Talk:Naturopathy

Dispute tags!

I must say I find it very heartening to see that somebody finally noticed that the bulk of the original article came straight out of the materials used by the AANP/CNME and their related schools used to lobby legislators in favor of licensing laws.

While admittedly I have used published documents from professional associations, and certification boards to refer to factual information about the profession of naturopathy (as did the Naturopathic Medicine advocates) when correcting historical points of fact, or misleading statements I relied almost entirely upon on public governmental records: Examples include:

The original article claimed the ANA split into six distinct groups. However DC incorporation records affirm that the organization has continuously been incorporated and remains in good standing to this day: American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division.

The original article indicated the CNME was the only organization recognized by the government as representing Naturopathy. Once again I relied on Governmental Records to challenge the claim: National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (continuously incorporated and in good standing to this day)

Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954) Wendel challenged the DC Licensing office. The courts held that the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA was a legitimate authority defining educational standards and certifying individuals with respect to DC issuing Registrations. THE ONE non-governmental source used - Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951 - is included as a legal exhibit in this case.

The original article attempted to blame the AMA for the decline of the profession. Sunset reports and reviews conducted by states that licensed the profession challenge this notion and were sourced appropriately: Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986) Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979 Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

Not included in the article were public records demonstrating that the Three of the schools, the CNME the AANP and the testing organization are in fact the same people (which would seem to go against the Independent Research or Self Generated Sources policy on Wikipedia).

Since this is an affirmative claim it is only fitting and proper I back that claim up!

1 The National College of Naturopathic Medicine was legally incorporated in Portland, but conducted classes in Seattle WA. from it's founding in 1956 to the late 1970’s when it opened it's Portland Campus

Sources: Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

“Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

2. When the NCNM opened it's campus, the Seattle campus of the NCNM was renamed and incorporated as the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine (Bastyr) in honor of a past president of the NCNM. It is also notworthyh that both Portland Campus of NCNM and Bastyr University graduated their first class of students educated exclusively at that campus in the same year (1979)

Sources: School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

3 The Southwestern College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM). Similar to the relationship between Bastyr and NCNM, SCNM was founded by a 1983 NCNM graduate a Bastyr Graduate and former president of the NCNM.

Sources: State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

Also noteworthy during the period the SCNM ran into financial trouble the President of NCME, the CNME and head of the taskforce created to solve those problems was the same person.

Source: Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Public information notice (December, 1999)

4. The same individual who formed the National College of Naturopathic Medicine also formed the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NANP) in order to accredit his own school.

Source: “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

Those claims I disputed were disputed not based on my personal opinion, or the opinion of some rival organization with an agenda. They were disputed using independent governmental reports and records. Ndma1

This is almost completely false

In the United States and Canada, the designation of Naturopathic Doctor (ND) may be awarded after completion of a four year program of study at an accredited Naturopathic medical school that includes the study of basic medical sciences as well as natural remedies and medical care.[11][12]

First, this claim usurps the authority of the states: I cannot speak for Canada but in the United States the authority of an educational institution to grant a specific academic degree, in this case "Doctor of Naturopathy" comes from the state. Any school, authorized by their state to grant a particular degree may do so without permission from the federal government or a private accrediting organization because the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States reserves that power to the states.

Secondly, this claim has no standing because none of the US schools accredited by the US grants (or has authority from their respective states) to grant the Doctor of Naturopathy degree.

Third- Misleading generalization and self contradictory:

The limitation on who may be "awarded" the designation Naturopathic Doctor only would apply in those four states that regulate the title "Naturopathic Doctor" (specifically Alaska, California, Kansas and Maine) making this statement true 4 states and false in 46 states.

Then it contradicts itself stating: "The scope of practice varies widely between jurisdictions, and naturopaths in unregulated jurisdictions may use the Naturopathic Doctor designation or other titles regardless of level of education."

It may only be awarded after .... but may be used by anybody in "unregulated jurisdictions"....

Come on folks, you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see this is messed up!

--Ndma1 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Internally Contradictory

This article is a bit confusing as it contradicts itself in a few places. Unfortunately I think it may be accurate in its representation of what the Naturopathic movement believes, but nonetheless it would help if a proponent cleared up the obvious flaws with better explanations.

How can something be apposed to synthetic medicines, whilst accepting of chelation, iridology, chinese medicine, homeopathy, et al which use manufactured medication and differ only from EBM in issues of regulation?

The vaccination section is useful as it does focus on actual practice and opinions of practitioners, it doesn't however make any attempt to explain what the basis of their opposition is ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.184.221 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article appears accurate in it's representation of what the Naturopathic Medicine movement believes, however Naturopathy as defined by it's founder (Dr. Benedict Lust), those organizations and schools created by it's founders (American Naturopathic Association, Benedict Lust School of Naturopathy etc.) is quite different in both philosophy and principles than Naturopathic Medicine. (I have expanded on this in the Traditional Naturopathy section).

A little history might help to create some perspective. In 1901, Dr. Benedict Lust founded the American Naturopathic Association and the American School of Naturopathy (Re-named the Benedict Lust School of Naturopathy after his death). In the mid 1940's a splinter group broke off from the ANA and adopted many aspects of conventional Medical philosophy - diagnosing and treating disease but rather than using patent drugs showing a preference for "natural drugs". This group, founded the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (Now called the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians) started their own schools and were generally known by ANA Naturopaths as the "pseduo-medicalists" regarded as charlatans and frauds. After the unexpected death of Dr. Lust (smoke exposure in a suspicious fire) this group took advantage of the resulting disorganization in an attempt to take over the profession. They failed to corrupt the ANA and American School of Naturopathy but they gained enough footholds, particularly in the west, to where we have a situation where there are to distinct groups the CNME "Naturopathic Medicine" group, and the ANA traditional naturopath group. The CNME group tries to assert there is only one naturopathy, by representing Traditional naturopathy as (sometimes known as naturopathic medicine) when in reality the correct disclaimer should read (Not to be confused with Naturopathic Medicine)...

