How can it not be personal? Healthcare is about people's lives. Imagine if I was writing an article predominantly about the failings of allopathic medicine, of which there are still more than a few. Would it be a fair representation, and provide positive recommendations about the elements of allopathic medicine which could be trusted by those who may benefit from it? I am one of those people who has benefited from natural medicine in ways many GPs are still ill informed about. I had chronic hayfever that antihistamines could do little about without making me drowsy (I know they counteract it with stimulants now) due to boosting areas of my diet I rarely get a sniffle. Did a GP tell me about it? No. When I was diagnosed with schizophrenia I was given antipsychotic medication that stopped the voices, but induced symptoms of severe clinical depression and chronic fatigue which even the Psychiatrists who prescribed them failed to recognise as side-effects. Some time after when I told a state psychiatrist I was taking herbal medication he told me "oh we're supposed to know about those sorts of things." There are also dietary changes that assist different mental illness which you won't get from many doctors. Now say I was a young lad again, and I was confronted with such ideas as you can't cure allergies with natural medicine, or that herbal medications are less effective. (A Joke. Some herbs are scheduled for a reason). Can you say that being discouraged from seeking the best qualified practitioner I could would be good for my health? Not that I'd go to wikipedia for that, at least not as anything more than an introductory paragraph or two and some further links. Call me naive, but I'd like to see a future where wikipedia can be relied upon as at least a good portal to reputable agencies, but there is no such place on wikipedia for Naturopathy in Australia, just as well in a way that the first two google searches, including the google definition of naturopathy come from the ANTA. Sure it'd be nice to have the first search as somewhere which offers a balanced critique, but no such place exists outside of reading long journal articles, and how many in the general public do that. Naturopathy is increasingly adopted by the general public in australia, you see it in mainstream pharmacies and in integrated medical practices now as well as health food shops and the call centres of vitamin companies. I'd prefer it to be the best quality possible, which is why I'm in favour of a critique of the more debatable therapies, and regulation which requires a high level of education. But nobody who's already interested in natural therapies is going to get much out of the wikipedia article as it is because they will see nothing but bias, and for people who are skeptical all it will do is agree with their skepticism. It challenges nobody, except the poor naturopathy student who wants it to be better.