determine their own preferences. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of entry on vaccination

I've deleted this most recent post again, not because I don't think it's a legitmate point, but rather because it needs to be rewritten. The edit submitted is cut-and-paste from the summary of the article cited, with a few words changed. Writing this way in an academic setting is heavily frowned upon, and while Wikipedia is not exactly an academic institution, the writing submitted should be held to a high standard. If this is resubmitted, it needs to be written de novo in the editors own words, with the article being used as a citation, not as a template for the entry. Don't want to be a jerk about this, but wikipedia should be as well-written as possible. Kpaddock (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only one para. Why not just fix it?LeadSongDog come howl 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably will - I just wanted to give the editor an opportunity to do it themselves, to make sure their point gets across. Kpaddock (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kpaddock that this falls under Close paraphrasing, but the source looks good. I can integrate it if nobody else gets around to it in the next few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is badly written. It is also contrary to NPOV in that it presents the matter as a criticism which goes beyond the original source. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes you made to the current entry - well done, and so it remains. However, renaming an entire section with no discussion is absurd. Please make your case before drastic measures such as that. This is a strong POV push and while much of what has been entered will stand, it can't go unopposed and without discussion.Kpaddock (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now that LeadSongDog did the rewrite - thank you for that. I also see that he did some editing that cleaned up some more of QuackGuru's entries. Again, thank you. Kpaddock (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear why I deleted the original entry, here are the sentences from the summary(S) that bore close resemblance to the entry(E):

S-This study investigated provider-based complementary/alternative medicine use and its association with receipt of recommended vaccinations by children aged 1–2 years and with acquisition of vaccine-preventable disease by children aged 1–17 years.

E-A study in Washington, U.S. investigated alternative medicine use and relation with receipt of guidelines of vaccinations by kids age 1-2 years and with obtaining of vaccine preventable illnesses by kids age 1-17 years.

S-Children were significantly less likely to receive each of the four recommended vaccinations if they saw a naturopathic physician.

E-Kids were significantly less likely to receive a number of vaccinations if they visited a naturopath.

S-Interventions enlisting the participation of complementary/alternative medicine providers in immunization awareness and promotional activities could improve adherence rates and assist in efforts to improve public health.

E-Interventions to instruct immunization awareness and promotional intervention could benefit adherence rates and aid in efforts to improve public health.

Kpaddock (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent edit titled "On the general basis of naturopathy and complementary medicine" again falls under Close paraphrasing, and the entry also significantly distorts or even ignores the content of the summary given on PubMed. Don't want to continue what's becoming an edit war, but a mess is being made of this entry. Also regarding "Criticism" and "Evidence Basis", recent changes to the section have essentially made it two sections fighting for the same space. I would be interested in the creation of an "Evidence Basis" section that discusses research into naturopathic medicine, as well as its relation to EBM. Kpaddock (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit which cites a 1992 editorial in Clinical Chemistry also appears to involve Close Paraphrasing. Kpaddock (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing text that is faithfully sourced is not against any Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for criticising your writing - I hold myself to high standards of writing, and often apply them to others unreasonably. I still think it should be cleaned up, because it bears very strong resemblance to the source cited. Kpaddock (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can always rewrite it when you get a chance. There is no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. I'll edit this and roll it in with whatever changes are agreed upon with the topic being discussed below. I'll comment further about this all tomorrow morning (Pacific Standard Time).Kpaddock (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IT would seem to me that the comparison between MD and ND training has no basis unless the ND is proposing to practice Medicine. Ndma1 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is almost completely false

In the United States and Canada, the designation of Naturopathic Doctor (ND) may be awarded after completion of a four year program of study at an accredited Naturopathic medical school that includes the study of basic medical sciences as well as natural remedies and medical care.[11][12]

First, this claim usurps the authority of the states: I cannot speak for Canada but in the United States the authority of an educational institution to grant a specific academic degree, in this case "Doctor of Naturopathy" comes from the state. Any school, authorized by their state to grant a particular degree may do so without permission from the federal government or a private accrediting organization because the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States reserves that power to the states.

Secondly, this claim has no standing because none of the US schools accredited by the US grants (or has authority from their respective states) to grant the Doctor of Naturopathy degree.

Third- Misleading generalization and self contradictory:

The limitation on who may be "awarded" the designation Naturopathic Doctor only would apply in those four states that regulate the title "Naturopathic Doctor" (specifically Alaska, California, Kansas and Maine) making this statement true 4 states and false in 46 states.

Then it contradicts itself stating: "The scope of practice varies widely between jurisdictions, and naturopaths in unregulated jurisdictions may use the Naturopathic Doctor designation or other titles regardless of level of education."

It may only be awarded after .... but may be used by anybody in "unregulated jurisdictions"....

Come on folks, you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see this is messed up!

--Ndma1 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-bounds promotion

This article (especially the intro) reads like a panegyric on so-called "natural medicine"! If you read through the article, you see so many outrageous and unproved claims about its benefits, it makes your head spin! Meanwhile, any criticism of this questionable practice is relegated to a short section near the end of the article! Would someone please edit this article to restore NPOV? 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, the article I read specifically says Naturopathy should not be confused with "Natural Medicine".

I did note several areas on the main body where counterpoints were presented:

For example in the section "Practice" we find:

Naturopaths do not necessarily recommend vaccines and antibiotics, and may provide inappropriate alternative remedies even in cases where evidence-based medicine has been shown effective.[50][51] All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not necessarily prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals.[49][51][52]

In the section "Methods" we find:

The particular modalities utilized by an individual naturopath varies with training and scope of practice. The demonstrated efficacy and scientific rationale also varies.

In the section Traditional Naturopathy we find the following statement about Naturopathic or Natural Medicine:

Traditional Naturopaths commonly refer to Practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine as pseudomedicalists regard them as discrediting both themsleves and the profession. [60] Dr. Benedict Lust regards these pseudomedicalists as charlatans and frauds.[61]

In the section Naturopathic Medicine Practice and education we find:

The level of medical education among naturopaths also varies, though no naturopathic training program reaches the same level of training as an MD or DO.