I hope this makes it easier to understand why there seem to be some internal contradictions...

Ndma1 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ndma1 (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is useful ... I think I'm getting that Naturopathy is not an independantly definable concept, it is a philosophy put forward by a movement, a movement which itself seems to be in schism. I guess it's a wikipedia conundrum as it is not for anyone here to point out that the philosophy might have problems, that would be editorial rather than factual. Some rewording is clearly needed, or a much better definition of what is meant by natural or traditional medicine, or perhaps that great long list of alt meds should be organised better to show what is naturopathy, what tends to be accepted alongside it by the practitioners and what some are claiming is compatible. Referring back to the list I gave before, each of those fail either traditional or natural as a layman would understand the terms.

Doesn't help that Naturopathic medicine has no article and redirects to this one, unless I misunderstood your point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point!

Naturopathy is well defined has a clear and understandable philosophy and established principles. The same could be said of Naturopathic Medicine. It cannot be said that these two philosophies and principles are compatible. I am perfectly comfortable with both standing on their own merits as distinct professions. However the articles I see on wikipedia suggest they are the same - which only stands to confuse the reader and by it's very nature sustain a bias one over the other.

Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathic Medical Degrees should have its own articles representing clearly it's philosophy and principles. Naturopathy, and naturopathy degrees should have it's own articles representing clearly it's philosophy. Wikipedia should present clear accurate articles representing each profession while leaving it to the individual reader to determine their own preferences. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of entry on vaccination

I've deleted this most recent post again, not because I don't think it's a legitmate point, but rather because it needs to be rewritten. The edit submitted is cut-and-paste from the summary of the article cited, with a few words changed. Writing this way in an academic setting is heavily frowned upon, and while Wikipedia is not exactly an academic institution, the writing submitted should be held to a high standard. If this is resubmitted, it needs to be written de novo in the editors own words, with the article being used as a citation, not as a template for the entry. Don't want to be a jerk about this, but wikipedia should be as well-written as possible. Kpaddock (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only one para. Why not just fix it?LeadSongDog come howl 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably will - I just wanted to give the editor an opportunity to do it themselves, to make sure their point gets across. Kpaddock (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kpaddock that this falls under Close paraphrasing, but the source looks good. I can integrate it if nobody else gets around to it in the next few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is badly written. It is also contrary to NPOV in that it presents the matter as a criticism which goes beyond the original source. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes you made to the current entry - well done, and so it remains. However, renaming an entire section with no discussion is absurd. Please make your case before drastic measures such as that. This is a strong POV push and while much of what has been entered will stand, it can't go unopposed and without discussion.Kpaddock (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now that LeadSongDog did the rewrite - thank you for that. I also see that he did some editing that cleaned up some more of QuackGuru's entries. Again, thank you. Kpaddock (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear why I deleted the original entry, here are the sentences from the summary(S) that bore close resemblance to the entry(E):

S-This study investigated provider-based complementary/alternative medicine use and its association with receipt of recommended vaccinations by children aged 1–2 years and with acquisition of vaccine-preventable disease by children aged 1–17 years.

E-A study in Washington, U.S. investigated alternative medicine use and relation with receipt of guidelines of vaccinations by kids age 1-2 years and with obtaining of vaccine preventable illnesses by kids age 1-17 years.

S-Children were significantly less likely to receive each of the four recommended vaccinations if they saw a naturopathic physician.

E-Kids were significantly less likely to receive a number of vaccinations if they visited a naturopath.

S-Interventions enlisting the participation of complementary/alternative medicine providers in immunization awareness and promotional activities could improve adherence rates and assist in efforts to improve public health.

E-Interventions to instruct immunization awareness and promotional intervention could benefit adherence rates and aid in efforts to improve public health.

Kpaddock (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent edit titled "On the general basis of naturopathy and complementary medicine" again falls under Close paraphrasing, and the entry also significantly distorts or even ignores the content of the summary given on PubMed. Don't want to continue what's becoming an edit war, but a mess is being made of this entry. Also regarding "Criticism" and "Evidence Basis", recent changes to the section have essentially made it two sections fighting for the same space. I would be interested in the creation of an "Evidence Basis" section that discusses research into naturopathic medicine, as well as its relation to EBM. Kpaddock (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit which cites a 1992 editorial in Clinical Chemistry also appears to involve Close Paraphrasing. Kpaddock (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing text that is faithfully sourced is not against any Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for criticising your writing - I hold myself to high standards of writing, and often apply them to others unreasonably. I still think it should be cleaned up, because it bears very strong resemblance to the source cited. Kpaddock (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can always rewrite it when you get a chance. There is no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. I'll edit this and roll it in with whatever changes are agreed upon with the topic being discussed below. I'll comment further about this all tomorrow morning (Pacific Standard Time).Kpaddock (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IT would seem to me that the comparison between MD and ND training has no basis unless the ND is proposing to practice Medicine. Ndma1 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-bounds promotion

This article (especially the intro) reads like a panegyric on so-called "natural medicine"! If you read through the article, you see so many outrageous and unproved claims about its benefits, it makes your head spin! Meanwhile, any criticism of this questionable practice is relegated to a short section near the end of the article! Would someone please edit this article to restore NPOV? 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, the article I read specifically says Naturopathy should not be confused with "Natural Medicine".

