This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

My revision ( "Revision as of 21:56, 4 July 2015". ) has been reverted by Yobol. Can we talk about the reasons: nonsensical and promotional sounding change.

The editor of the proposed source ^[1] is the World Health Organization, which primary role is not promotional but to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations’ system ^[2].

Let's review the proposed revision step by step, one sentence after the other:

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

This sentence describes an historic fact. It is not promotional. It is a avaluable alternative to the existing sentence which is less detailed, less accurate and less WP:WORLDVIEW :

Beginning in the 1970s, there was a revival of interest in the United States and Canada, in conjunction with the holistic health movement

Please comment. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question was

"From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that

Benchmarks for training in naturopathy emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention. Various modalities exist. As universities began to emphasize the need for credible research and scientific validation in every discipline and the demand for evidence-based medicine continued to grow, naturopathic practitioners continued their support for high academic standards and sound curricula to pursue the scientific confirmation of naturopathic methods"

First, the first sentence ends abruptly, leading to a nonsensical addition. Second, it is a publication written by naturopaths and is promotional in language (i.e. incorrectly implying that "western" medical practices do not empasize promotion of health and healthy lifestyle while naturopathy does). Third, this is appears to be a copyright violation of the original document. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, thank you for your answer (by the way, thank you also for having labeled my references. I am not an experienced Wikipedian...).

First (nonsensical), sorry for the sentence ending abruptly. It was my mistake. In order to focus step by step, let’s discuss only the first proposed sentence which is now ending properly.

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, naturopathy enjoyed a renaissance as the public in many parts of the world became disenchanted with so-called western medical practices and more interested in holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

Second (promotional), the editor of this publication is WHO. This document has been reviewed by 274 reviewers, including experts and national authorities as well as professional and nongovernmental organizations, in 114 countries. The document was then revised based on the comments and suggestions received. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. The participants of the WHO Consultation who worked towards reviewing and finalizing the draft text, are mainly Professors or Doctors in medicine, even though they are demonstrating an interest for alternative medicine systems. WHO is the highest authority in this world for public health. WHO is not favoring any kind of health system. Can you propose a source demonstrating that WHO is not having a neutral point of view regarding medicine or naturopathy (question 1) ?

I don’t see any promotional language in this first sentence. You believe that it is incorrectly implying that "western" medical practices do not emphasize promotion of health and healthy lifestyle while naturopathy does. Can you propose a source demonstrating that western medicine was correctly emphasizing in the 60’s promotion of health and healthy lifestyle more than naturopathy was at that time (question 2) ?

Third (copyright), I have received the written permission (issued by Permission Team, World Health Organization Press) to reproduce the full paragraph in Wikipedia. WHO encourages the use of its information materials for information purposes i.e. when the purpose of the use is to share objective information ^[1]

I am waiting for your sources and for your answers to my questions. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language such as "...enjoyed a renaissance," "became disenchanted," "so-called," ... is generally not acceptable in articles. WP:W2W offers some guidance for that. Also, there's a procedure to go through for donation of copyright (see WP:DCM) - the permission you have needs to meet some criteria and the permission needs to be verified. Sunrise (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these further comments. I am willing to find a pragmatic solution. Let me then author my own sentence, based on the sources that we know already for this article (i.e. WHO, Baer and Boughton):

From the mid-1960s into the 1980s, interest waxed for naturopathy in many parts of the world. Instead of turning to medical practices based on the conventional western medicine, these people were turning to holistic health-care practices that emphasize healthy lifestyles as well as health promotion and disease prevention.

Please comment. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That WHO report, authored by a large group of naturopaths and other "traditional medicine" specialists, cites this 2001 UCSF "Profile of a profession" for that statement. The relevant statement is found at the foot of page 8:

A significant decline in the popularity of naturopathy in the United States characterized the profession from post World War II until the 1970s, during which time most health care centered around the allopathic medical model. Beginning in the 1970s, increased interest in holistic and alternative health care brought about a resurgence of naturopathy (Finken, 1986; Baer, 1992; Cody, 1985; Gort and Coburn, 1988; Canadian Naturopathic Association, 1999).

— Holly J. Hough, Catherine Dower, Edward H. O’Neil

In turn, those sources were:

• Finken D. (1986) Naturopathy: America’s homegrown alternative healing art. Medical Self-Care, 39-43. November/December 1986.
• Baer HA. (1992) The potential rejuvenation of American naturopathy as a consequence of the holistic health movement. Medical Anthropology, 13, 369-383.
• Gort EH and Coburn D. (1988) Naturopathy in Canada: Changing relationships to medicine, chiropractic and the state. Social Science in Medicine. 16(10):1061-1072.
• Canadian Naturopathic Association. (1999) Questions & Answers about Naturopathic Medicine. Available: http://www.naturopathicassoc.ca/ [Accessed December 5, 2000].

One may note that none of these source statements refer to anything but North America. Either the Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy neglected to cite a source, or the generalization to "many parts of the world" is a primary assertion in "Benchmarks". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog Thank you for your contribution and for the depth of your research for sourcing the assertion in many parts of the world. Are we supposed as Wikipedian to question every single word of secondary sources ? This assertion has been reviewed by 274 reviewers, including experts and national authorities as well as professional and nongovernmental organizations, in 114 countries. The document was then revised based on the comments and suggestions received. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. If there would have been such an error that this statement would only be true for North America and not for many parts of the world, why would it still be published like this ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: "It's complicated." The policy is wp:V, which is amplified by wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:EVAL and even wp:USEPRIMARY. It isn't particularly difficult to assemble a large group of self-described experts on any topic (ever been to a COMICON?), and larger numbers of contributors do not make their editors substantially more correct. This is particularly true when the experts are conspicuously drawn from a pseudoscientific group, as is the case here. We don't exclude POV sources, but we recognize them as such. Pretending a POV source is balanced is simply not on.

<rant>Few practioners of evidence based medicine find merit in homeopathy, energy medicine, rekki, accupuncture, or orthomolecular medicine simply because there is no substantial evidence for these practices being effective. To the extent that naturopathic doctrine continues to advocate their use, it undermines the credibility of the whole of naturopathy. A refocus on what does have evidence, e.g. nutrition, exercise, some parts of herbology, could some day transform naturopathy to a science-based medical discipline. There does not seem to be a strong visible effort among naturopaths to do so.</rant> LeadSongDog come howl! 20:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog Thanks for your detailed answer. However, what are you talking about ? The topic I am adressing is not the merits or the evidence of any health practice. We are simply discussing if the sentence about history is referring to North America or to many parts of the world. Please stay focused.

Shall we understand that you are comparing Comicon with WHO ? Shall we understand that WHO is made of self-described experts conspicuously drawn from a pseudoscientific group ? How dare !? May I remind that WHO is the highest recognized authority in this world for public health. It is probably more NPOV than any other medical authority, because it cares about public health, but not about any particular professional lobby. Did I address these topics ? No. Stay focused.

Would you please reconsider your arguments for simply answering my question: North America or "many parts of the world ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO published "Benchmarks", not wrote it. The authors and editors are not clearly identified. We are not bound to parrot their errors, even if they came from reliable sources. Less so with this source. Examine Annex 2 for the collected "experts" behind it. As to North America vs many parts: where does Benchmarks cite a primary work to support that? LeadSongDog come howl! 07:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog Thanks again for taking time to answer. Let me comment step by step.

First about author vs. publisher. WHO is not a book publishing business. As you can read and understand in the Acknoledgements, Forewords and Preface, this document is an initiative of WHO, part of their collaborative projects. WHO is expressing special acknowledgement of appreciation for his work in preparing the original draft text to Dr Dennis Patrick O'Hara. Then, 274 reviewers did comment and advice on the draft text. Then, 41 participants to WHO Consultation did review and finalize the draft text. Finally, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. This process demonstrates that this collaborative authoring is under the control and the responsibility of WHO.

Second about the quality of the source. Why do you write less so with this source ? It cannot be questionned in this way. Once again, WHO is the highest authority in this world about public health, probably more NPOV than any other one. Annex 2 is not presenting the 274 experts but only the 41 participants to the WHO Consultation. In the list, you will find a balance of high level representatives of conventional and non-conventional medicine.

Third about 'potentially' primary source. We are simply talking about historical facts in North America or in many parts of the world. We are not talking about rocket science. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD seems to be applicable: WHO is as fully independent as possible (it only depends on funding by member's states), WHO is authoritative, WHO documents are high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, WHO publications are expert-approved, WHO is subject to editorial control and WHO is a reputable publisher.