Because the practicing of diagnosing and treating disease is reserved to licensed individuals the practice of naturopathic medicine as defined by the profession is unlawful in those states that do not regulate naturopathic medicine.

In the history section we find:

The combination of several educational scandals (selling diplomas)involving NANP schools[28] and heavy handed litigation against 30 states [29] the NANP succeeded in building a bad reputation for itself and the profession as a whole. The combination of educational scandals and heavy handed tactics with state legislatures ultimately resulted in 19 of the 23 states that licensed naturopathy had either repealed those laws, saw those laws struck down in court or otherwise no longer were actively regulating the profession.

n 1968, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a report on naturopathy concluding that naturopathy was not grounded in medical science and that naturopathic education was inadequate to prepare graduates to make appropriate diagnosis and provide treatment; the report recommends against expanding Medicare coverage to include naturopathic treatments.In 1977, an Australian committee of inquiry reached similar conclusions; it did not recommend licensure for naturopaths

Hardly glowing recommendations!

I do agree that the section: Naturopathic doctors is pretty much an advertisement for the AANP/CNME Naturopathic Medicine folks. I am still researching this issue and will be working to make that more even handed!

Could you be more specific on what you call outrageous and unproved claims?

08:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 [User talk:Ndma1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ndma1|contribs]

Please do not WP:Edit war, it does not help the project. A better approach would be to list the refs you think should be added, here on the talkpage. More experienced editors will help format the citations so that they can be found, read, and verified. We can then discuss and determine which of them meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

- - ** I agree entirely, an "edit war" accomplishes nothing but to confuse the reader, and undermine all perspectives. At the same time attempting to shoe horn two distinct professions (Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy) together produces a similar result. I have already proposed one article about Naturopathic Medicine - one article about Naturopathy --- I have no objections to an even handed stub comparing the philosophical differences and similarities between the professions. In fact I advocate a meaningful discussion including representatives of both professions as a good start towards building understanding - 60 years is to long for a profession to be a war against itself and neither Naturopathic Medicine nor Naturopathy will reach their full potential until this ends!

Naturopathy does not need to tear down or play silly GOTCHA games against Naturopathic Medicine to stand on it's own merits. Similarly Naturopathic Medicine does not need to tear down or make apples to oranges comparisons with Naturopathy to stand on it's merits. Both professions have had their shining moments, and both professions have skeletons in the closet. As a cancer survivor I tried medicine, including naturopathic medicine, but at the end of the day it was the traditional naturopathic philosophy of recognizing disease is the body's attempt to heal itself and not something to be suppressed. It was by addressing the underlying causes that lead to my health issues (diet, tobacco and alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, over use of OTC Remedies to suppress my body's open rebellion against my horrible lifestyle) that allowed nature to come into it's own heal. I have no doubt that stopping the fight against cancer, and cooperating with nature by addressing my lifestyle issues made the difference between being a survivor or another victim of cancer.

I am a software engineer who cut my teeth on shareware and open source projects. Because of this I must admit I do have a personal preference for Linux and open source programing platforms but that does not mean I cannot recognize the contributions Microsoft has made, or when the project is appropriate write code in Visual Studio or other closed source platform. I maintain the same attitude with respect to this issue. Medicine and Naturopathic medicine have their rightful place. Naturopathy has it's rightful place, let each stand on it's own merits rather than standing on each other necks. The first step towards that end is acknowledging Naturopathy is distinct from Naturopathic Medicine which is distinct from Allopathic medicine etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many changes made without citing sources

The many changes made to the article recently was made without references or specific explantion. I suggest we restore the article to the last consensus version and discuss any problems one section at a time. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is interesting however I am not sure a real consensus is possible. The ANA has about 5000 practicing members, the ANMA has about 2000 practicing members and the AANP has a little over 1000 practicing members. References that I believe meet the criteria stipulated by Wikipedia were included with the changes and explanations have been included in the talk section. The short answer is although sharing similar origins, Naturopathy, and Naturopathic medicine are two distinct professions. Being distinct it makes sense that they should be represented in different articles. I would propose that the redirect on the Naturopathic Mediicne article be removed, and the pre-edit content of the naturopathy article be(which clearly represented Naturopathic Mediicne) be placed in the Naturopathic Medicine article. [[[Special:Contributions/99.93.112.160|99.93.112.160]] (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)]

My proposal is how things are often done on Wikipedia. Please make changes to one section at a time and use WP:MEDRS references for the text. Please start with the body first and later the lead can be worked on after the body is improved. QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I will meet you half way. I will rewrite the lead to accurate reflect the two professions -- an even handed fully sourced approach to both Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine... Laying a sound foundation for improvements to the body. --Ndma1 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the body. First editors work on the body and later make changes to the lead if necessary. The lead is a summary of the body. The foundation is the body. Pick a section you like to work on and editors can review your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing, In college I was taught you start with a thesis statement, that gives direction for the thesis. Once the thesis is writeen review and modify your thesis statement. But you are telling me the thesis should be written and the thesis statement made up based on that... In other words write the article with no direction and then pop on a header after you see what you come up with...

I guess I went to the wrong college. --Ndma1 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with college, or writing a thesis. We are working on a encyclopedia here, not a term paper. Please see WP:LEAD, as User:QuackGuru is indeed correct that at Wikipedia, the lead is a summary of the body. DigitalC (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and a thesis statement is a summary of the paper. The lead is a summary of the paper.. - Why would I think they would somehow be similar?

--Ndma1 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

This edit seems to have changed the sourced text to unsourced text. On Wikipedia we write text according to what the source says. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, like the section on "Traditional Naturopaths" -- It had no sources. So obtained sources and edited according to what the sources said, only to have it removed and the original version so that it was written according to what the the non-existent sources said! --Ndma1 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy/Naturopathic medicine

I think this may relate to several of the issues being debated, including the too many changes observation.

Bits of the article are, clearly, turning into an unreadable mess (I'm not someone who's actively edited it, I was just interested in the topic).

Naturopathy seems to be used in normal language to refer to a form of alternative medicine that eschews the use of anything synthetic and focusses strongly on reviewing issues such as lifestyle. That's my layman's understanding.