I did note several areas on the main body where counterpoints were presented:

For example in the section "Practice" we find:

Naturopaths do not necessarily recommend vaccines and antibiotics, and may provide inappropriate alternative remedies even in cases where evidence-based medicine has been shown effective.[50][51] All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not necessarily prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals.[49][51][52]

In the section "Methods" we find:

The particular modalities utilized by an individual naturopath varies with training and scope of practice. The demonstrated efficacy and scientific rationale also varies.

In the section Traditional Naturopathy we find the following statement about Naturopathic or Natural Medicine:

Traditional Naturopaths commonly refer to Practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine as pseudomedicalists regard them as discrediting both themsleves and the profession. [60] Dr. Benedict Lust regards these pseudomedicalists as charlatans and frauds.[61]

In the section Naturopathic Medicine Practice and education we find:

The level of medical education among naturopaths also varies, though no naturopathic training program reaches the same level of training as an MD or DO.

Because the practicing of diagnosing and treating disease is reserved to licensed individuals the practice of naturopathic medicine as defined by the profession is unlawful in those states that do not regulate naturopathic medicine.

In the history section we find:

The combination of several educational scandals (selling diplomas)involving NANP schools[28] and heavy handed litigation against 30 states [29] the NANP succeeded in building a bad reputation for itself and the profession as a whole. The combination of educational scandals and heavy handed tactics with state legislatures ultimately resulted in 19 of the 23 states that licensed naturopathy had either repealed those laws, saw those laws struck down in court or otherwise no longer were actively regulating the profession.

n 1968, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a report on naturopathy concluding that naturopathy was not grounded in medical science and that naturopathic education was inadequate to prepare graduates to make appropriate diagnosis and provide treatment; the report recommends against expanding Medicare coverage to include naturopathic treatments.In 1977, an Australian committee of inquiry reached similar conclusions; it did not recommend licensure for naturopaths

Hardly glowing recommendations!

I do agree that the section: Naturopathic doctors is pretty much an advertisement for the AANP/CNME Naturopathic Medicine folks. I am still researching this issue and will be working to make that more even handed!

Could you be more specific on what you call outrageous and unproved claims?

08:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 [User talk:Ndma1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ndma1|contribs]

• Please do not WP:Edit war, it does not help the project. A better approach would be to list the refs you think should be added, here on the talkpage. More experienced editors will help format the citations so that they can be found, read, and verified. We can then discuss and determine which of them meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • ** I agree entirely, an "edit war" accomplishes nothing but to confuse the reader, and undermine all perspectives. At the same time attempting to shoe horn two distinct professions (Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy) together produces a similar result. I have already proposed one article about Naturopathic Medicine - one article about Naturopathy --- I have no objections to an even handed stub comparing the philosophical differences and similarities between the professions. In fact I advocate a meaningful discussion including representatives of both professions as a good start towards building understanding - 60 years is to long for a profession to be a war against itself and neither Naturopathic Medicine nor Naturopathy will reach their full potential until this ends!

Naturopathy does not need to tear down or play silly GOTCHA games against Naturopathic Medicine to stand on it's own merits. Similarly Naturopathic Medicine does not need to tear down or make apples to oranges comparisons with Naturopathy to stand on it's merits. Both professions have had their shining moments, and both professions have skeletons in the closet. As a cancer survivor I tried medicine, including naturopathic medicine, but at the end of the day it was the traditional naturopathic philosophy of recognizing disease is the body's attempt to heal itself and not something to be suppressed. It was by addressing the underlying causes that lead to my health issues (diet, tobacco and alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, over use of OTC Remedies to suppress my body's open rebellion against my horrible lifestyle) that allowed nature to come into it's own heal. I have no doubt that stopping the fight against cancer, and cooperating with nature by addressing my lifestyle issues made the difference between being a survivor or another victim of cancer.

I am a software engineer who cut my teeth on shareware and open source projects. Because of this I must admit I do have a personal preference for Linux and open source programing platforms but that does not mean I cannot recognize the contributions Microsoft has made, or when the project is appropriate write code in Visual Studio or other closed source platform. I maintain the same attitude with respect to this issue. Medicine and Naturopathic medicine have their rightful place. Naturopathy has it's rightful place, let each stand on it's own merits rather than standing on each other necks. The first step towards that end is acknowledging Naturopathy is distinct from Naturopathic Medicine which is distinct from Allopathic medicine etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many changes made without citing sources

The many changes made to the article recently was made without references or specific explantion. I suggest we restore the article to the last consensus version and discuss any problems one section at a time. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is interesting however I am not sure a real consensus is possible. The ANA has about 5000 practicing members, the ANMA has about 2000 practicing members and the AANP has a little over 1000 practicing members. References that I believe meet the criteria stipulated by Wikipedia were included with the changes and explanations have been included in the talk section. The short answer is although sharing similar origins, Naturopathy, and Naturopathic medicine are two distinct professions. Being distinct it makes sense that they should be represented in different articles. I would propose that the redirect on the Naturopathic Mediicne article be removed, and the pre-edit content of the naturopathy article be(which clearly represented Naturopathic Mediicne) be placed in the Naturopathic Medicine article. [[[Special:Contributions/99.93.112.160|99.93.112.160]] (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)]

My proposal is how things are often done on Wikipedia. Please make changes to one section at a time and use WP:MEDRS references for the text. Please start with the body first and later the lead can be worked on after the body is improved. QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I will meet you half way. I will rewrite the lead to accurate reflect the two professions -- an even handed fully sourced approach to both Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine... Laying a sound foundation for improvements to the body. --Ndma1 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the body. First editors work on the body and later make changes to the lead if necessary. The lead is a summary of the body. The foundation is the body. Pick a section you like to work on and editors can review your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing, In college I was taught you start with a thesis statement, that gives direction for the thesis. Once the thesis is writeen review and modify your thesis statement. But you are telling me the thesis should be written and the thesis statement made up based on that... In other words write the article with no direction and then pop on a header after you see what you come up with...