Do you still have any objections about writing many parts of the world instead of North America ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the WHO does other, more important things, it certainly is in the business of publishing and for that matter selling books. They normally do a very good job of it, which is part of what makes this work so puzzling. It gives no explanation why the group selected for consultation is so skewed. O'Hara does have some relevant knowledge in naturopathy, chiropractic, and theology, but that hardly puts him in the evidence-based world. It is also unclear to me if he retained control of the text after the initial draft. Perhaps you are seeing something I'm not? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog thanks again for your fair answer. Eventhough I appreciate exchanging ideas and comments with you, we will not progress if we do not focus to the open question: Do you still have any objections about writing many parts of the world instead of North America ?

Eventhough WHO is spreading its knowledge by selling its own books, it cannot be seen as a book business (I don't know if Wikipedians are allowed to use smileys, in which case I would have used one here).

I understand that O'Hara was only responsible for the first draft. The final document was finalized by WHO. The criteria for the selection of the participants to the WHO event called WHO Consultation on Phytotherapy is not closely linked to my question.

My question is not addressing naturopathy vs. evidence-based. It is simply addressing an historical and geographical fact: many parts of the world instead of North America. I did not,I don't want, and I don't see why I would have to enter here into the debate naturopathy vs. evidence-based. Do you still have objection to edit the article in this way ? Is this WHO document a valid source for this historical and geographical detail ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still have the same objection as above, for the same reason. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. All these fringe groups have their own wp:walled garden of "experts" who are not recognized as such by the larger scientific community. Such people have a vested interest in the promotion of their worldview. An outside-the-walls source is necessary to reliably source any statement that naturopathy became more popular in many parts of the world. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog Thanks for answering my question and for disclosing your point of view: all these fringe groups ? We are talking here about WHO and only about WHO, authoring and publishing this document. In order to sustain your point of view, please provide a reliable source supporting your opinion that WHO is a fringe group or that WHO publications are under the influence of fringe groups. Without such a reliable source, your personnal opinion does not count here (WP:NCAYO). How can you pretend that Dr Gabriela Crescini, biologist, Professor Vincenzo De Feo, professor of medical botany, Professor Anna Maria Di Giulio, professor of pharmacology, Dr Gaetano Guglielmi, medicine and surgery (Directorate-General for EU and International Relations, Ministry of Labour, Health, and Social Policy, Rome, Italy), Professor Emilio Minelli, medicine and surgery, Dr Samvel Azatyan, Ph.D. clinical pharmacology, just to name a few, are a fringe group of walled garden experts not recognized by larger scientific community ? They are all issued from the evidence-based science. But more importantly, they are able to have a scientific and well informed point of view about my question, the fact that maybe naturopathy became more popular in many parts of the world and not only in North America, because they are demonstrating scientific curiosity for non-conventional medicine. Who else, if not these people can write about this topic outside-the-walls ? The American Lawyer's association ? The Swiss Bankers association ? NO. The American Medical association ? Certainly not, because they are having a COI, or simply no interest at all, for this topic. Who else ? The WHO, Traditional Medicine, Department for Health System Governance and Service Delivery, simply because your government, as well as my government and many others, are paying them for doing this job. This is a neutral and independant worldwide authority. WHO is NPOV by nature. Their mission is simply worldwide health, not worldwide medicine nor worldwide naturopathy. If we cannot agree on that, how can we seek arbitrage between your opinion and my factual statement that WHO publications are NPOV ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words. Of course I am not calling the WHO a fringe group, the UN is about as "establishment" as it gets. However, one specialized panel does not stand for the whole of the WHO any more than the NCCAM stands for the whole of the NIH. Your cherry picking of a few individuals from a long list does not change the fact: the vast majority on that list are engaged in "Traditional Medicine" of one form or another. The source for that is the document itself, not my "opinion". LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog thanks again for your answer. Author of this document is WHO as an institution, not a specialized panel. Being engaged does not necessarily mean promote or COI. Considering that WHO is good and NPOV when it is addressing conventional medicine topics and bad and COI when it is addressing non-conventional medicine does not seem to be an NPOV by itself. Either WHO is a reliable source, as a whole institution (and so are all its publications), or it is not. Is it acceptable to cherry pick publications that are supposed to be NPOV and those which are supposed not to be ? Doing so, you are questionning the NPOV of the entire WHO institution. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not "authored" by the WHO; it has no listed authors. It's a book out of their publishing arm. From what we know of its genesis, it probably falls afoul of WP:FRIND. Reliability is determined by assessing content and source together: whole institutions are not given blank cheques for total reliability in all topic areas. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn thanks for joining the discussion. WHO is not a book shop publishing anonymous documents outside of its scope and mission. If the document is missing an explicit author its simply because it is indeed a WHO document published by WHO about one of WHO's own projects. How does an institution sign its own documents otherwise ? Usually, the author is wirting the Aknoledgements, in this case written by WHO as an institution. Do you believe that WHO would promote fringe science ? As I understand you, when WHO is addressing conventional medicine, it is seen as reliable, but when WHO is addressing non-conventional medicine, it is no more reliable. How can it be ? Shall we question directly WHO press office about its reliability ? Please edit WP:MEDORG in order to explicit your opinion: WHO is only reliable when addressind conventional medicine topics. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about book shops? You again assert this document was "written by WHO as an institution" but this is simply incorrect. (BTW, things which represent that kind of institutional view are easy to spot. See e.g. this.) Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, then what do you mean by publishing arm. Is WHO an editor publishing anonymous work about fringe topics without any control ? Who is then authoring this document if not WHO itself, considering that this document is part of one of WHO's project ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publishing arm of the WHO is called the "WHO Press". They are the publisher of the work in question. No author is stated, though the original text is credited to one "Dennis Patrick O'Hara". You can read about him here where it is confirmed "[h]e has drafted a description of the naturopathic profession for the World Health Organization". Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, WHO Press is the publisher. So what ? WHO Press becomes the publisher of choice for the dissemination of important scientific, technical and medical advice that WHO wishes to deliver to the world. This publication is not an anonymous fringe document published randomly by an obscure editor, it is part of important scientific, technical and medical advices that WHO wishes to deliver to the world, knowing that WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system, and stimulating the generation and dissemination of valuable knowledge [1].

O'Hara did write the draft (the original text) of this benchmark. So what ? Finally, after first round of review, WHO organized consultations for further final review, prior to editing. WHO managed the entire authoring process and, as such, is taking responsibility of the authoring process, which makes WHO the collective author by default, like for any other of their publications of this type. Here is the confirmation by WHO itself that WHO is the author. WHO being the author, you cannot say that WHO is authoring fringe content. Considering that WHO is a reliable source by WP:MEDORG, can we now edit the sentence in the article ? Did we pass all the security checks and all the gates ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last two question, no and no. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog, thanks at least for answering. But I would appreciate if you can disclose your arguments or applicable WP policies. Which security check did we not pass ? Which gate is still closed ? For what reason ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've examined several aspects of the source and it isn't fit for the proposed use. Paulmartin357 is saying that the WHO is the "collective author by default" against the evidence. The source is not named or identified in the same way as Position Statements issued by the WHO. So far as I am concerned it's case closed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, thanks for your answer, however your answer is very vague. You neeed to be much more specific: "we" ? who ? "several aspects" ? which ones ? "isn't fit" ? according to which principles ? "the same way as Position Statements" ? which way ?

I am not saying against evidence that "WHO is the author". Did you at least check my source ? I asked the following question by email to publications@who.int:

Is it correct to consider and to say that WHO (as an institution) is the author of the following publication ? http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/BenchmarksforTraininginNaturopathy.pdf, Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy, SBN 978 92 4 15996 5 8 (NLM classification: WB 935)

Their answer is:

Yes this is correct. This book is published and authored by WHO Headquarters, in Geneva, Switzerland.

You are refusing the evidence that WHO is claiming to be the author. According to which WP principle can you refuse the objective, written, publicly available and documented fact that WHO is claiming to be the author ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: I am still waiting for your answer on this evidence. According to WHO source, WHO is declaring publicly to be the author of this document. Based on which WP principle can you ignore this documented WP:V fact ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trhermes:, thanks for your edition of my contribution. However you are completely transforming and undermining its meaning. My point is: despite the very negative opinion of Atwood, up to 67% of certain naturopathic treatments in certain western regions of the world are indeed performed by evidence based licensed and registred medical doctors, but not simply by any kind of other medical and health professionals. Your sentence does not accurately illustrate this paradox. Its a very high percentage for a medicine that is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. Furthermore, my source does not support that many kinds of other medical and health professionals offer such treatments. It only support the fact that medical doctors offer up to 67% of certain types of these treatments in certain regions. Let me propose to edit your contribution as follow. Your sentence:

Naturopathic treatments encompass a wide variety of alternative medical practices

is somehow duplicating the first sentence of the article :

is a form of alternative medicine employing a wide array of "natural" treatments, including homeopathy, herbalism, and acupuncture, as well as diet (nutrition) and lifestyle counseling.