As far as I can tell there is a history in the use of the term with a definite traceable origin, but two distinct alt med disciplines have evolved from that with competing views of both the philosophy and implementation.

Seems a neutral page needs to be constructed pointing to these forking "establishment" approaches. One of which shares a name with the origin philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your layman's understanding is pretty much on spot. Naturopathy holds that the body was designed to be healthy and heal itself if given the opportunity. Disease is primarily the result of being out of balance with the body's natural design, and correcting those life habits that put the body out of balance will allow the body to come into it's own and heal itself. The best the practitioner can do is to support the body's own efforts to heal itself. This support may come in a few different forms - proper feeding to give the body the elements it needs to restore balance, eliminating bad habits (tobacco, excessive drinking, exposure to toxins or toxic environments), supporting natural processes of the body through physical means (dry brush massage to enhance the skin as an organ of elimination, hydrotherapy to stimulate the immune system, and facilitate circulation, massage to facilitate lymphatic flow, restore anatomical balance etc. All materials, and efforts are aimed at supporting the body's normal functions and restoring natural balance thereby enabling the body to come into it's to heal itself.

Naturopathic medicine, in the name of "modernizing" the profession has abandoned may of these foundational principles and adopted allopathic principles of diagnosing and treating individual diseases and directing efforts to suppress symptoms, and introduce therapies aimed at alleviating specific diseases. The favoring of "natural" approaches such as herbs instead of patent drugs (although they seek to prescribe drugs as well) does not make what they do naturopathy! The difference is what use of natural materials an forces are used, but what they are used for! Naturopathic medicine may use natural materials and forces, but they do so for allopathic purposes - treating dieases and suppressing symptoms. Naturopathy uses these materials and forces for naturopathic purposes - to restore the body's balance, facilitate the body's natural processes thereby enabling the body to come into it's own to heal.

The difference is not tools used, but the philosophy and principles behind how and why those materials are used. In my personal opinion - for what it is worth, adopting allopathic philosophy and principles does not amount to "modernizing" the profession, it amounts to medicalizing the profession and abandoning/undermining the foundations upon which the profession stands. But such opinions do not belong in the article!

I hope this helps --Ndma1 (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Allopathy is a purely pejorative term, and you've accompanied with, I'm afraid to say, similarly caracitured definition. Ackonwledging the body's ability to heal itself, supporting that and encouraging people to cut out harmful practices is a very significant part of EBM. One of the weaknesses of the article is that it sets up a straw man of current medical practice against which to define Naturopathy. If Naturopathy is only defined in terms of it's differences to conventional, evidence-based practice then a more thorough (and correct) interpretation needs to be presented.

I was rather hoping definitions of this discipline could be derived which are based on saying what it is rather than what it isn't.

Important in doing that is separating the basic or original vendor-independent philosophy (if one exists) from the warring factions in the field now, and also from various people who just want to staple the word on their practice to get in a bit of business. And I'm talking about the article here, not what that industry should be doing with itself!

For instance, I think most people would readily confuse herbalism with naturopathy (which I think is what you said above). Are they incompatible, or just different areas, or do they in fact share philosophy? Is there anyway of answering that question without it being the subject of a professional debate within the industry? Is Naturopathy, as you are defining it, a fixed philosophy, with fixed methods rooted in some historical study ... like homeopathy ... or does it respond and evolve based on research and newly developed techniques ... like EBM, should?

The article doesn't get into that, it reads more like an unconvincing publicity brochure that has then been hacked to pieces by various fundamentalists of one sort or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing pejorative about the term Allopathy when used properly. Allopathy is an approach to treating dieases that uses agents that produces affects different than those produced by the disease. This would be contrasted by Homeopathy which is an approach that to treating dieaese that uses agents that produce the same symptoms as the disease. What defines allopathy is what/how the materials are used with respect to disease - NOT that it is different than Homeopathy. Similarly what defines homeopathy is what/how materials are used with respect to diease NOT just that it is different than Allopathy. The purpose of contrasting philosophy and principles was not to define one or the other but to demonstrate that Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy are different. The purpose was not to pass judgment on the merits of either philosophy, I am sorry if you did not understand the context!

Sorry, no, Allopathy is a term made popular by Hahnemann in promoting his Homeopathic vision, it is a pseudo-greek portmanteau made to be opposite to Homeopathy. There is no such thing as an allopath except in the mind of homeopath trying to criticise a misrepresentation of evidence-based medicine. I don't know if the Allopathy term is used widely by Naturopathy people, if it is, then I don't know if it is a convergence with homeopathy, or has borrowed the term (Homeopathy predates Nature Cure by quite a while). There is no approach as you describe in EBM, or anything else. EBM is supposed to focus on proven methods that reduce suffering through cure of an underlying condition or, yes, relieving symptoms. That's been with us since Hippocrates. It's up for criticism as is anything, but straw men get us nowhere. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting passing judgement, merely trying to identify what the common ground is prior to the schism of those two factions, so an article can be presented describing Naturopathy in a manner which would be a reasonable consensus, and then separate sections (or articles) can talk about these two modern schools of thought. The differences are relevant, but then would not be the main focus of any of the three articles as they should all be able to stand on their own merits. I think you misunderstood me in looking to pass judgement. I have personal views on alternative medical practices that rely more heavily on some historical dogma than seeking to discover what works through research and investigation, but my views are irrelevant. It's getting that kind of factionalism out of the article that is relevant, we can have fun and get muddy on the discussion page, but we're probably straying from the point. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you remark that "Ackonwledging the body's ability to heal itself, supporting that and encouraging people to cut out harmful practices is a very significant part of EBM." because that is a foundational principle of naturopathy since the late 18th and 19th century (before the term naturopathy was created). The fact that EBM is catching up with Naturopathy would not seem to detract from naturopathy, rather it would seem to support it!