I guess I went to the wrong college. --Ndma1 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with college, or writing a thesis. We are working on a encyclopedia here, not a term paper. Please see WP:LEAD, as User:QuackGuru is indeed correct that at Wikipedia, the lead is a summary of the body. DigitalC (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and a thesis statement is a summary of the paper. The lead is a summary of the paper.. - Why would I think they would somehow be similar?

--Ndma1 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

This edit seems to have changed the sourced text to unsourced text. On Wikipedia we write text according to what the source says. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, like the section on "Traditional Naturopaths" -- It had no sources. So obtained sources and edited according to what the sources said, only to have it removed and the original version so that it was written according to what the the non-existent sources said! --Ndma1 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy/Naturopathic medicine

I think this may relate to several of the issues being debated, including the too many changes observation.

Bits of the article are, clearly, turning into an unreadable mess (I'm not someone who's actively edited it, I was just interested in the topic).

Naturopathy seems to be used in normal language to refer to a form of alternative medicine that eschews the use of anything synthetic and focusses strongly on reviewing issues such as lifestyle. That's my layman's understanding.

As far as I can tell there is a history in the use of the term with a definite traceable origin, but two distinct alt med disciplines have evolved from that with competing views of both the philosophy and implementation.

Seems a neutral page needs to be constructed pointing to these forking "establishment" approaches. One of which shares a name with the origin philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your layman's understanding is pretty much on spot. Naturopathy holds that the body was designed to be healthy and heal itself if given the opportunity. Disease is primarily the result of being out of balance with the body's natural design, and correcting those life habits that put the body out of balance will allow the body to come into it's own and heal itself. The best the practitioner can do is to support the body's own efforts to heal itself. This support may come in a few different forms - proper feeding to give the body the elements it needs to restore balance, eliminating bad habits (tobacco, excessive drinking, exposure to toxins or toxic environments), supporting natural processes of the body through physical means (dry brush massage to enhance the skin as an organ of elimination, hydrotherapy to stimulate the immune system, and facilitate circulation, massage to facilitate lymphatic flow, restore anatomical balance etc. All materials, and efforts are aimed at supporting the body's normal functions and restoring natural balance thereby enabling the body to come into it's to heal itself.

Naturopathic medicine, in the name of "modernizing" the profession has abandoned may of these foundational principles and adopted allopathic principles of diagnosing and treating individual diseases and directing efforts to suppress symptoms, and introduce therapies aimed at alleviating specific diseases. The favoring of "natural" approaches such as herbs instead of patent drugs (although they seek to prescribe drugs as well) does not make what they do naturopathy! The difference is what use of natural materials an forces are used, but what they are used for! Naturopathic medicine may use natural materials and forces, but they do so for allopathic purposes - treating dieases and suppressing symptoms. Naturopathy uses these materials and forces for naturopathic purposes - to restore the body's balance, facilitate the body's natural processes thereby enabling the body to come into it's own to heal.

The difference is not tools used, but the philosophy and principles behind how and why those materials are used. In my personal opinion - for what it is worth, adopting allopathic philosophy and principles does not amount to "modernizing" the profession, it amounts to medicalizing the profession and abandoning/undermining the foundations upon which the profession stands. But such opinions do not belong in the article!

I hope this helps --Ndma1 (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Allopathy is a purely pejorative term, and you've accompanied with, I'm afraid to say, similarly caracitured definition. Ackonwledging the body's ability to heal itself, supporting that and encouraging people to cut out harmful practices is a very significant part of EBM. One of the weaknesses of the article is that it sets up a straw man of current medical practice against which to define Naturopathy. If Naturopathy is only defined in terms of it's differences to conventional, evidence-based practice then a more thorough (and correct) interpretation needs to be presented.

I was rather hoping definitions of this discipline could be derived which are based on saying what it is rather than what it isn't.

Important in doing that is separating the basic or original vendor-independent philosophy (if one exists) from the warring factions in the field now, and also from various people who just want to staple the word on their practice to get in a bit of business. And I'm talking about the article here, not what that industry should be doing with itself!

For instance, I think most people would readily confuse herbalism with naturopathy (which I think is what you said above). Are they incompatible, or just different areas, or do they in fact share philosophy? Is there anyway of answering that question without it being the subject of a professional debate within the industry? Is Naturopathy, as you are defining it, a fixed philosophy, with fixed methods rooted in some historical study ... like homeopathy ... or does it respond and evolve based on research and newly developed techniques ... like EBM, should?

The article doesn't get into that, it reads more like an unconvincing publicity brochure that has then been hacked to pieces by various fundamentalists of one sort or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.99 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing pejorative about the term Allopathy when used properly. Allopathy is an approach to treating dieases that uses agents that produces affects different than those produced by the disease. This would be contrasted by Homeopathy which is an approach that to treating dieaese that uses agents that produce the same symptoms as the disease. What defines allopathy is what/how the materials are used with respect to disease - NOT that it is different than Homeopathy. Similarly what defines homeopathy is what/how materials are used with respect to diease NOT just that it is different than Allopathy. The purpose of contrasting philosophy and principles was not to define one or the other but to demonstrate that Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy are different. The purpose was not to pass judgment on the merits of either philosophy, I am sorry if you did not understand the context!