You could merge yours and this one at the top of the article. Your sentence:

As such, other medical and health professionals offer such treatments that are also considered to be naturopathic.

is somehow duplicating an existing sentence of the article:

Naturopathic practitioners in the United States can be divided into three categories: traditional naturopaths; licensed/registered naturopaths; and other health care providers that provide naturopathic services.

You could merge yours and this one at the top of the article. Then I would like to return to my original contribution at its original location, right after Atwood quote, and maybe rewrite it in your way:

However, up to 67% of certain types of naturopathic treatments in certain western regions of the world are indeed performed by evidence based medical doctors

I am open to comments and suggestions before publishing, but I believe by WP:STRUCTURE that this important paradox shall be exposed to the readers of this article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you seem to be assuming that everyone with an M.D. Is engaged in evidence based practice, while this is clearly not the case. You further appear to be asserting that users of specific treatment modalities, e.g. massage, are engaged in "naturopathic" treatment. This is a false generalization, as the use of one modality does not imply the use of the whole suite. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending sentences, as you pointed out @Paulmartin357, they are redundant. The cited remark about 67% of MDs are doing some kind of "naturopathic" treatment was a miscitation. I went ahead and read the French document that was cited. Those are the results of a survey performed in Switzerland. This is too narrow a point to be made in the opener. You should consider moving it to a section below about naturopathic practice in Europe or Switzerland, more specifically. I added some citations to support existing claims made in the opener. Trhermes (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog:, thanks for joining this topic. I am not assuming that everyone with an MD is engaged in evidence based practice, eventhough they should (see below). My source is demonstrating that it is not the case. What is your point ?

I am not asserting that users of specific treatment are engaged in naturopathic treatment. There is maybe some mis-understanding. My source is showing that certain treatments also employed by naturopathy (this is paraphrasing the existing lead: is a form of alternative medicine employing a wide array of "natural" treatments, how can I be more accurate ?) are performed by MD's. I am sticking to the wording of th elead, to the facts and to the source. Let me try to rephrase in order to avoid mis-interpretation:

However, up to 67% of treatments using certain techniques also belonging to naturopathy, in certain western regions of the world, are indeed performed by medical doctors holding an "evidence based medecine" diploma

Maybe you can propose a more elegant and more accurate way for expressing the concept, at least for the last 4 words of the sentence.

For your information, according to a document published by the Swiss Academy of Medical Science,

Such a violation (of a physician's due diligence) is performed when (...) therapy or other medical intervention appear no more defensible in view of the general state of medical science (...) .

To my understanding, this document makes very clear that MD's (at least in Switzerland) are supposed to work in line with "the general state of medical science" and not with fringe techniques such as homeopathy and acupuncture.

@Trhermes:, thanks for your answer and for understanding my point. I disagree with the fact that my contribution shall be moved because it's "too narrow". Of course, I would be more than happy to read a worldwide survey about the same topic. But eventhough, exceptions to rules, or important paradox, are worth mentionning next to the rule. As such, this information is relevant in the lead by WP:BALANCE. In this case, its an objective fact balancing a mainstream opinion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, that looks like an excellent document for a discussion of Swiss medical regulation, particularly footnote 93 on page 60.

Art. 43 al. 2 let. d et art. 58 LAMal. Pour les autres assurances sociales, une base légale expresse en matière d’AQ fait défaut. Le message concernant la révision de la LAMal (FF 1991 p. 129) précise que: «La garantie de la qualité contribue à juguler l’avancée des coûts dans la mesure où elle élimine des prestations les mesures qui ne sont ni nécessaires ni efficaces ni appropriées. La notion de qualité se conçoit au sens large du terme, de telle sorte que la garantie de la qualité englobe aussi bien le résultat du traitement que la mise en oeuvre appropriée des prestations et la satisfaction du patient (voir art. 50).»

I'm not sure though, that I know the particular part of the document that you are referring to. Can you please be more specific in citation?

Where you suggest However, up to 67% of treatments using certain techniques also belonging to naturopathy, in certain western regions of the world, are indeed performed by medical doctors holding an "evidence based medecine" diploma I believe you are referring to para 4.1 of this source. I would instead say just In the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 7% of surveyed individuals reported using accupuncture. Medical doctors delivered 62% of those treatments. The source does not characterize the accupuncture modality as naturopathic, so we should not do so either. It does not refer to the EBM aspect of their training, simply describing them as "un médecin diplômé". Connecting the dots between the two sources is considered to be wp:original research. We don't do that. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog, thanks for taking the time to read my sources and for your detailed and helpful answer to my questions.

I fully agree with your proposal to stick to the original text of the source. But may I propose to cut down to the essential in order to avoid overloading with unnecessary details, as long as the meaning is not altered:

However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, Medical doctors delivered 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments.

I understand your point that we shall avoid to produce original research. But this is WP:UCS in Switzerland: an MD is EBM trained. There is no other choice for being MD in Switzerland. It would add value to the quote if we can mention it in one way or the other.

Does anyone still disagree that I publish the above sentence in the lead, following Atwood quote ?

In order to answer your questions, I am using page 132 of this source and page 20 of this source. The source does not categorize acupuncture or homeopathy as naturopathy, but Atwood does not distinguish nor say the contrary either. By default, and without evidence of the contrary in available sources, there is no reason to say that homeopathy practiced as such or homeopathy practiced within a naturopathic treatment are different techniques.

I could also comment on your Art. 43, but it would drive us away from the topic. If you are interested, I can do so on your talk page, for your information. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously original research which has the effect of advancing an advocacy agenda for Naturopathy. We don't want that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, this is your own opinion that I am "advancing an advocacy agenda". I am adding valuable content from reputable sources following WP:PRINCIPLES. Please remain focused on the facts and do not engage into your conspiracy theory. "We" don't want that !? Who is "we" (second time that I am asking you this question) ? The definition of original research by Wikipedia WP:OR is : "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". This is not the case here. The source is published and very reliable. Eventhough it would be original research, according to WP:PSTS: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia (...) A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (...) Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself." . I did simply quote the facts and did not analyse, evaluate or interpret anything in this context.Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing bibliographic searching for relevant citations to the section "Safety of Natural Treatments." I think this article would be improved with the following citations:

• Oliver, Mark; Van Voorhis, Wesley; Boeckh, Michael; Mattson, Debra; Bowden, Raleigh (1996). "Hepatic Mucormycosis in a Bone Marrow Transplant Recipient Who Ingested Naturopathic Medicine". Clinical Infectious Diseases 22 (3): 521–524.^[1]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). "Hepatitis Temporally Associated with an Herbal Supplement Containing Artemisinin — Washington, 2008". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 58 (31): 854–856.^[2]
• Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) (2006). "Deaths Associated with Hypocalcemia from Chelation Therapy — Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, 2003–2005". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55 (8): 204–207.^[3]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1996). "Infection with Mycobacterium abscessus associated with intramuscular injection of adrenal cortex extract--Colorado and Wyoming 1995-1996". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45: 713–715.^[4]

I added one reference, but @Alexbrn reverted the change. I am unclear as to why this user did this.Trhermes (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should use WP:MEDRS for health content, and avoid primary sources. The 1996 source you added is an old primary. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 2012 review which cites that 1996 source (in PMC 3317515 it is ref 27), but all that review says is "Cases of hepatic mucormycosis have also been associated with ingestion of herbal medications." That doesn't support the assertion for which the 1996 source was cited. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding new sources, it would be wise to review existing ones. The first source ("Naturopathic Medicine". American Cancer Society. January 16, 2013) is not linking to relevant information. Please provide a more accurate link. The second source (Barrett, Stephen (November 26, 2013). "A close look at naturopathy". QuackWatch.) is not supporting exactly the text of this section. I am proposing to remove the first and the second sources by WP:V. Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Cancer Society page on Naturopathy no longer exists. Wayback Machine has it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150403092521/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicinehttps://web.archive.org/web/20150403092521/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine Trhermes (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the source does no longer exist, I am proposing by WP:V to remove this source from the list of references and to remove 3 informations/sentences solely based on this source :

According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published.

ozone therapy

Naturopathic doctors are not mandated to undergo residency between graduation and commencing practice, Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ACS position seems to now be this. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this new source. However, it does not relates to the 3 above informations/sentences. Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a book published by the American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary & Alternative Cancer Therapies (2009). Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society. [ISBN: 978-0944235713]. The section on naturopathic medicine is on pp. 116-119. The content reflects the language and material used on the ACS webpage on naturopathy, which is no longer available online. I propose this reference be added to support the existing citation. Trhermes (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this new source. Please quote here in the talk page the sentences of this book which are supporting the above 3 ones. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the book is very similar to the text of the online source no longer available: I made the book excerpt temporarily here: http://imgur.com/Z9qrQCg What other sentences are based on this source that need review? Trhermes (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this quote. We shall rephrase in order to stick to the source WP:V and to reflect exactly the balance of the source WP:BALANCE:

According to the American Cancer Society in 2009, "available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine is effective for most health problems. Some naturopatic methods have been shown to reduce the risk for illness.

