This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naturopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 am going to revert back to the changes I madeYou 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)
seems like the editor has an axe to grind on this topic) is unhelpful and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack (see WP:PA). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
NPOV sides with science and shuns pseudoscienceis open for rational debate, and that you would be allowed to disobey it. No, it is a matter of website policy, namely WP:PSCI, you might want to read it.
I prefer the revised sentences presented above by Tryptofish. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Naturopathy often finds itself at the center of debate because its practices frequently lack a rigorous scientific basis.Your thoughts were heard and considered, and these types of articles are difficult spaces, as they tend to draw editors who have strong opinions/feelings about how the subject is presented, so no reason to be discouraged. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 14:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naturopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 am going to revert back to the changes I madeYou 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)
seems like the editor has an axe to grind on this topic) is unhelpful and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack (see WP:PA). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
NPOV sides with science and shuns pseudoscienceis open for rational debate, and that you would be allowed to disobey it. No, it is a matter of website policy, namely WP:PSCI, you might want to read it.
I prefer the revised sentences presented above by Tryptofish. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Naturopathy often finds itself at the center of debate because its practices frequently lack a rigorous scientific basis.Your thoughts were heard and considered, and these types of articles are difficult spaces, as they tend to draw editors who have strong opinions/feelings about how the subject is presented, so no reason to be discouraged. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 14:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)