You'd need to produce some evidence that supports the notion that that was an original or unique notion to Naturopathy. As far as I know, pretty much every healing art would say that the statement is true. Whether it is consistent in their application is, as always, a subject for debate. By the way, if you've some evidence of Naturopathy kicking about before the late 19th century you should update the article accordingly. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK lets talk herbalism. If the herbalist is recommending herbs that act to produce affects different than the disease, the herbalist is using herbs in an allopathic manner which is inconsistent with the principles of naturopathy. If that same herbalist then uses herbs to supplement nutrition, or that have an affect to support or restore normal body function (generally classed as alteratives) that herbalist is now using herbs in a naturopathic manner. Once again, the distinction is not what materials are being used, but what the materials are being used for!

Yes, OK, I get that, you are saying you can use herbalism as part of naturopathy, but only if used in a certain way. It doesn't follow that using herbalism per se is naturopathic. Thanks. So really the two are only related as there is some intersection of common ground. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I find it ironic that you open up bemoaning that my post used comparisons between naturopathy and Naturopathic medicine only to now ask for a comparison between naturopathy and Homeopathy and "EBM". You are now asking me to do what you complained about me doing! Naturopathy as defined by the profession is a fixed philosophy with a fixed criteria respecting what materials may be used and how (to what end) those materials are used, but it is quite open to advancements in technology and approaches.

Sorry, differences between what I want from the article and what it would be handy for me to understand. I would hope the Naturopath(y/ic) can be described in it's own merits rather purely by comparisons with other medical systems (misrepresented ones at that). What I was saying is it is better not to be resorting so much to that, but if we have to (it maybe so) then it needs to be done properly. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the article. I believe it is in that state state is because the article is trying to join together two different things as though they were one. Naturopathic Medicine is one thing, Naturopathy is another thing, attempting to join the two together as the same things creates disjointed mess. Which is why I continue to advocate one article for Naturopathic Medicine and one article for Naturopathy.

I agree with you on that, I'm just not sure if there are two things here called Naturopathy, from i'm reading. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

--Ndma1 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Tags

OK I have added tags to those sections that appear problematic.

Where would you like to begin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the disruptive overtagging of the article. Please bring a concise description of the problem here. If there are several issues please split into different sections for discussion. To establish a new consensus requires a good faith effort to discuss changes, make proposals, and then gain support for those proposals. If that succeeded we have a new consensus. Verbal chat 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see QG has given you similar advice above, and I don't see any support for your changes (yet). Verbal chat

A concise description of the problem.

1. Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine are two different professions with different definitions and are guided by different philosophies and principles.

2. The article is titled Naturopathy, but it basically is an advertisement for Naturopathic Medicine. Those few references to Naturopathy either misrepresent the profession in a typical straw man or make wild claims that even a politician can see through (I already referenced this - MN, ID, CA licensing laws and legislative records)

3. The Article is filled with blatantly false and misleading information which can easily be refuted using PUBLIC RECORDS. It rewrites history with no sources or selective use of sources, I correct that history with sources and it is called vandalism?

I must say I am beginning to understand why Wikipedia is starting to get a bad reputation, and that the reputation appears to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced text

This edit deleted sourced text. The edit summary does not give a valid reason for the deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and reverted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Happens to me all the time! --Ndma1 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source for this?

"Traditional naturopathic practitioners perceive EBM as an ideologic assault on their beliefs in vitalistic and holistic principles."

The opposite is true, most traditional naturopaths see EBM as a validation of traditional naturopathic principles. If anything EBM is making conventional medicine more naturopathic in that the medical establishment - largely because of EBM - openly recognizes the role of diet, lifestyle, hygiene in both the prevention of disease and building health this was not the case 30 years ago! Naturopathy was teaching this before Modern Medicine became mainstream so the reality is EBM validates a foundational principle of Traditional Naturopathy. It does however shoot down some of the fringe nonsense diagnostic approaches (irridology, CFA, dark light microscopy etc.) and questionable treatments embraced by Naturopathic Medicine.

It may be true that individual alternative practitioners in fields that are associated with naturopathy may see EBM this way, but just because an individual uses a modality that may be associated with naturopathy does not mean they are naturopaths.

This should either be removed, properly sourced (by that I man a source that accurately represents the views of traditional naturopaths, not AANP or Qwackwatch strawman representations), or corrected.

--Ndma1 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this naturopaths were practicing hygiene before early medicine! From what I remember Ignaz Semmelweis started studying hand washing in the 1840. Well naturpathy did not exist as a word until 1895.Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

No offense but instructing the patient/client in personal hygiene (hand washing, bathing regularly, brushing teeth, disposing of waste properly) is somewhat different from a physician washing their hands in a disinfectant between seeing patients (in this case deliverying babies as I recall). You are comparing apples to oranges here! Recognition of the harmful effects of smoking, or other substance abuse, poor diet, sedentary lifestyle on health is also something that has existed in Naturopathy from the early beginnings but only came about in conventional medicine within the last few decades... --Ndma1 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW here is the ref you request Jagtenberg T, Evans S, Grant A, Howden I, Lewis M, Singer J (2006). "Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy". J Altern Complement Med. 12 (3): 323–8. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.323. PMID 16646733. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. The study seems to be limited to practitioners in Australia, you don't suppose there might be differences in points of view between US naturopaths and Australian Naturopaths. I do know there are significant differences in both recognition, education, and practice between these two countries. Just a thought! --Ndma1 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I medicine practice does not vary that significantly around the world. I do not know about Australian and the US wrt Naturopaths but I assume they are fairly similar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor, not many like to admit making such an assumption! This probably holds true for most highly regulated professions like Medicine, generally naturopathy is not regulated or self regulated as result there can be significant variations between jurisdictions. The fact is there is significant variation in scope of practice among the 15 states that do regulate naturopathic medicine in the US would suggest similar variation in other countries. --Ndma1 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref was actually already there just 2 sentences over. Tagged both to decrease the risk of further confusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of referenced content