Sorry, no, Allopathy is a term made popular by Hahnemann in promoting his Homeopathic vision, it is a pseudo-greek portmanteau made to be opposite to Homeopathy. There is no such thing as an allopath except in the mind of homeopath trying to criticise a misrepresentation of evidence-based medicine. I don't know if the Allopathy term is used widely by Naturopathy people, if it is, then I don't know if it is a convergence with homeopathy, or has borrowed the term (Homeopathy predates Nature Cure by quite a while). There is no approach as you describe in EBM, or anything else. EBM is supposed to focus on proven methods that reduce suffering through cure of an underlying condition or, yes, relieving symptoms. That's been with us since Hippocrates. It's up for criticism as is anything, but straw men get us nowhere. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting passing judgement, merely trying to identify what the common ground is prior to the schism of those two factions, so an article can be presented describing Naturopathy in a manner which would be a reasonable consensus, and then separate sections (or articles) can talk about these two modern schools of thought. The differences are relevant, but then would not be the main focus of any of the three articles as they should all be able to stand on their own merits. I think you misunderstood me in looking to pass judgement. I have personal views on alternative medical practices that rely more heavily on some historical dogma than seeking to discover what works through research and investigation, but my views are irrelevant. It's getting that kind of factionalism out of the article that is relevant, we can have fun and get muddy on the discussion page, but we're probably straying from the point. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you remark that "Ackonwledging the body's ability to heal itself, supporting that and encouraging people to cut out harmful practices is a very significant part of EBM." because that is a foundational principle of naturopathy since the late 18th and 19th century (before the term naturopathy was created). The fact that EBM is catching up with Naturopathy would not seem to detract from naturopathy, rather it would seem to support it!

You'd need to produce some evidence that supports the notion that that was an original or unique notion to Naturopathy. As far as I know, pretty much every healing art would say that the statement is true. Whether it is consistent in their application is, as always, a subject for debate. By the way, if you've some evidence of Naturopathy kicking about before the late 19th century you should update the article accordingly. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK lets talk herbalism. If the herbalist is recommending herbs that act to produce affects different than the disease, the herbalist is using herbs in an allopathic manner which is inconsistent with the principles of naturopathy. If that same herbalist then uses herbs to supplement nutrition, or that have an affect to support or restore normal body function (generally classed as alteratives) that herbalist is now using herbs in a naturopathic manner. Once again, the distinction is not what materials are being used, but what the materials are being used for!

Yes, OK, I get that, you are saying you can use herbalism as part of naturopathy, but only if used in a certain way. It doesn't follow that using herbalism per se is naturopathic. Thanks. So really the two are only related as there is some intersection of common ground. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I find it ironic that you open up bemoaning that my post used comparisons between naturopathy and Naturopathic medicine only to now ask for a comparison between naturopathy and Homeopathy and "EBM". You are now asking me to do what you complained about me doing! Naturopathy as defined by the profession is a fixed philosophy with a fixed criteria respecting what materials may be used and how (to what end) those materials are used, but it is quite open to advancements in technology and approaches.

Sorry, differences between what I want from the article and what it would be handy for me to understand. I would hope the Naturopath(y/ic) can be described in it's own merits rather purely by comparisons with other medical systems (misrepresented ones at that). What I was saying is it is better not to be resorting so much to that, but if we have to (it maybe so) then it needs to be done properly. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the article. I believe it is in that state state is because the article is trying to join together two different things as though they were one. Naturopathic Medicine is one thing, Naturopathy is another thing, attempting to join the two together as the same things creates disjointed mess. Which is why I continue to advocate one article for Naturopathic Medicine and one article for Naturopathy.

I agree with you on that, I'm just not sure if there are two things here called Naturopathy, from i'm reading. 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

--Ndma1 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Tags

OK I have added tags to those sections that appear problematic.

Where would you like to begin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the disruptive overtagging of the article. Please bring a concise description of the problem here. If there are several issues please split into different sections for discussion. To establish a new consensus requires a good faith effort to discuss changes, make proposals, and then gain support for those proposals. If that succeeded we have a new consensus. Verbal chat 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see QG has given you similar advice above, and I don't see any support for your changes (yet). Verbal chat

A concise description of the problem.

1. Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine are two different professions with different definitions and are guided by different philosophies and principles.

2. The article is titled Naturopathy, but it basically is an advertisement for Naturopathic Medicine. Those few references to Naturopathy either misrepresent the profession in a typical straw man or make wild claims that even a politician can see through (I already referenced this - MN, ID, CA licensing laws and legislative records)

3. The Article is filled with blatantly false and misleading information which can easily be refuted using PUBLIC RECORDS. It rewrites history with no sources or selective use of sources, I correct that history with sources and it is called vandalism?

I must say I am beginning to understand why Wikipedia is starting to get a bad reputation, and that the reputation appears to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced text

This edit deleted sourced text. The edit summary does not give a valid reason for the deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and reverted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Happens to me all the time! --Ndma1 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source for this?

"Traditional naturopathic practitioners perceive EBM as an ideologic assault on their beliefs in vitalistic and holistic principles."

The opposite is true, most traditional naturopaths see EBM as a validation of traditional naturopathic principles. If anything EBM is making conventional medicine more naturopathic in that the medical establishment - largely because of EBM - openly recognizes the role of diet, lifestyle, hygiene in both the prevention of disease and building health this was not the case 30 years ago! Naturopathy was teaching this before Modern Medicine became mainstream so the reality is EBM validates a foundational principle of Traditional Naturopathy. It does however shoot down some of the fringe nonsense diagnostic approaches (irridology, CFA, dark light microscopy etc.) and questionable treatments embraced by Naturopathic Medicine.