Naturopathic doctors in the United States, as of 2009, do not receive residency training.

However, it is also necessary to point out that the sources and references of this chapter of the book are very limited and questionable. Is it a real secondary source WP:secondary ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Cancer Society (2009) source appears as a reliable source. The American Cancer Society is a major medical organization and scientific institution. WP:MEDPOP

May I paraphrase LeadSongDog in another topic on this talk page when he is talking about WHO, which is also considered as a reliable source: The policy is wp:V, which is amplified by wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:EVAL and even wp:USEPRIMARY (...) The American Cancer Society published this book, not wrote it. We are not bound to parrot their errors, even if they came from reliable sources.. I think we have to question the quality of sources and the relevance of this section of the book, knowing that this is a very short article based very few and very weak sources out of 800 pages. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you propose are objectionable? Trhermes (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ACS says on the cover that this book is authored by "the experts at the ACS". That's as direct as it gets, unlike the earlier WHO attribution. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from the book's introduction that supports LeadSongDog's point:

This book reflects the American Cancer Society's commitment to providing comprehensive information to empower patients and the public in making informed decisions about the use of conventional methods as well as CAM in cancer prevention and treatment and in optimizing quality of life for cancer survivors. Since its inception in 1913, the Society has taken on the task of educating the public about cancer and about the safety and effectiveness of cancer treatment. Early in its existence, the Society expressed concern over dubious claims of “cancer cures” and began gathering information on these therapies. In the 1950s, as the organization became increasingly concerned with the exploitation of people with cancer— especially those in the advanced phases of illness— we began to publish information about specific claims, as well as the criteria for assessing the value or merit of particular cancer treatments or diagnostic tests. In the spirit of our longstanding ACS mission— to educate, advocate, research, and serve— the American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary & Alternative Cancer Therapies, Second Edition was born. This book will serve as a comprehensive guide to the wide variety of methods available. Each entry provides critical information such as proponents’ claims, what the method involves, historical background, recent research findings, and side effects and complications. The latest complementary and alternative treatment methods are included, as well as those that have been used for many years. This second edition has been updated with the latest research in the field of integrative oncology, as well as an expanded glossary and resource list.

and...

As in our first edition, this second edition aims to provide readers with a reliable guide to selecting and using treatment methods wisely. Through objective information based on scientific evidence from peer-reviewed medical literature, readers may evaluate the evidence and make informed choices— together with their doctors— about complementary therapies.

and from the foreward to the book written by David Rosenthal, MD:

Informed, authoritative sources within the medical community should address any new claims regarding CAM, and that is the primary reason for publishing this new edition. Experts at the American Cancer Society, along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM have analyzed the most recent research and claims surrounding alternative and complementary treatments. In this new edition, they share important facts regarding what has been proven or disproven in the field during the last decade.

The ACS book is a very reputable source from medical experts who have a clear scientific and educational purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trhermes (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, David S. Rosenthal's own bioblurb (though not itself a wp:RS) is here and here is more. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog, what shall I understand about Rosenthal's bio ? Let me paraphrase you again.

Rosenthal is working at The Zakim Center offering clinical services – such as acupuncture, massage therapy, Reiki, therapeutic touch, mind-body techniques, and nutritional consultations. Few practioners of evidence based medicine find merit in acupuncture, massage therapy, reiki, therapeutic touch and mind-body techniques, simply because there is no substantial evidence for these practices being effective. To the extent that Rosenthal working for Zakim center continues to advocate their use, it undermines the credibility of the whole of Rosenthal foreword for ACS publication. Regarding the experts at the American Cancer Society, along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM mentionned by Rosenthal, all these fringe groups have their own wp:walled garden of "experts" who are not recognized as such by the larger scientific community. Such people have a vested interest in the promotion of their worldview.

I am still questionning the primary sources used by ACS for this book and NPOV of the authors of this book. Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the references that you find questionable as primary sources.Trhermes (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is determined by assessing content and source together: whole institutions are not given blank cheques for total reliability in all topic areas. There are only 8 sources listed. It's a very limited number for such a large topic. One sources is even only supporting one single sentence in the entire article (Riley RW about CNME). Sarell is annecdotal. Bastyr and NCCAM are engaged in "Traditional Medicine" in one form or another. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is because so little is written on naturopathy from an academic perspective. The available sources are limited. I am still not clear on your objections. There appear to be naturopathy advocates, who seem to only cite pro naturopathy references written by naturopaths. There then is a large body of other citations written by a variety of academic, scientific, and advocacy groups who are predominately wary of the claims that naturopathy proponents make. Here are some other sources that might help understand this division:

• http://oha.ed.gov/secretarycases/2000-06-O.pdf
• http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/naturopath_final_042213.pdf
• http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2001-09_Profile_of_a_Profession_Naturopathic_Practice.pdf
• http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_documents.asp?session=26&docid=5694
• http://www.sfsbm.org/pdf/Maryland_ND_Advisory_Committee_report.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182944/

I think a serious problem is that naturopathy advocates do not accept criticism of their profession, practices, education, and even beliefs, like homeopathy. Trhermes (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, I am simply questionning the reliability [WP:RS]] of the source. If there is not enough academic material (in this case not even one single scholar article) then the source is weak according to WP:V, ie. if it is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, then WP:REDFLAG shall apply. Isn't it surprising that one source (out of only 8 sources) is mentionned for one single sentence of low importance ? Is there such a lack of valuable sources for supporting ACS's paragraph on naturopathy in this book ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply wrong to pretend that this statement is "According to American Cancer Society". The note to the reader in the first pages of the books says: ""This information represents the views of the doctors and nurses serving on the American Cancer Society's Cancer Information Database Editorial Board. These views are based on their interpretation of studies (...)". It is then explicitely personnal views and interpretations of these people and not those of ACS as an organization. Otherwise, why would there such a note to the reader ? This note to the reader is not matching with the foreword of Rosenthal who says : "Experts at the ACS along with many thought leaders in the field of CAM (...) " It is not only ACS co-authored by unamed doctors and nurses, but also co-authored by unamed "thought leaders". This is one more reason for looking carefully at this source. Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general comment about the tone of this article. It is an anti naturopathic screed. I am an M.D. and totally agree with all of the points made in the screed, but don't think that's what an encyclopedia is for. This is a common problem in wiki articles. There must be a way to briefly cite medical sources that regard naturopathy as unscientific, without coming back to that point over and over. There is an almost comical disconnect between the long sections on licensure in various developed countries and the equally lengthy tirade against the discipline. If it's so bad, why does Switzerland make sure that it's practitioners are properly trained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Template:Sign2

@Alexbrn: please explain what you consider to be "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to clarify Atwood quote ("US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians") and to cite statistical study about the use of naturopathic methods by MD's ? Please also refer to previous Talks about the same topic. If you would have disagreed, your comments would have been welcomed earlier on the Talk page before vandalising this article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTVAND. Atwood's stuff is not US-specific. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, please provide a valid source WP:V confirming that Atwood sentence about primary care is not US-specific, but universal. Can you tell me if naturopaths in Northern Botswana are claiming to be primary care physicians ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American is more than the US, you know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, we are not talking about Anglo-American sources. For supporting his statement, Atwood is naming only 2 US sources: AANP and Oregon University ("according to the official definition on the Web site of its national organization, the AANP.[6] At the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon"). Claiming that what is valid in the USA is valid for the planet is your opinion, not a documented fact. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, regarding "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, based on Anglo-Amrican sources]], what is "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to write that it is based on Anglo-American sources ?