Not sure were this line went "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists.^[1]"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be ongoing removal of referenced content without discussion?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This content seems to be extremely POV, and should at the very least be attributed as an opinion. The second sentence should be removed from this article completely, although it may be useful at Quackery, again attributed as an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to what policy it should be attributed to an opinion. You have not given a reason why the second sentence should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is a non-sequitur from the first. This article is about Naturopathy, nor Quackery. The first sentence is clearly an opinion, and not a fact. As such, it should be attributed per WP:ASF. But then, you already know this. DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not given a reason why you think the sentence is an opinion according to Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. This article is not about quackery but the reference does discuss naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DigitalC or any editor, please provide a specific response to my question. Why do you think the sentence is an opinion according to Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. What is Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of that wording is a quote, so put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Problem solved. Since its the mainstream POV, our policies regarding weight and undue ~~allow~~ require giving it prominence. Normally such wording is just plain commonsense, as in "the earth is round", but since some people question it (of course supporters of quackery will always dispute such statements...duh..!), attribution and putting it in quotation marks solves the problem. That it should be removed because it's a POV is a nonsense argument, since much content here is by nature a POV and has to be sourced, and in very controversial situations we can attribute such statements. Interestingly enough, if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here....

Read our policies folks:

WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an #Footnote referencing." (emphasis original)

That condition is fulfilled because the wording is properly sourced. If you aren't going to bother to read the source, then you shouldn't be editing here and complaining. But to help our readers it should probably be in quotation marks so they don't think its editorializing.

WP:NPOV: "...material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"..."

That's why the objection is nonsensical ("removed because it is not neutral" "mind-bogglingly POV"). It shows a failure to understand NPOV. Wikipedia itself doesn't make POV statements, but its sources certainly do and we are supposed to quote them. Wikipedia documents reality. The quote can also be framed by introducing it: "Critics of alternative medicine also criticize naturopathy...."quote"...".

WP:SOAP: "Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Do people actually claim to support Quackery? They probably dispute what quackery entails. The statement "Quackery... should be opposed by scientists" is clearly an opinion, not a fact, and it definitely comes across as political advocacy, if not advocating a specific position. I also dispute that this is in anyway analagous to "the earth is round". You are correct that if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here - it would simply be removed from the article. Do you believe that if it said "People should consult a naturopath for ..." it wouldn't be removed? DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ASF and my question above. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All but the most obtuse of individuals would read the language as inflammatory and it is unquestionably worded as an opinion. Looking at other articles written by the same author it is pretty clear this is somebody with an axe to grind. All this notwithstanding, the this is location in the EBM Section yet the citation says nothing about EBM, if it is to remain in the article it should be put into the criticism section. --Ndma1 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not directly responded to my question. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes it an opinion? the word deception in this clause "use unscientific methods and deception on a public who" Deception by definition requires intent. The statement says that these folks know better but are intentionally misleading the public. Absent objective proof of this intent to deceive (as opposed to honest ignorance), this would be subjective and therefore by wikipedias definition "An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic" an opinion. --Ndma1 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I made this change to the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

This edit added unecessary quotes to the text and the word "Naturopathic" is capitalised. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is almost completely false

In the United States and Canada, the designation of Naturopathic Doctor (ND) may be awarded after completion of a four year program of study at an accredited Naturopathic medical school that includes the study of basic medical sciences as well as natural remedies and medical care.[11][12]

First, this claim usurps the authority of the states: I cannot speak for Canada but in the United States the authority of an educational institution to grant a specific academic degree, in this case "Doctor of Naturopathy" comes from the state. Any school, authorized by their state to grant a particular degree may do so without permission from the federal government or a private accrediting organization because the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States reserves that power to the states.

Secondly, this claim has no standing because none of the US schools accredited by the US grants (or has authority from their respective states) to grant the Doctor of Naturopathy degree.

Third- Misleading generalization and self contradictory:

The limitation on who may be "awarded" the designation Naturopathic Doctor only would apply in those four states that regulate the title "Naturopathic Doctor" (specifically Alaska, California, Kansas and Maine) making this statement true 4 states and false in 46 states.

Then it contradicts itself stating: "The scope of practice varies widely between jurisdictions, and naturopaths in unregulated jurisdictions may use the Naturopathic Doctor designation or other titles regardless of level of education."

It may only be awarded after .... but may be used by anybody in "unregulated jurisdictions"....

Come on folks, you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see this is messed up!

--Ndma1 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal that would be supported by the references presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why bother making proposals, they only get ignored!

--Ndma1 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what was ignored. If you have a proposal that is closer to the source that would work let's see the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you need a proposal to figure this out but her you go:

If the presentation is false or misleading - regardless of the number of sources it should be removed or amended so that it is a fair representation of the facts. --Ndma1 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The degree "Doctor of Naturopathy" ND may be awarded by any school granted authority to do so by the state. Representing the designation may only be granted by CNME Schools is false and misleading! None of the US schools accredited by the CNME are authorized by the state to grant the degree Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) they grant the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD). As result sources notwithstanding the the sentence is saying nothing! The statement infers the claim to be universal, yet the designation only has legal standing in 4 states is also misleading.

The statement says nothing, is false and misleading so why is it allowed to remain in the article? --Ndma1 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is allowed to stay in the article becuase you have not made a specific proposal. Would you like the text rewritten then make a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

This article has been redirected to another page when I click on Naturopathy. I'm trying to avoid editing the article becuase there is too much drama. Could the editor who accidently redirected the page undo the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I support QuackGuru but agree that this seems like a difficult area to edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you agree that the editor who redirected the page should undo the edit. There is another newly created article that looks a lot like this one. See Naturopathic Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is one of the problems with these extremely controversial topics. They get more than there fair share of COI and vandalism. User:Ndma1 moved the page as per here [5]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the editor about this discussion. I hope editors will wait for the editor to respond. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article in Naturopathic Medicine should look like the article here because it is the same article... The point is the article here under the heading "Naturopathy" is in fact an article about Naturopathic Medicine NOT Naturopathy. All I did was put the content with the correct article. If it is your intention that a single article should represent naturopathy and Naturopathic medicine then that article should represent a consensus of the profession. Naturopathic Medicine represents a little under 2000 licensed practitioners, Naturopathy represents about 9000 Registered or Certified practitioners. It only seems fair the 9000 at least have equal representation with the 2000! --Ndma1 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the reliable sources to support your conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rounded all numbers to the nearest thousand, here is how it adds up:

Naturopathic Medicin 2005 Sunrise Review, Naturopathic Physicians - State of Colorado, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform Chart 1 shows number of those licensed to practice Naturopathic Medicine in the various states about 2000 members

Traditional Naturopathy:

The Encyclopedia of associations: 40th edition pp 1594 Shows the American Naturopathic Association and the National Board of Naturpathic Examiners of the ANA with 5000 members

The The American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) which also represents Traditional Naturopaths indicates about 4000 members on it's website http://anma.org

Here is the math:

Naturopathic Medicine 2000 ANA Naturopathy 5000 ANMA Naturopathy 4000 Total 11000

2000/11000 = 0.18 or 18%

With respect to the differences in the profession:

The 82% representing "traditional" Naturopathy consider Naturopathy to be different from Naturopathic Medicine, the ANA folks commonly refer to the Naturopathic Medicine folks as "Pseudomedicalists" (Source article "VACCINE, PENICILLIN, SALT WATER, BICARBONATE OF SODA, BLACK COFFEE – NATUROPATHIC PRACTICE (?)" The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948) the ANMA folks refere to them as Naturoqwacks. (Source, Dr. Donald Hayhurst, President Emeritus, ANMA - You can contact him via the website I am sure he would be happy to talk to you)

Here is the definition of Naturopathy maintained by the American Naturopathic Association.

  -------

The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

We Believe that the body under normal natural conditions is a self sustaining organism. Secondly, that the theory of health and disease is based on Nature Itself. That the body is governed by definite natural laws with regard to the physical, chemical, biological and physiological basis.

That ill-health is, therefore is a result of a departure from healthful living out of harmony with Natures laws. That to the degree that man departs from Natural health-restoring, and health sustaining forces, ignorantly or intentionally, to that degree he pays the penalty in ill-health. That to the degree that man adheres to and applies Natures beneficiate laws, to that degree will the body through it’s natural inherent powers restore itself to normal.

That Naturopathy is a philosophy, art and science and recognizes the body’s inherent processes of healing, and acts in no way to suppress, antagonize or hinder these vital life forces, but rather to arouse, assist and cooperate with them to a restoration to normal.

That to this end Naturopathy proceeds as follows; it makes use of the healing properties as such natural agencies as air, sunshine, water, light, heat, electricity, body manipulations, rest, natural vital foods, organic vitamins, organic, minerals, herbs in conjunction with the cleansing and Eliminating processes of other physical and mental cultures.

Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations.

Naturopathy also provides for the prevention of disease and the preservation of health by teaching the basic fundamental laws of natural living and the application in daily life.

You will note this definition specifically excludes those practices adopted by the Naturpathic Medicine folks:

"Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations. "

You can confirm that this definition is still maintained by the organization by contacting the ANA's current President

Dr. George Friebott IV. ND, MD Yungborn Institute PO Box 502 Nordman, ID 83848.

This definition is also consistent with that definition enacted by the US Congress. As noted previously this Congressional act specifically references The Herbalist Charter 34 & 35 Henry VIII, C.8 (1542) in acknowledging naturopathy so defined as a legal occupation under common law. Chap. 352 @ 1326, 5.3936, Public No. 831 [also found as 45 St. 1339] dated February 27, 1929 and its clarifying amendments H.R. 12169 of May 5, 1930 & January 28, 1931 and corresponding House Report #2432 of January 30, 1930. The Landmark Supreme court ruling Lawton V Steele establishes it is lawful of all citizens to work in any common occupation of life Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894). Making the practice of Naturopathy (or if you prefer Traditional Naturopathy) legal in all states without the need for licensure.

The Practice of Naturopathic Medicine, by holding out to be "Primary care" and desiring to prescribe drugs and perform minor surgery encroaches on the Medical Practices acts and therefore is illegal without a license.

Above you have the facts. This is my assessment of the situation. The AANP - representing Naturopathic Medicine, has a political/legislative agenda to obtain licensing in all 50 states. If they recognized as distinct from naturopathy then they would have to stand on their own merit and their their education would be compared to conventional MD's education and they would not make the grade (this has been established over and over I can provide plenty of references). IF they muddy the waters and claim all naturopaths are the same then the comparison is made between themselves and Traditional Naturopaths in which case they have an education that is closer to that of conventional MD's than Traditional Naturopaths. This little propaganda helps them achieve their agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy is a broader topic than only Naturopathic Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources included above show that Naturopathic Medicine represents only about 18% of Naturopathy. So why is every attempt to bring information about the other 82% of Naturopathy into the article deleted? --Ndma1 (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is becuase your sources are unreliable. Did you thoroughly search in PUBMED. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Different types of information would use different sources. Many of my edits had to do with historical or legal information. Why would the governmental authority issuing the certificate of incorporation be considered unreliable because the corporate filing was not on Pub Med? Why would I search Pub med for a legal citation, Does the fact a Federal Code not appear in Pub Med make the unreliable? PubMed is fine if you are looking for Medical Research, but if you are looking for historical information about a profession, organization you probably are barking up the wrong tree.

This article cites a membership organization (THE AANP) when defining Naturopathic medicine and that is considered a reliable source, but my citing a member organization that represents Naturopathy (the ANA) considered unreliable.

This article cites state government reports and legislative documents related to Naturopathic Medicine and thats considered reliable. I cite state government reports and legislative documents related to Naturopathy and naturopathic medicine (several times the same reports) and that is considered unreliable.

You seem to want it both ways, Membership organizations, Public Records, Governmental reports are OK for information related to Naturopathic Medicine but they are unreliable for information related to Naturopathy.

If I were to use the same yardstick for source reliability you use on this article and delete those statements using sources you have deemed unreliable for information related to Naturopathy the article would be one or two paragraphs long. If I were to delete all sections use a reference other than pubMed or some other 'medical journal' the article would be three or four sentences long.