It may be true that individual alternative practitioners in fields that are associated with naturopathy may see EBM this way, but just because an individual uses a modality that may be associated with naturopathy does not mean they are naturopaths.

This should either be removed, properly sourced (by that I man a source that accurately represents the views of traditional naturopaths, not AANP or Qwackwatch strawman representations), or corrected.

--Ndma1 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this naturopaths were practicing hygiene before early medicine! From what I remember Ignaz Semmelweis started studying hand washing in the 1840. Well naturpathy did not exist as a word until 1895.Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

No offense but instructing the patient/client in personal hygiene (hand washing, bathing regularly, brushing teeth, disposing of waste properly) is somewhat different from a physician washing their hands in a disinfectant between seeing patients (in this case deliverying babies as I recall). You are comparing apples to oranges here! Recognition of the harmful effects of smoking, or other substance abuse, poor diet, sedentary lifestyle on health is also something that has existed in Naturopathy from the early beginnings but only came about in conventional medicine within the last few decades... --Ndma1 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW here is the ref you request Jagtenberg T, Evans S, Grant A, Howden I, Lewis M, Singer J (2006). "Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy". J Altern Complement Med. 12 (3): 323–8. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.323. PMID 16646733. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. The study seems to be limited to practitioners in Australia, you don't suppose there might be differences in points of view between US naturopaths and Australian Naturopaths. I do know there are significant differences in both recognition, education, and practice between these two countries. Just a thought! --Ndma1 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I medicine practice does not vary that significantly around the world. I do not know about Australian and the US wrt Naturopaths but I assume they are fairly similar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor, not many like to admit making such an assumption! This probably holds true for most highly regulated professions like Medicine, generally naturopathy is not regulated or self regulated as result there can be significant variations between jurisdictions. The fact is there is significant variation in scope of practice among the 15 states that do regulate naturopathic medicine in the US would suggest similar variation in other countries. --Ndma1 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref was actually already there just 2 sentences over. Tagged both to decrease the risk of further confusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of referenced content

Not sure were this line went "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be ongoing removal of referenced content without discussion?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This content seems to be extremely POV, and should at the very least be attributed as an opinion. The second sentence should be removed from this article completely, although it may be useful at Quackery, again attributed as an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to what policy it should be attributed to an opinion. You have not given a reason why the second sentence should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is a non-sequitur from the first. This article is about Naturopathy, nor Quackery. The first sentence is clearly an opinion, and not a fact. As such, it should be attributed per WP:ASF. But then, you already know this. DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not given a reason why you think the sentence is an opinion according to Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. This article is not about quackery but the reference does discuss naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DigitalC or any editor, please provide a specific response to my question. Why do you think the sentence is an opinion according to Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. What is Wikipedia's definition of an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of that wording is a quote, so put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Problem solved. Since its the mainstream POV, our policies regarding weight and undue allow require giving it prominence. Normally such wording is just plain commonsense, as in "the earth is round", but since some people question it (of course supporters of quackery will always dispute such statements...duh..!), attribution and putting it in quotation marks solves the problem. That it should be removed because it's a POV is a nonsense argument, since much content here is by nature a POV and has to be sourced, and in very controversial situations we can attribute such statements. Interestingly enough, if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here....

Read our policies folks:

• WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an #Footnote referencing." (emphasis original)

That condition is fulfilled because the wording is properly sourced. If you aren't going to bother to read the source, then you shouldn't be editing here and complaining. But to help our readers it should probably be in quotation marks so they don't think its editorializing.

• WP:NPOV: "...material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"..."

That's why the objection is nonsensical ("removed because it is not neutral" "mind-bogglingly POV"). It shows a failure to understand NPOV. Wikipedia itself doesn't make POV statements, but its sources certainly do and we are supposed to quote them. Wikipedia documents reality. The quote can also be framed by introducing it: "Critics of alternative medicine also criticize naturopathy...."quote"...".

• WP:SOAP: "Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Do people actually claim to support Quackery? They probably dispute what quackery entails. The statement "Quackery... should be opposed by scientists" is clearly an opinion, not a fact, and it definitely comes across as political advocacy, if not advocating a specific position. I also dispute that this is in anyway analagous to "the earth is round". You are correct that if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here - it would simply be removed from the article. Do you believe that if it said "People should consult a naturopath for ..." it wouldn't be removed? DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ASF and my question above. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All but the most obtuse of individuals would read the language as inflammatory and it is unquestionably worded as an opinion. Looking at other articles written by the same author it is pretty clear this is somebody with an axe to grind. All this notwithstanding, the this is location in the EBM Section yet the citation says nothing about EBM, if it is to remain in the article it should be put into the criticism section. --Ndma1 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not directly responded to my question. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes it an opinion? the word deception in this clause "use unscientific methods and deception on a public who" Deception by definition requires intent. The statement says that these folks know better but are intentionally misleading the public. Absent objective proof of this intent to deceive (as opposed to honest ignorance), this would be subjective and therefore by wikipedias definition "An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic" an opinion. --Ndma1 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I made this change to the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Section Specific Issues : Traditional Naturopathy

For your convenience I have included the original text from the wikipedia article:

Traditional naturopaths

Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments. Traditional naturopaths however, are not primary care providers, whereas graduates of CNME accredited naturopathic medicine schools are classified as both alternative or complementary practitioners as well as primary care providers. Traditional naturopaths may voluntarily join a professional organization, but these organizations do not accredit educational programs in any meaningful way or license practitioners, per se. The training programs for traditional naturopaths can vary greatly. Compared to naturopathic medical schools, traditional naturopaths' training programs are less rigorous and do not provide the same basic and clinical science education. The professional organizations formed by traditional naturopaths are not recognized by the government of the USA or any US State or Territory.