Alexbrn, regarding "However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments have been delivered by Medical doctors."", what is "Fringey special pleading" in the fact to cite an official statistical study in this field ? Please answer these 3 questions in a clear way: 1: US, 2: Anglo-American, 3: statistics Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'1: US, 2: Anglo-American, 3: statistics ' are not questions. I honestly have no idea what any of what you just typed means. Perhaps Alexbrn can decode it, but I cannot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrodbeck, thanks for joining this Talk and sorry for not being clear in my questions. Alexbrn did revert my contributions. This talk page is for asking him why he is considering that my contributions are "Fringey special pleading". There are 3 parts of my contribution which have been reverted:

1. "US" in this sentence: US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians (...)

2. "Anglo-American" in this sentence: Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, based on Anglo-American sources (...)

3. statistical facts in this sentence: However, in the Canton of Geneva in 2007, 62% of acupuncture treatments and 57% of homeopathy treatments have been delivered by Medical doctors. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on. The Swiss stuff is undue/special pleading. The mention of US-centricity in the lede fails WP:V since it is sourced to 3 sources which collectively do not support it. The limitation of Atwood's observations to the US is WP:OR since it is not (as I remember) a limitation that Atwood himself makes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, thanks for your detailed answer. WP:UNDUE does not apply to the Swiss stuff because the source is WP:NPOV: these are neutral, unquestionnable, statistical facts collected by a governemental agency, not personnal opinion of a minority.

US centricity in the lead is not the topic addressed in this talk (I will open another topic for this one, since you did revert it). We are addressing the US-centricity in chapter 3.3 Evidence basis where there is only one source, Atwood himself, which is perfectly WP:V. Atwood writes: " according to the official definition on the Web site of its national organization, the AANP. At the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon", which is a clear reference to US-centricity. It is not WP:OR. It is simply a very obvious fact according to WP:UCS and [[WP::GF]]. I can paraphrase the 2 above sentences by saying without any possible objection that "US "Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians (...)". Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources aren't adjudged NPOV, edits here are. Undueness is an POV problem your edit had - using a Swiss canton factoid to "however" the pseudoscience of naturopathy! I don't understand what you mean about the US stuff - you didn't address the point that in the lede THREE sources support the ststement. I no longer have access to the Atwood paper so would need to re-check. If he is confining his comments to US physicians we could amend the sentence in the body from "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine ..." to "Kimball C. Atwood IV writes of US physicians, in the journal Medscape General Medicine ..." or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, remove the "however" if this is your NPOV problem. The fact that the majority of certain naturopathic techniques are performed by EBM trained MD's in a non Anglo American western country shall be of interest ("however" or not "however"...) to the readers of this article, despite the fact that these techniques are being considered in the Anglo American world as being "replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices". Your intellectual curiosity and your intellectual honesty shall be alerted by such a fact. It's not simply a useless "factoid". I still dont see any WP:UNDUE here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog:, may I seek your opinion about Alexbrn revert. You did previously agree on this statement which is now being considered as WP:UNDUE by Alexbrn. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I more acceded then agreed, but that is perhaps splitting hairs. We have no real reason to focus the reader's attention on one particular population of less than a half-million while ignoring others far larger. We also have no reason to address accupuncture as naturopathic. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog, thanks for answering quickly to my request. We are not focusing attention on one particular population. We are taking a well documented example directly relating to the topic. Knowing that usual scholars or clinical sudies are typically focusing on hundrends rather than half-millions, this a reasonnably good sample to my opinion. Feel free to propose sources which are contradicting this fact at larger scale. I see no reason to hide this reality to the reader of the Wikipedia article. Interest is not a question of quantity. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side note-"fringey" is not a real word. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an alternative spelling of "fringy" (which is in the OED) ain't it? Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see it come up in any other dictionaries (I really don't use Wiktionary as a reliable source) or here [2] spelled that way. I do see fringy but I never really hear anyone use that particular adjective in conversation. It's really of very little importance to me though and I maintain there are probably better ways to communicate the idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all kind of contributions, including linguistic ones. However, please stay focused on the only remaining open question in this section: what is "fringey/fringy" in a statistical fact from a reputable source ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:, you did revert my contribution "An examination of Anglo-American literature reveals that (...)" . If you "no longer have access to the Atwood paper" , how can you claim it is WP:OR or WP:V failure ? You are reverting faster than you are making due diligence. Let me quote Atwood for you then:

- "An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with (...) "

- "What follows is a summary of the current state of "naturopathic medicine." Much of it comes from the position papers and other articles on the Web site of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP); from the Textbook of Natural Medicine, the only general textbook of the field, coedited and largely coauthored by one of the Medicare appointees; and from the most visible naturopathic school, Bastyr University in Kenmore, Washington, where the coeditor of the Textbook was founder and president and where the other new MCAC appointee is associate dean. Thus, it reflects the health beliefs of these 2 appointees and of the uppermost levels of "naturopathic medicine."

You can also check the 53 sources and references listed by Atwood. It is obviously only Anglo-American literature, without any further research. I did it. You can do it if you like. Anyone can do it for WP:V. Atwood himself is giving us the information in "long format" (i.e. listing 53 references) which we can sumarize as "Anglo-American literature" without any WP:BIAS nor WP:OR. It is pure WP:UCS and WP:RAP (Original research can be avoided by citing claims to reliable sources that can be verified by other editors) to write that: "An examination of Anglo-American literature (...)". Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated you were quoting from the source, and I took you at your word. If the source has "An examination of their literature" you can't just change it to "An examination of the Anglo-Saxon literature" as it misrepresents the source. It also may be too closely paraphrased. Atwood is making a universalizing statement and we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What is more, the content in the lede is sourced to three sources, not just Atwood. Alexbrn (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, if Atwood says "their", we can clarify for the reader of Wikipedia article what Atwood is refering to. "Their" means "Naturopatic literature from Anglo-American sources". This is an obvious fact that any reader can check by himself for WP:V. It is not "misrepresenting" the source (unless you did not read it). It is "claryfying" the source (if you did read it, including its 53 references at the end).

I don't see any "universylizing statement" from Atwood. He is nowhere pretending to make an "universylizing statement". His sources are not supporting your opinion. Not only his 53 sources but also the all chapters of his article are Anglo-American and even US centric:

- Brief History and Current Status

- 1st paragraph about origins in Germany in 19th Century

- 2nd paragraph about AANP and Oregon (US centric)

- 3rd paragraph about United States and Canada (North American centric)

- 4th paragraph about 13 US states (US centric)

- Naturopathic belief (no mention of geography, but only Anglo-American sources)

- Naturopathic treatments (AANP, Massachusetts and only Anglo-American examples)

- Implications for Medicare (US centric)

- USA topic (US centric)

- White House Commission (US centric)

- USA topic (US centric)

Please provide evidence that Atwood is making an "universalizing statement". How does it apply to naturopathy in Northern Botswana ? According to which source ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After this article was published, Atwood came under attack from Naturopaths, like you claiming that his sourcing was unrepresentative. He responded that

I was careful to include only references that any reasonable person would consider representative of the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine': the Textbook of Natural Medicine — “the most comprehensive summary available of the actual practices and recommendations of naturopaths,” according to its own back cover[1] — the Position Papers and other articles offered on the Web site of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), the course catalogs and other information from the Web sites of “approved” naturopathic schools, especially Bastyr, and other articles or quotations only if they were written by faculty members or other prominent members of the field.

Introducing "Northern Botswana" - or any other regional exemption - is entirely your original research. People in foreign countries often read English you know, and there are such things as translations. As I say: WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, this quote is not supporting your opinion. Atwood was answering to the following concern: "My references do not come from reputable sources, do not reflect what NDs really do, or are out of date". He was not, and he never did, pretend to be universal. He is simply and only reflecting "what ND really do" based on Anglo-American sources. Your above quote from Atwood is one more obvious confirmation of this fact. I am still waiting for your arguments showing "universality" of his statement... Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As he says the sources represent what "any reasonable person would consider representative of the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'". No mention of the US or Botswana. If you contend that his view is not in alignment with "the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'" then you're going to need sources. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience wherever it happens, and is not subject to regional variation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, he his obviously refering to "the highest levels of 'naturopathic medicine'" based only on Anglo-American sources. You cannot reasonnably oppose to this obvious fact. You cannot oppose to the fact that his article is only dealing with Anglo-American and even US centric topics (see chapters listed above) !? Can you show me one single source cited by Atwood who would reasonnnably support anything outside the Anglo-American world ? If an author is writing "White House is the highest level of power" in a book dedicated to US, it does not apply to the entire world simply because the author forgot to mention in that sentence that he is writing an article about US politics !? The same is valid for Atwood. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What next, you'll be arguing that Newton discovered the force of Gravity operated only in England? Atwoods's work is not "dedicated to the US". The insistence on its regional specificity, and your charge that the author "forgot" to mention the US is entirely your WP:Original research. In any case the content we have is supported by other sources, including by Ernst and Singh who have a British and European perspective. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, since you did rephrase the lead, this topic is closed for the lead section. Thank you again.

