Talk:Naturopathy

message: The above conversation has digressed, so starting a new section about one specific statement: 
There are four sources currently supporting that statement. Three of them are studies of students, not naturopaths, and one of them says the opposite:  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)
replies: text: 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 () 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems to be a lot of sourcing on this e.g. 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)
replies: text: We could also tweak the wording of the sentence, instead of completely removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Does anyone have any objections to going ahead with that wording? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. —Alalch E. 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Recommend against" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "No factual merit" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rev 1185574518 claims Ledebomb - needs discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023