---Issue 1 : Not a single source! Who is making these claims? ---

Given the elements of propaganda in this paragraph (See below) and that fact it tends to detract from "traditional" naturopathy and build up Naturopathic Medicine I would say the answer is obvious!

--- Issue 2 : False definition of "traditional" naturopathy used to set up a strawman.---

Let us honestly compare the two: Traditional Naturopathy is an wholistic health approach that focuses on natural lifestyle and living in accordance with natural laws ordained by the creator. The body is governed by definite natural laws and all disease is a result of departing from those natural laws. The level of disease is a product of ones departure form those the natural physical, chemical, biological and psychological laws governing the body. This being the case, when one brings themselves into harmony with nature the body comes into it's own to heal itself.

Naturopathic Medicine (also known as natural medicine) is an eclectic alternative medical system that focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself but departs from traditional naturopathy in that it seeks to remedy or treat diseases. Naturopathic Medicine holds a philosophy that favors a holistic approach and minimal use of surgery and drugs. Naturopathic Medicine comprises many different treatment modalities of varying degrees of acceptance by the medical community; diet and lifestyle advice may be substantially similar to that offered by non-naturopaths, and acupuncture may help reduce pain in some cases, while homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery.

Naturopathy holds all disease has the same source - departure from natural laws governing health. As result it does not undertake to diagnose disease or present disease specific remedies. Rather it concentrates on restoring the individual to a lifestyle that is in agreement with the natural laws governing health thereby enabling the body to come into it's own to heal itself.

Naturopathic medicine undertakes to diagnose and treat diseases (Same philosophy and principles as conventional medicine) but seeks to show a preference towards "natural" remedies.

Sorry but the statement "Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments." is simply false! False but necessary to set up this straw man argument against 'traditional' naturopathy:

"Traditional naturopaths however, are not primary care providers,"

Thats nice but since traditional naturopaths do not present themselves as primary car providers this amounts to nothing more than a straw man designed to bolster Naturopathic Medicine. (Isn't straw man a common propaganda technique?)

The Article Continues:

"... whereas graduates of CNME accredited naturopathic medicine schools are classified as both alternative or complementary practitioners as well as primary care providers."

Strange the header says "Traditional Naturopathy" but this seems to be more of an argument for Naturopathic Medicine - (That is why I attached the misleading tag to this article). It asserts these graduates are classified as ...Primary Car Proviers" but I see no source supporting that statement.. Why not, because the fact is it is illegal for these graduates operate as (or even hold themselves out to the public as) "Primary car providers" in 35 of 50 states, in 30 of those states it is a felony for them to do so! (If you would like I will give citations from the Medical Practice acts of those 35 states but is it really necessary?) So based upon a minority of states (15 out of 50) regulating naturopathic medicine with very wide range or practice standards the writer makes this Glittering generality (Isn't glittering generality a common propaganda technique?)

The article continues:

"Traditional naturopaths may voluntarily join a professional organization, but these organizations do not accredit educational programs in any meaningful way or license practitioners, per se."

Yes there are about 3 or 4 professional organizations for "traditional" naturopaths. Just as there are 2 professional organizations that Naturopathic Medicine practitioners can join.. Membership in all of these organizations is voluentary and NONE of these professional organizations accredit educational programs in any meaningful way. Individual practitioners often join professional organizations, accreditation is something that schools would do independent of students. Licensing of professions is a state power and according to the landmark US Supreme court ruling Lawton V Steele, states only have the authority to exercise that power to protect the health, welfare or morals of the people. So none of the professional organizations, or accrediting organizations license practitioners per se.

This is not propaganda per se, but it is a meaningless statement and brings nothing to the article. Traditional Naturopathy is a profession covered under common law (the Herbalist Charter), if practiced according to it's definition presents no danger to the heath, welfare or morals of the people and therefore is not within the scope of states police powers. If either a Traditional Naturopath, or practitioner of Naturopathic Medicine undertakes to practice medicine without a license - the states police powers would apply and membership in a professional organization would not make any difference.

The article continues:

"The training programs for traditional naturopaths can vary greatly."

Once again completely opinion, no listing of schools of Traditional Naturopathy, no comparison of content, just a general statement of opinion based on what?

The article continues:

"Compared to naturopathic medical schools, traditional naturopaths' training programs are less rigorous and do not provide the same basic and clinical science education."

Practitioners of Naturopathic medicine seek to diagnose and treat diseases, prescribe legend drugs, perform "Minor" surgery, delivery babies etc. etc. Traditional Naturopaths do not.. I would say it makes perfect sense there would be differences... This amounts to comparing apples to oranges, it means nothing!

The article Concludes:

"The professional organizations formed by traditional naturopaths are not recognized by the government of the USA or any US State or Territory."

This is not entirely true, the fact is as result of a federal appeals court ruling, the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA was recognized by the District of Columbia for the purpose of licensing That notwithstanding, "Traditional" Naturopathy is a common occupation of life and therefore the practice of "Traditional" Naturopathy as defined by the profession does not require a license in any state within the US.

So are we agreed to modify this section to include meaningful sources, remove the common propaganda techniques and present an even handed representation of Traditional Naturopathy?