However, for your own information, I am inviting you to read the naturopathic litterature of Northern Botswana in order to realize the differences with the one of "the highest level of naturopathis medicine" mentionned by Atwood (I still don't know if smileys are following Wikipedia etiquette... otherwise I would use one here). Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, 3 sources ( Atwood, Gorski and Ernst ) are supporting Atwood quote: "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." However, this a direct quote of Atwood wording. It is only supported by one single reference (Atwood) in the body of the article, chapter 3.3 Evidence basis. The 2 other sources do not exist anywhere else in this article. According to WP:CREATELEAD, "the lead is based only on the content of the article" and "The explanatory and more detailed text with the references is already found in the article". These 2 sources are not part of the content of the article. Details about these sources are not found in the article. I am questioning the presence and the validity of these 2 sources for supporting Atwood quote in the lead. I am proposing to remove these 2 references from the lead.Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no quotation marks in the article, nor is it attributed to Artwood. Is this really a direct quote? Could you provide a bit more context from the source (I don't have access to it) to show that? If it is a direct quote, then we are too closely paraphrasing, and we need to rewrite that sentence so it is our own summary of all three sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, this is a direct quote. However, this is not the topic of this section to discuss this quote. I am adressing undue references only. If you would like to discuss the quote, please open a new section on the Talk page or "revive" an existing section about the same topic from the archived Talk pages. It is a recurring topic here... Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Yes, it is about the quote. You made a claim that it is a direct quote, but we're not using it as a quote, nor have we in any way indicated it is a quote. I'm asking you to back that up, because I'm unable to. If it is not a direct quote (as it currently appears from my vantage point), then our coverage and inclusion of 3 sources is fully warranted. We would only need to adjust the sentence (or citations) if your claim about it being a quote were true. So... again... can you provide some context from the source showing exactly what it says? I'd appreciate it, because I don't have access to that source, myself, but you appear to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, here is the exact quote from the first paragraph of the abstract of Atwood article: "An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices." I am questionning 2 of the 3 sources supposed to support this quote. Obviously, only one single source is supporting it, Atwood himself. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our lede summarizes our article fairly, but unfortunately too closely to one source's specific words. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbr, "unfortunately", since years, you/we (I still don't know who is "we") did revert all contributions who did amend these specific words from Atwood... Will you let me a chance to rephrase it with my own words, being perfectly in line with WP:NPOV ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection the problem in the body was not WP:COPYVIO but just messed-up quotation marks. I've fixed this and paraphrased the mirroring content in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, THANK YOU for this very good paraphrase. I fully agree with your proposal.Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement in the lead is not based on the content of the article:

"practitioners often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine"

Which part of the article and which references are documenting the words "often" and "prefer" ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see several references to "evidence based medicine" in the article. In "Practice": Naturopaths...often rejecting the methods of evidence based medicine. In "Traditional naturopaths": Traditional naturopathic practitioners surveyed in Australia perceive evidence based medicine to be an ideologic assault on their beliefs. This is in addition to the content in "Evidence Basis".   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, thanks for joining this topic and thanks for your contribution. From a semantic point of view "often rejecting methods" is not equal to "often preferring other methods". I still don't see any justification for the words "often" and "prefer" in the proposed sources.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the two are not the same. However, our coverage in the lead is intended to be a summary of the article, not a direct paraphrasing from individual sources. That sentence in the lead appears (to me) to adequately summarize a good deal of content in the body. No, it is not identical to the content in the body, but it's not intended to be.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mann_jess, thanks for your comment. The lead must summarize the content. Nowhere the content of the article is using the semantic concept of "often" and "prefer". Pretending "often" and "prefer" is WP:EDITORIALIZE and WP:OR. Instead, we could write : "practitioners are using certain methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine", which is better representing the content of the article and which is WP:NPOV. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Alexbrn who did rephrase the lead. I fully agree with him. Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is not respecting the original references:

"Their training adds up to a very small amount of that of primary care doctors."

Atwood is writing: "Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care". It's not "very small" but "small". The second source, AANP, is not making any judgement (no "small" nor any other similar words), but simply quantifiying each one of the various cursus. Writing "very small" would be WP:OR and WP:EDITORIALIZE. Furthermore, this second source is not found anywhere else in the content of the article. I am proposing to rewrite this sentence in the lead as follow, by quoting Atwood words: "Their training amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors" and to remove the second source, AANP, which could be used elsewhere is the article if need be.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Alexbrn who did rephrase the lead. Its a progress. This topic is closed here. However, I did open another section in the Talk page for adressing a new concern ("Naturopathic training omits most of that undertaken by primary care doctors"). Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is not supported by the body of the article.

"Many naturopaths oppose vaccination based in part on the early views that shaped the profession"

The references ^[1] found in the body of the article in chapter 3.6 Vaccination is not consistent with the lead:

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination."

Its "a minority" and not "many". Furthermore, the 3 references supporting the sentence in the lead are not found elsewhere in the article. I am proposing to replace the 3 references in the lead by the reference ^[2] from the body of the article and to rewrite the sentence in the lead as follow:

"Only a minority of naturopaths actively recommend against vaccination."

Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closer at the 3 proposed sources, you will see how biased and WP:NPOV is this sentence. The first source (Kumanan) is reviewing one single clinic in Canada. As such, it cannot support a universal statement in the lead. Nowhere in the source is a confirmation that many (how many ?) naturopaths are opposing to vaccination. The second source (Busse) is reviewing 2 colleges in Canada (ie. reviewing students but not yet naturopaths as such) and found out that " the majority of the students were not averse to vaccination", but "anti-vaccination attitudes were more prevalent in the later years of the programs". "more prevalent" does not equal "many". "student" does not equal "naturopath". "2 colleges in canada" does not equal "global". The third source (Wilson) survey sudent in 1 college in Canada and found out that 87.2% of them would advice full or partial vaccination. The affirmation that "many naturopaths oppose vaccination" is not supported by these 3 sources. This statement is strongly WP:NPOV and does not satisfy WP:V and WP:WORLDVIEW Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: thank you for rewording this sentence in the lead. It's a real progress. However, it is not reflecting exactly what the sources are saying. The concept of "omit most of" is WP:OR. May I propose to rephrase:

"Naturopathic training for conventional methods is a small subset of the one for primary care doctors" (please improve my wording, considering that I am not a native English speaker...)

The following sentence from Atwood is supporting my proposal:

"The unwary reader might conclude that naturopaths are trained to provide "conventional methods" when appropriate, but NDs have had only a small fraction of the training of primary care MDs. Instead they have been steeped in homeopathy and other highly implausible, ineffective practices. It is unlikely that readers of WebMD and the other sources mentioned here will appreciate this dichotomy."

Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:, your edit is a valuable contribution for explaining that ND's and MD's are simply not following the same training. However, "omit most of" is still WP:OR from a semantic point of view, because they are not intending to do the same job. Their training for conventional methods (i.e. scientific based) is indeed a subset (ie. rephrasing Atwood when he is saying "a small fraction of", which is the definition of a "subset") of the one for primary care doctors. On top of this subset of "conventional methods", ND's are learing non-scientific and unproven other methods (which is reflecting your last edit). Please reconsider "subset" vs. "omit". Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:, thanks for your update. "Materials" is vague. Atwood is comparing the "conventional methods", not the "materials" of the course. The wording "conventional methods" is more descriptive, more accurate and is sticking to the source. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to risk WP:PLAGIARISM. I think most people will understand what training meterials are - it's a very broad term. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, "we" are not expecting Wikipedians to guess the meaning of an article. I don't think that describing acurately the concept is WP:PLAGIARISM. We don't know anything from these 2 sources about the kind of "material" that a MD is attending in class. We only know that Atwood is comparing "Conventional methods", without any further description. For example, some "evidence-based" Swiss universities are also offering "fringe content" (classes about MTC, homeopathy, phytotherapy etc., counting in hundreds of hours) in the cursus of MD's for their "general information".... Thus, it is necessary to refer exactly to what is compared by Atwoood: "conventional methods" which is WP:V, not overall "materials" which is WP:OR. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "naturopaths often take an antivaccinationist stance" in not in line with the statements of the chapter dedicated to vaccination and is not in line with this source ^[3] which says the opposite. Can you please quote the Singh source supporting this statement, because I don't have access to it. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: thanks for your quote. However the quote does not support at all the sentence in the article. "they are often taking a antivaccinationist stance" is absolutely not the same as "many are not in favour of vaccination". The first one is "active" while the second one is "passive". The references ^[4] found in the body of the article in chapter 3.6 Vaccination is helping to understand the situation raised by Singh:

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination."