If you are going argue "reliable sources" then you need to apply that argument uniformly. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Section Specific Issues : Traditional Naturopathy

For your convenience I have included the original text from the wikipedia article:

Traditional naturopaths

Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments. Traditional naturopaths however, are not primary care providers, whereas graduates of CNME accredited naturopathic medicine schools are classified as both alternative or complementary practitioners as well as primary care providers. Traditional naturopaths may voluntarily join a professional organization, but these organizations do not accredit educational programs in any meaningful way or license practitioners, per se. The training programs for traditional naturopaths can vary greatly. Compared to naturopathic medical schools, traditional naturopaths' training programs are less rigorous and do not provide the same basic and clinical science education. The professional organizations formed by traditional naturopaths are not recognized by the government of the USA or any US State or Territory.

---Issue 1 : Not a single source! Who is making these claims? ---

Given the elements of propaganda in this paragraph (See below) and that fact it tends to detract from "traditional" naturopathy and build up Naturopathic Medicine I would say the answer is obvious!

--- Issue 2 : False definition of "traditional" naturopathy used to set up a strawman.---

Let us honestly compare the two: Traditional Naturopathy is an wholistic health approach that focuses on natural lifestyle and living in accordance with natural laws ordained by the creator. ^[2] The body is governed by definite natural laws and all disease is a result of departing from those natural laws. The level of disease is a product of ones departure form those the natural physical, chemical, biological and psychological laws governing the body. This being the case, when one brings themselves into harmony with nature the body comes into it's own to heal itself.^[3]

Naturopathic Medicine (also known as natural medicine) is an eclectic alternative medical system that focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself but departs from traditional naturopathy in that it seeks to remedy or treat diseases. Naturopathic Medicine holds a philosophy that favors a holistic approach and minimal use of surgery and drugs. Naturopathic Medicine comprises many different treatment modalities of varying degrees of acceptance by the medical community; diet and lifestyle advice may be substantially similar to that offered by non-naturopaths, and acupuncture may help reduce pain in some cases, while homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

Naturopathy holds all disease has the same source - departure from natural laws governing health. As result it does not undertake to diagnose disease or present disease specific remedies. Rather it concentrates on restoring the individual to a lifestyle that is in agreement with the natural laws governing health thereby enabling the body to come into it's own to heal itself.

Naturopathic medicine undertakes to diagnose and treat diseases (Same philosophy and principles as conventional medicine) but seeks to show a preference towards "natural" remedies.

Sorry but the statement "Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments." is simply false! False but necessary to set up this straw man argument against 'traditional' naturopathy:

"Traditional naturopaths however, are not primary care providers,"

Thats nice but since traditional naturopaths do not present themselves as primary car providers this amounts to nothing more than a straw man designed to bolster Naturopathic Medicine. (Isn't straw man a common propaganda technique?)

The Article Continues:

"... whereas graduates of CNME accredited naturopathic medicine schools are classified as both alternative or complementary practitioners as well as primary care providers."

Strange the header says "Traditional Naturopathy" but this seems to be more of an argument for Naturopathic Medicine - (That is why I attached the misleading tag to this article). It asserts these graduates are classified as ...Primary Car Proviers" but I see no source supporting that statement.. Why not, because the fact is it is illegal for these graduates operate as (or even hold themselves out to the public as) "Primary car providers" in 35 of 50 states, in 30 of those states it is a felony for them to do so! (If you would like I will give citations from the Medical Practice acts of those 35 states but is it really necessary?) So based upon a minority of states (15 out of 50) regulating naturopathic medicine with very wide range or practice standards the writer makes this Glittering generality (Isn't glittering generality a common propaganda technique?)

The article continues:

"Traditional naturopaths may voluntarily join a professional organization, but these organizations do not accredit educational programs in any meaningful way or license practitioners, per se."

Yes there are about 3 or 4 professional organizations for "traditional" naturopaths. Just as there are 2 professional organizations that Naturopathic Medicine practitioners can join.. Membership in all of these organizations is voluentary and NONE of these professional organizations accredit educational programs in any meaningful way. Individual practitioners often join professional organizations, accreditation is something that schools would do independent of students. Licensing of professions is a state power and according to the landmark US Supreme court ruling Lawton V Steele, states only have the authority to exercise that power to protect the health, welfare or morals of the people. So none of the professional organizations, or accrediting organizations license practitioners per se.

This is not propaganda per se, but it is a meaningless statement and brings nothing to the article. Traditional Naturopathy is a profession covered under common law (the Herbalist Charter), if practiced according to it's definition presents no danger to the heath, welfare or morals of the people and therefore is not within the scope of states police powers. If either a Traditional Naturopath, or practitioner of Naturopathic Medicine undertakes to practice medicine without a license - the states police powers would apply and membership in a professional organization would not make any difference.

The article continues:

"The training programs for traditional naturopaths can vary greatly."

Once again completely opinion, no listing of schools of Traditional Naturopathy, no comparison of content, just a general statement of opinion based on what?

The article continues:

"Compared to naturopathic medical schools, traditional naturopaths' training programs are less rigorous and do not provide the same basic and clinical science education."

Practitioners of Naturopathic medicine seek to diagnose and treat diseases, prescribe legend drugs, perform "Minor" surgery, delivery babies etc. etc. Traditional Naturopaths do not.. I would say it makes perfect sense there would be differences... This amounts to comparing apples to oranges, it means nothing!

The article Concludes:

"The professional organizations formed by traditional naturopaths are not recognized by the government of the USA or any US State or Territory."

This is not entirely true, the fact is as result of a federal appeals court ruling, the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA was recognized by the District of Columbia for the purpose of licensing ^[9] That notwithstanding, "Traditional" Naturopathy is a common occupation of life and therefore the practice of "Traditional" Naturopathy as defined by the profession does not require a license in any state within the US.

So are we agreed to modify this section to include meaningful sources, remove the common propaganda techniques and present an even handed representation of Traditional Naturopathy?

