Talk:Naturopathy

"Recommend against"

The above conversation has digressed, so starting a new section about one specific statement: Naturopathic practitioners commonly recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.

There are four sources currently supporting that statement. Three of them are studies of students, not naturopaths, and one of them says the opposite: Most chiropractic and naturopathic students are not averse to vaccination. The Skeptical Inquirer source doesn't seem to support the statement at all. None of them mention recommending against surgery or medical testing that I can see.

That's a pretty bold statement painting with a very broad brush, so unless the sources support it, this sentence should be removed, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see some arguments either way about sourcing this to studies of naturopathy students, although to the extent that those sources are about what naturopaths are taught, what training they have when they go into practice, they may be legitimate. However, the SI source ([1]) is chock-full of examples of naturopaths rejecting modern medical practices. So I don't read it the way that you do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we reading the same SI article? I just read the whole thing again and I still don't see anything like that. Practicing alternative therapies and promoting them is one thing. It's a very different thing to recommend against getting surgery or a vaccine. That implies a level of malice would require some good sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Being a naturopathic physician, I believe in the body’s ability to heal itself. The body can do this very effectively when it is kept healthy. By taking extra good care of yourself and possibly working with a natural health practitioner, you can stay resistant to colds and the flu every winter. Remember, there are many routes to immunity besides obtaining a flu shot." One can quibble that this isn't a formal recommendation not to get a flu shot, but it's clearly recommending against getting one. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if you accept that logic for that one person's statement, where do we get "commonly"? and "surgeries?" Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of sourcing on this e.g.[2] I guess they want to sell what they can (which doesn't include surgery), while also being dishonest about it (we don't oppose surgery!). Why not strengthen the sourcing if you feel the point isn't made well enough? Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We could also tweak the wording of the sentence, instead of completely removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a Consumer Reports owned contributed piece with no named author, so not sure how reliable. I can't imagine finding a reliable source for this since it seems like a somewhat exceptional claim that would need something more than a consumer reports PR piece. They commonly recommend against surgery when? In what cases would they tell a patient or the public to not get surgery? Maybe I'm completely wrong. And as Tryptofish suggested, I'd be fine rewording it somehow. Like, they "commonly prefer alternative treatments to conventional medicine, in general, including resistance to surgery and vaccines depending on the patient's needs or the practitioner's opinions." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively: they "commonly encourage alternative treatments that are rejected by conventional medicine, including resistance to surgery or vaccines for some patients." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish I think this is great, for what it's worth. It'd be nice to have better sources, but this wording seems much more accurate to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to going ahead with that wording? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No. —Alalch E. 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems more encyclopedic in tone, and is better supported by the sources. I say go for this. >> boodyb ^talk 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already been implemented, but I guess nobody said so here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The straining at the least to whitewash the page in the face of the sourcing is puzzling. The WaPo source is fine. Nothing exceptional about quacks quacking. Bon courage (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"No factual merit"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev 1185574518 claims Ledebomb - needs discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

Add links to give a mire balanced overview. https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-naturopathic-medicine 105.209.150.182 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring the lead

I visited this article to gain further knowledge on the subject as a layperson. However within 2 seconds into the article I sensed an acute force deterring me from proceeding. I attribute such experience to the blend of descriptive and judgemental statements upon inspection.

In the leading section the first paragraph already imposes the subject a generally dissuading tone. With the pejorative word "pseudoscientific" being the first blow, the next two ambivalent statements (Difficult to generalize...; The ideology...) are then followed by a negative judgement (The ethics...) culminating with the even scathing "quackery".

I acknowledge my limit as a layperson and I have no intention in altering the wording but I do recommend a restructuring. It would be optimal if the descriptive and judgemental statements be separated into discrete paragraphs with the former preceding the latter. Inserting judgemental statements early on can be perceived as shoving in opinions and, as worded in an earlier discussion, setting an agenda. I cite the French version article as a good example for reference. Seanetienne (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Seanetienne, we do have an agenda already set, see WP:PSCI and WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's utter disrespect from you, Mr @Tgeorgescu. It is a consuming job to ward off conspiracy theorists and anti-science groups alike. However this time you have clamped down on the wrong person. I have no particular interest in alternative medicine and my attitude is ambivalent.

I have seen elegant treatment of problematic subjects and I regret that the equivalent cannot by be applied here. By your passive-aggressive wording labelling me a "lunatic charlatan" and cherry-picking my word choice it is apparent that you are already blinded by deep prejudice.

I hereby reject all your insinuation of all sorts. I shall not be commenting until someone tries to understand first instead of dismissing right away. I have done my fair share of input as an minor editor. Seanetienne (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Seanetienne, I have never called you a lunatic charlatan. I made previously no reference to your own person. Unless you are actively an author of medical pseudoscience, you have no reason to feel offended by the words of Jimmy Wales. I never said that the words "lunatic charlatans" apply to you, nor did I say I am Wales. It is difficult for me to comprehend why do you think that the essay WP:LUNATICS applies to your own person. Wales's opinion is Wales's opinion. You seem to take it personally when either it isn't me who wrote the opinion (I'm not Wales), or I am simply not writing anything at all about your own person. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this got off-topic from the intention of the opening post, but it's probably not a good idea to link to the "lunatics" essay in these kinds of discussions. WP:PSCI (as well as WP:MEDRS) are probably better choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I think the recent major rewrite of the page, [3], may have seriously introduced a false balance and may not have consensus. For the moment, I won't revert it myself, but I think it may have to be reverted if other editors besides me object. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I object as well, but the content seems to have already been reverted. Perhaps the editor will come here to seek consensus? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

With three of us objecting, I'm happy with the revert, for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I was the one editor that made recent changes. To be clear, I am not a paid editor and I don't have a strong bias on this topic. In fact, I am generally skeptical of alternative medicine though have recently become more curious about it as I personally explore some health issues. I was very surprised when I found both this page and the functional medicine page on Wikipedia to be so completely lacking in neutrality on the topics. In no way did I attempt to hide or minimize the many criticisms of naturopathy, but it seems plainly obvious to me the article in its current format really does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I spent some real time researching legitimate sources that could help provide a more balanced. My goal in doing so was to help the article be more in line with the pillar "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view."

This pillar states: We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"

The editor who reverted my edits seems to think that this topic has just one well-recognized point of view, or that that the view that naturopathy is only "quackery" has such prominence any disagreement with this violates the principle of due weight. This is not backed up by credible claims but rather seems like the editor has an axe to grind on this topic. This also seems to be contradicted by the fact that many US states and other nations offer formal license and regulatory frameworks for traditional medicines, which I also cited by linking to a list of states that currently license. It had previously read that "Naturopathy is prohibited in three U.S. states (Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and tightly regulated in many others. Some states have lax regulations, however, and may allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs." This is not neutral, not does it give any credence to the legitimacy that a regulatory system confers.

In introducing a more balanced tone I was careful to cite from legitimate, mainstream and credible sources such as a report published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Indeed, in this report, the WHO Director-General writes that "Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is an important and often underestimated health resource with many applications." In flatly rejecting this, the editor completely ignores whole huge segments of the global population who very much do rely on traditional medicines. Implying that there is consensus that it is "quackery" seems to be a very western centric point of view.

I am going to revert back to the changes I made because I stand by them and believe that I was meticulous in my observance of rules and made a good faith effort to improve the article. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to revert back to the changes I made You shouldn't. There are three editors objecting to the changes so there is no WP:consensus for them. Wait and see how the discussion develops. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)