Its "a minority" and not "often". The sentence in the article shall be rewritten as: "Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine and a minority of them take an antivaccinationist stance" or "Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine but a majority don't take any stance regarding vaccination". Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation use antivax as an example of what they advise patients, which is active. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:, scientific logical thinking cannot come to that conclusion. It would be WP:OR. Let me rephrase for explaining.

"many naturopaths are against mainstream medicine and advise their patients accordingly – for instance many are not in favour of vaccination"

"many naturopaths are against mainstream medicine and advise their patients to drink apple juice, because they are not in favour of vaccination".

Proposing "actively" apple juice does not mean they said anything about "vaccination" to their patient. They did not take "a stance against vaccination". It would be a syllogism to think so. It could as well mean that they "did not make explicit recommendations about vaccination" (Downey L et al Pediatric vaccination and vaccine-preventable disease acquisition: associations with care by complementary and alternative medicine providers. Matern Child Health J. 2010 Nov;14(6):922-30. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0519-5. PMID 19760163. PMC 2924961). Otherwise, how would you explain the total contradiction between Singh (a self-published book in 2009) and Downey (a peer reviewed scholar publication in 2010) ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Downey as the quotation we had did not appear to be in the source? Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, if need be, we can add this source ^[5] to the article next to Singh source. What is your opinion regarding the logical question above ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in accord. The entire article is so shambolic I am not inclined to get into detailed consideration of minor details until the larger issues are addressed. One thing that needs to happen is that the antivax stuff is consolidated. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, sorry, but saying the opposite is not "a minor detail". But yes, you are right, the full article is "shambolic". I am ready to help restructuring. But as a newbies I am risking lots of reverts... I will use the Talk page for making proposals as I am currently doing. But first, please let's agree on this "minor detail". Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: you did revert my contribution claiming that "quotation isn't in the cited source":

" but "published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and that "a majority make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination". ^[6]

Instead of removing an interesting and reliable source from this article, you could have amended the text in order to better align to the source, or even have opened a Talk section about it before reverting. The source is saying exactly this:

"but published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination [17–20]. A survey of naturopathic physicians in Massachusetts found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination" and this

"Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination. "

The article is explicitely considering naturopaths as "CAM practioners". Feel free to rephrase if need be, but I don't see any reason not to include this valuable information in the article. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So let's get this straight: you're comfortable with framing these quotations like they both apply to naturos, while the second is stated in the source as applying to CAM practitioners in general? Seems pretty blatant and rather at odds with your uber-pickiness elsewhere! I shouldn't have deleted BTW, I had a page search SNAFU on my browser which meant I missed seeing the text in question in the soruce. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, thanks for challenging my pickiness. I am open to critics. From a logical point of view, I don't see any problem. It is supported by mathematics laws called set theory If it applies to CAM, knowing that naturopaths are CAM practitioners, it also applies to naturopaths, unless otherwise specified. This is reinforced by the fact that the author is illustrating his article with a very unambiguous example about naturopaths in Masschusetts. Feel free to rephrase if necessary. But the facts are the facts. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's false reasoning. Naturopaths are atypical CAM folk in that they take a hard antivax line it seems (from the source). Feel free to ask at WP:NORN. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, above is the expression of your own opinion. Do you sincerely believe that if the authors would have found out that naturopaths are such atypical CAM practitioners, they would have listed only one example about naturopaths (Massachsetts) that is absolutely in line with their overall conclusions ? Certainly not. They would have found plenty examples of the opposite. Then, why is there not one single example of the opposite in this study ? Yes, they are taking some precautions: "Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful". But they do not mention a single doubt about it in their overall conclusions. They don't write "CAM practioners, except naturopaths". You cannot question the scholar source simply based on your own opinion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add. We're now quoting the source accurately. What you propose it WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, then let's quote acurately:

"Published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and one survey "found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination."

I am proposing to remove the introductory sentence ("Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful") which is making the link with the rest of the source. It is meaningless here. The word "suggest" in the next sentence is sufficient for showing that evidence is not absolute. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, what I am proposing in not WP:OR. Do not confuse a logical conclusion with a syllogism. Please refer to science based laws (set theory) which are saying the following:

If Wikipedia administrators can edit articles (if CAM practitioners are making no recommandations)

considering that Alexbrn is an administrator (considering that naturopaths are CAM practitioners)

then Alexbrn can edit articles (then naturopaths are making no recommandations)

There is nothing that either scientific logic nor WP:OR can oppose to this fact. It's only your own belief, your bias and your own opinions that make you oppose to it. It is certainly not NPOV nor logical thinking that can oppose to it.

A syllogism (ie. wrong logic) would be:

If wikipedia administrators can edit articles

Considering that Alexbrn can edit articles

then Alexbrn is an administrator.

Eventhough the conclusion might be right, the above logic does not support that conclusion. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I'm afraid. I'm not prepared to try and teach you basic reasoning. What you're proposing is WP:OR pure and simple. If in doubt, ask at WP:NORN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, you don't need to teach me basic reasoning, but you need to provide a source supporting your logic/reasoning for WP:V. my source for supporting my reasoning/logic is set theory (I can provide similar extra-Wikipedia source if need be for WP:V). What is your source for WP:V your logic ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're spouting nonsense. This will be my last post to this section. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, sorry for wasting your time. I understand your point. I have asked WP:NORN. In the mean time, you did not answer to my last proposal quoting acurately the source:

"Published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" and one survey "found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination."

I am proposing to remove the introductory sentence ("Evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is less plentiful") which is there for making the link with the previous sentences in the source but is meaningless here. The word "suggest" is sufficient for showing in this article that "evidence is less plentiful". Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmartin357 made edits that stated that a majority of naturopaths in Switzerland do not oppose vaccination, but the following citations might contradict that claim:

• http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2008/47/smw-12423.pdf
• http://www.revmed.ch/rms/2012/RMS-359/Vaccinations-le-refus-est-avant-tout-alemanique

It seems to me that there is a lot of heterogeneity in Switzerland, especially from the German-speaking regions, where vaccination rates are lower. Trhermes (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, thanks for your interest for Swiss case. Your first source does not mention anything about naturopaths in Switzerland. Your second source does not concern the "normal vaccination" as such, but the opinion of a citizen's committee regarding a new law allowing the governement to impose vaccination to all the population in case of epidemic. It has nothing to do with the usual process of preventive vaccination. Unless you can find better reaseons for reverting my contribution, please revert back. By the way, WP:BRD does not encourage revert Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, I did not write that "naturopaths do not oppose vaccination". I did write that:

In Switzerland, a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution.^[1] The majority of naturopaths are proposing alternative solutions, without denying evidence-based medicine.^[2]

This is not exactly the same to say "naturopath do not oppose to vaccination" and "vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine". I still don't see any valid reason for reverting my contribution.Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what are some of those "alternative solutions" to vaccination that they propose? --McSly (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McSly, thanks for joining the Talk. I don't know and I don't need to know for answering the open question of this Talk. This is another topic. It shall not be addressed here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removing your addition was that the source came from an interview of one physician. The source does not have any strength, no data, etc. The other source from 2005 does not contain a clear remark about how naturopaths in Switzerland practice, and again, this sentence in the source is uncited. Therefore, there is no evidence to say anything about naturopaths and vaccination in Switzerland. I apologize for not paraphrasing your edit as well as I could have. Trhermes (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, thanks for these explanations, but you are not naming any WP's for supporting your opinion !?

Regarding the first source, this interview is formally labeled as a communication of Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination (i.e. the governmental body of experts in favor of vaccination). According to WP:NEWSORG, "the opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". According to WP:RS/MC, it is "a position statements from nationally reputable expert bodies", ie. not just a simple physician, but a Professor of medicine, President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination, i.e an authoritative statement.

The second source is a scientific article, saying very clearly: "The majority of naturopaths are proposing alternative solutions, without denying evidence-based medicine." What kind of other "clear remark" are you expecting here for accepting this sentence ?