--Ndma1 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to start with one section at a time. So I'll try to start the discussion with one section. The section titled "Traditional naturopaths" is unsourced. What would you like to do about this. Move the section, rewrite it, or delete it. Please make a specific proposal. See Naturopathy#Traditional naturopaths. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I did what you asked. here is what I proposed: "modify this section to include meaningful sources, remove the common propaganda techniques and present an even handed representation of traditional naturopathy"

Her you go- Fully referenced (Definition, scope of practice and legal authority to practice referenced the profession, Congressional acts and case law) No false comparisons with naturopathic medicine, no straw man set ups, no glittering generalities just the facts.

Traditional Naturopathy

Traditional naturopathy varies from naturopathic medicine both in philosophy, principles and scope of practice. Traditional naturopathy is considered wholistic health approach that focuses on natural lifestyle and living in accordance with natural laws ordained by the creator. ^[10] The body is governed by definite natural laws and all disease is a result of departing from those natural laws. The level of disease is a product of ones departure form those the natural physical, chemical, biological and psychological laws governing the body. This being the case, when one brings themselves into harmony with nature the body comes into it's own to heal itself.^[11] Although there are several organizations the majority of traditional naturopaths in the US are represented by two National Organizations. The American Naturopathic Association founded in 1909 by Dr. Benedict Lust with 5,000 members ^[12] and the American Naturopathic Medical Association founded in 1981 claiming about 4000 members ^[13] With a little under 2000 Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine licensed throughout the United States Registered or Certified traditional naturopaths comprise about 82% of the profession.

Practice: Traditional Naturopathy

Naturopathic practice centers upon teaching and coaching individuals to live in harmony with natures laws and the application of natural healing properties such as air, sunshine, water, light, heat, electricity, body manipulations, rest, natural living foods, organic vitamins, minerals and herbs used in conjunction with the hygiene, exercise, internal cleansing and eliminating processes for the purpose of allowing the body to release it's innate healing potential. Naturopathic philosophy holds nature alone has the ability to cure disease and man can either help by living in accordance with natures laws, or impede nature by attempting to circumvent nature through the use of drugs, serums, potions, surgery or the use of inorganic vitamins, or minerals. ^[14]^[15] Both the definition and scope of practice of traditional naturopathy are consistent with the definition established by the US Congress. This Congressional act specifically references The Herbalist Charter 34 & 35 Henry VIII, C.8 (1542) in acknowledging naturopathy so defined as a legal occupation under common law. ^[16]. Traditional naturopathy practiced accordingly is a common occupation of life and therefore is legal throughout the United States with no licensing requirements.^[17] --Ndma1 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW: as long as you asked, I would renew my proposal that Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy (or if you prefer traditional naturopathy) be represented in separate articles as distinct professions. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The references you are using are mostly unreliable. Text such as live in harmony with natures is unencyclopedic. Why is there two paragraphs. There is a section for Naturopathy#Practice that is sourced. Do you have a specific proposal to rewrite the "Practice" section. What is your intention for the Practice: Traditional Naturopathy. Is it to replace the exisitng praction section or start a new section in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable?

So then according to you: The universally recognized father of Naturopathy is unreliable to define the profession! The Oldest and largest naturopathic organization in the US is unreliable to define the profession! The US Congressional act recognizing and defining naturopathy is an unreliable source to define the profession!

But a splinter group having a political/legislative agenda and representing only 18% of the Practitioners is a reliable source to define a profession!

The original section had absolutely no references. But that is better? SHEESH

Given that naturopathic medicine, and "traditional" naturopathy are two different professions it certainly makes sense that the practice would be different and that the practice section for naturopathic medicine would not be a fair representation of the Practice of "traditional" naturopathy.

The article is titled "Naturopathy" but 99% of the article represents Naturopathic Medicine. I don't know why it is difficult to understand the problem with that!

Here is what I propose:

1. Move this entire article to it's proper place "Naturopathic Medicine" and eliminate all references to Naturopathy. 2. Delete this article so it can be done properly at a later time.

Is that simple enough? --Ndma1 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine is part of Naturopathy. However, if you have sources that explain a difference that could be a proposal. Redirecting the article is not a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have documented half a dozen times already Naturopathic Medicine is a splinter group that broke off from Naturopathy and adopted various aspects of conventional medicine. While they have similar origins the differences are sufficient to acknowledge the two as distinct professions. Naturopathic Medicine represents a small group (about 18%) of those identifying themselves with naturopathy. I have no objection with Naturopathic Medicine being fairly represented. , but I do have an objection to Naturopathy (or if you prefer "Traditional Naturopaths) making up 82% of the profession being misrepresented as practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine.

My proposal once again:

Let Naturopathic Medicine be fairly represented in the Naturopathic Medicine article.

Let Naturopathy be fairly represented in the Naturopathy Article.

Let the reader make their own decision with respect to preference.

Simple stuff here!

--99.93.112.160 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have documented half a dozen times with what source? Please provide a reliable source showing this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rounded all numbers to the nearest thousand, here is how it adds up:

Naturopathic Medicin 2005 Sunrise Review, Naturopathic Physicians - State of Colorado, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform Chart 1 shows number of those licensed to practice Naturopathic Medicine in the various states about 2000 members

Traditional Naturopathy:

The Encyclopedia of associations: 40th edition pp 1594 Shows the American Naturopathic Association and the National Board of Naturpathic Examiners of the ANA with 5000 members

The The American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) which also represents Traditional Naturopaths indicates about 4000 members on it's website http://anma.org

Here is the math:

Naturopathic Medicine 2000 ANA Naturopathy 5000 ANMA Naturopathy 4000 Total 11000

2000/11000 = 0.18 or 18%

With respect to the differences in the profession:

The 82% representing "traditional" Naturopathy consider Naturopathy to be different from Naturopathic Medicine, the ANA folks commonly refer to the Naturopathic Medicine folks as "Pseudomedicalists" (Source article "VACCINE, PENICILLIN, SALT WATER, BICARBONATE OF SODA, BLACK COFFEE – NATUROPATHIC PRACTICE (?)" The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948) the ANMA folks refere to them as Naturoqwacks. (Source, Dr. Donald Hayhurst, President Emeritus, ANMA - You can contact him via the website I am sure he would be happy to talk to you)

Here is the definition of Naturopathy maintained by the American Naturopathic Association.

   -------