According to WP:USEPRIMARY, "secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the source is building on the foundation of prior sources rather than starting with all-new material." Being President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination, then "you have some reason to believe that their scientific article is building on the foundation of prior sources", because this is their main focus of interest, their job and their responsibility to know about this situation.

According to these WP's, I still don't see any valid reason to revert my contribution. Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One guy's opinion is not data. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrodbeck, thanks for joining this Talk. It is not "one guy's opinion". First source is an official communication from a governmental expert agency about data gathered in their area of responsibility. It is in line with WP:RS/MC, being "a position statements from a nationally reputable expert body". Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree: the citations you added are not position statements. The information you cited appears in a publication by a government body, but it is the opinion of one person that you uncited. You did not cite a position paper. The interviewee states that naturopaths have varied practices: some are opposed and some delay and select a few to support. This pattern is not quantified and does not suggest that NDs in Switzerland support vaccination. Trhermes (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhernmes, where did you read that I said "naturopath support vaccination" !?! Why do you bring this sentence here ? This is not the topic. The person is explicitely cited in my reference tags. But I can rephrase for you the first half:

"In Switzerland, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, "a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution"

Please confirm if this first half is now aligned to WP criteria. Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, again, one person's opinion. This is a non starter for me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrodbeck, once again, this is not "one's person opinion", but the voice of the President speaking on behalf of the Federal Commission for Vaccination under the title "Communication" in the journal, introducing and bundeled with an article of Commision Members in the following pages under the same overall title. According to WP:RSOPINION, "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". According to WP:NEWSORG, "the opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint", in this case a Professor of medicine, President of the Swiss Federal Commission for Vaccination. Who else, which other source can be more reliable and can have a more significant viewpoint about vaccination ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your paraphrasing of the interviewee's statements intimate that Swiss naturopaths support vaccination. Also note that in WP:RSOPINION it is customary to state precisely the source of the opinion in the writing of the article, such as "Author X states that ...." I do not think it's factual to state that a majority of NDs does not believe vaccination is opposed to natural medicine, as we do not know how this translates to practices of naturopaths. In other words, the cited information you provide is nonspecific and very subjective. Please propose a rewrite that captures the following: 1) The practices/beliefs of Swiss naturopaths in vaccinating is varied as was stated in the interview (page 515):

Apparently. Naturopaths are moving in a system of values ​​with different concepts ferent from those of the medicine based on the evidence. This ideology has always existed and is worthy of respect. It postulates that "Nature is good "and therefore are useful in diseases child development, or they are the trials that life sends us for us strengthen, as the death itself is part nature and must be accepted. There Most naturopaths recognize without difficulty as certain diseases beyond the scope of alternative medicine and require allopathic treatments, pre- immunization invention is not in opposition to a natural medicine. For others, a very small minority rule let Nature is ab- solue - so vaccination is an interference in the natural evolution. They estimate that preventing a disease by vaccination tion, it deprives the child of development opportunities ment and exposed to disturbances responsible for chronic diseases later cal as diverse as allergies, diseases autoimmune or cancer. In between, certain naturopaths are trying to make sense of things by offering to vaccinate in a "selection tive ", choosing some vaccines in the re- delaying, etc.

I believe it should reflect that Swiss NDs might not be opposed to vaccination in theory, but NDs do delay vaccination and seem to make custom schedules. It is established that such practices are considered "anti-vaccine" by the medical community; and you should include in your rewrite that 2) the notions you cite are the opinion of one person, albeit a medical specialist. It seems you did not include the final remarks in the above quotation of the interviewee when you made your addition to the Vaccination section in Switzerland. Trhermes (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, I really don't understand why you would like the source to say something that she is not saying and state your own conclusions or belief. This would be WP:OR. Saying what the source is saying is not "intimating". For the rest, I have no problem rephrasing and exetending the quote of the first source:

"In Switzerland, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, "a majority of naturopaths acknowledge that preventive vaccination is not in opposition with natural medicine. Only a very small minority of naturopaths is considering that vaccination is interfering with natural evolution. Inbetween, some other naturopaths are proposing selective vaccination or customized vaccination agenda."

Please confirm if this is now inline with WP. Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider writing, "In Switzerland in 2005, according to Prof. C.-A. Siegrist, President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, naturopaths have varied beliefs on vaccination: a majority acknowledge that vaccination is not in opposition to natural medicine, a minority are opposed, and others propose selective and delayed vaccination." I am still not satisfied, however, because there are no quantities in her statement and it still seems subjective. Any other ideas from others? I will try to contact Dr. Siegrist to see if she has actual data. Trhermes (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trhermes, thanks for this counter proposal. It is not usual to date the source in the text. Can you show me a WP for this ? I don't see many examples here. It makes everything unnecessarily "heavy" without adding key information. But if you insist, why not... The fact that a group of population "have varied beliefs" is not a surprise. This is human nature, thanks god. I don't see the value of this statement. The rest of the quote makes it obvious that there is at least 3 groups of "beliefs". The source is not saying "a minority". The source is saying "a very small minority". The source is not saying that they are "opposed" (stake, active) but that they are "considering it is interferring" (belief, passive). Why would you like to use another semantic/concept than the source ? This would be WP:OR. I am fine with: "and others propose selective and delayed vaccination". I am proposing not to wait for an hypothetical answer from Pr. Siegrist before publishing, eventhought it will be great to receive percentages at a later stage. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pointless and futile debate. The default position for anyone engaged in medicine, is to support vaccination. This is tantamount to saying that naturopaths in Switzerland accept that the earth is spherical: it is only significant because American ones (and indeed most other countries as far as I can tell) think the earth is flat. You appear to be engaged in whitewashing naturopathy, and to have no other interest in Wikipedia at all. Are you a naturopath? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, thanks for joining the Talk. I strongly believe it is "futile" that a truely relieable source shall be questioned like this one, while other much more "unreliable" source are not questioned at all. It is certainly not futile to mention the Swiss case here. The article is not to discuss the general position of all those who are engaged into medicine, but to explain, based on reliable sources, what is the position of naturopaths. As such, it is not "pointless". If you carefully read all the past history of this Talk page where is did express my own opinion about naturoapthy, you will realize that I am certainly not "whitewashing" naturopathy . However, there is no reason for this article not to follow the WP rules. I am simply reading this article from A to Z and checking all the references. When I cannot apply WP:V, then I am questionning the sources, the statements, and looking for sources which are confirming or not the statements of this article. You shall be thankful to have such a dedicated reader instead of baching him. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the key question: you are an editor with no other area of interest, are you a naturopath? Guy (Help!) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I am not a SPA in the strict sense, but I am contributing to articles one by one, this one being my first big contribution. I am Master of Science from one of the top100 universities in this world. I am also holding one university diploma in "evidence based" medicine. I am currently student in one of the top100 "evidence based" medicine university for another "evidence based" medicine diploma. I have many other fields of study and many other fields of expertise, one of it being naturopathy. If you are interested to know my opinion regarding naturopathy (from my "scientific" point of view), you can read Archive 7 from this Talk.

"My personal opinion is that what some people call naturopathy contains some pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. This is not the question. This is not my debate. My opinion does not count here. I am simply aiming to bring objectivity and neutrality WP:NPOV to the naturopathy article."

The vast majority of my income is issued from science and evidence-based medicine activities. I am simply an advocate of truth and fairness. By nature, I am always swimming against the mainstream, because this is where value can be found. Is it answering your WP:COI question ?Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V, I am question the following statement and its sources:

"Naturopaths claim the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine", Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine, before the term existed"

The first source NCAHF ^[3] is an organization that seem not to exist anymore, despite the fact a website is still keeping an archive of their documents under this name. This website is not clear about what this former organization really was. The source supporting the statement in the article itself is "Nat'l College of Naturopathic Medicine Catalog, 1984-85.". This catalog dating back to 1984-1985 is not available anymore and cannot be verified. Is a yearly "catalog" a reliable source WP:RS ? The NCAHF source is writing:

"Naturopaths claim to be the "true inheritors of the Hippocratic tradition in medicine,"

This is a "passive" stake (inheritor), which is absolutely not the same meaning as:

"Naturopaths claim Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine"

This is an "active" stake (being advocate). I am proposing to remove this first source not supporting adequately the questioned statement. The second source ^[4] is an unsourced page on a College's website. This is certainly not a WP:RS. I am proposing to remove this second source as well. Considering there is no remaining source for supporting the statement, I am proposing to find better sources for supporting a similar idea, if it does exist, and to tag the statement with ^{[citation needed]}. Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]