--Ndma1 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to start with one section at a time. So I'll try to start the discussion with one section. The section titled "Traditional naturopaths" is unsourced. What would you like to do about this. Move the section, rewrite it, or delete it. Please make a specific proposal. See Naturopathy#Traditional naturopaths. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I did what you asked. here is what I proposed: "modify this section to include meaningful sources, remove the common propaganda techniques and present an even handed representation of traditional naturopathy"

Her you go- Fully referenced (Definition, scope of practice and legal authority to practice referenced the profession, Congressional acts and case law) No false comparisons with naturopathic medicine, no straw man set ups, no glittering generalities just the facts.

Traditional Naturopathy

Traditional naturopathy varies from naturopathic medicine both in philosophy, principles and scope of practice. Traditional naturopathy is considered wholistic health approach that focuses on natural lifestyle and living in accordance with natural laws ordained by the creator. The body is governed by definite natural laws and all disease is a result of departing from those natural laws. The level of disease is a product of ones departure form those the natural physical, chemical, biological and psychological laws governing the body. This being the case, when one brings themselves into harmony with nature the body comes into it's own to heal itself. Although there are several organizations the majority of traditional naturopaths in the US are represented by two National Organizations. The American Naturopathic Association founded in 1909 by Dr. Benedict Lust with 5,000 members and the American Naturopathic Medical Association founded in 1981 claiming about 4000 members With a little under 2000 Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine licensed throughout the United States Registered or Certified traditional naturopaths comprise about 82% of the profession.

Practice: Traditional Naturopathy

Naturopathic practice centers upon teaching and coaching individuals to live in harmony with natures laws and the application of natural healing properties such as air, sunshine, water, light, heat, electricity, body manipulations, rest, natural living foods, organic vitamins, minerals and herbs used in conjunction with the hygiene, exercise, internal cleansing and eliminating processes for the purpose of allowing the body to release it's innate healing potential. Naturopathic philosophy holds nature alone has the ability to cure disease and man can either help by living in accordance with natures laws, or impede nature by attempting to circumvent nature through the use of drugs, serums, potions, surgery or the use of inorganic vitamins, or minerals. Both the definition and scope of practice of traditional naturopathy are consistent with the definition established by the US Congress. This Congressional act specifically references The Herbalist Charter 34 & 35 Henry VIII, C.8 (1542) in acknowledging naturopathy so defined as a legal occupation under common law. . Traditional naturopathy practiced accordingly is a common occupation of life and therefore is legal throughout the United States with no licensing requirements. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW: as long as you asked, I would renew my proposal that Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy (or if you prefer traditional naturopathy) be represented in separate articles as distinct professions. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The references you are using are mostly unreliable. Text such as live in harmony with natures is unencyclopedic. Why is there two paragraphs. There is a section for Naturopathy#Practice that is sourced. Do you have a specific proposal to rewrite the "Practice" section. What is your intention for the Practice: Traditional Naturopathy. Is it to replace the exisitng praction section or start a new section in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable?

So then according to you: The universally recognized father of Naturopathy is unreliable to define the profession! The Oldest and largest naturopathic organization in the US is unreliable to define the profession! The US Congressional act recognizing and defining naturopathy is an unreliable source to define the profession!

But a splinter group having a political/legislative agenda and representing only 18% of the Practitioners is a reliable source to define a profession!

The original section had absolutely no references. But that is better? SHEESH

Given that naturopathic medicine, and "traditional" naturopathy are two different professions it certainly makes sense that the practice would be different and that the practice section for naturopathic medicine would not be a fair representation of the Practice of "traditional" naturopathy.

The article is titled "Naturopathy" but 99% of the article represents Naturopathic Medicine. I don't know why it is difficult to understand the problem with that!

Here is what I propose:

1. Move this entire article to it's proper place "Naturopathic Medicine" and eliminate all references to Naturopathy. 2. Delete this article so it can be done properly at a later time.

Is that simple enough? --Ndma1 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine is part of Naturopathy. However, if you have sources that explain a difference that could be a proposal. Redirecting the article is not a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have documented half a dozen times already Naturopathic Medicine is a splinter group that broke off from Naturopathy and adopted various aspects of conventional medicine. While they have similar origins the differences are sufficient to acknowledge the two as distinct professions. Naturopathic Medicine represents a small group (about 18%) of those identifying themselves with naturopathy. I have no objection with Naturopathic Medicine being fairly represented. , but I do have an objection to Naturopathy (or if you prefer "Traditional Naturopaths) making up 82% of the profession being misrepresented as practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine.

My proposal once again:

Let Naturopathic Medicine be fairly represented in the Naturopathic Medicine article.

Let Naturopathy be fairly represented in the Naturopathy Article.

Let the reader make their own decision with respect to preference.

Simple stuff here!

--99.93.112.160 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have documented half a dozen times with what source? Please provide a reliable source showing this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rounded all numbers to the nearest thousand, here is how it adds up:

Naturopathic Medicin 2005 Sunrise Review, Naturopathic Physicians - State of Colorado, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform Chart 1 shows number of those licensed to practice Naturopathic Medicine in the various states about 2000 members

Traditional Naturopathy:

The Encyclopedia of associations: 40th edition pp 1594 Shows the American Naturopathic Association and the National Board of Naturpathic Examiners of the ANA with 5000 members

The The American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) which also represents Traditional Naturopaths indicates about 4000 members on it's website http://anma.org

Here is the math:

Naturopathic Medicine 2000 ANA Naturopathy 5000 ANMA Naturopathy 4000 Total 11000

2000/11000 = 0.18 or 18%

With respect to the differences in the profession:

The 82% representing "traditional" Naturopathy consider Naturopathy to be different from Naturopathic Medicine, the ANA folks commonly refer to the Naturopathic Medicine folks as "Pseudomedicalists" (Source article "VACCINE, PENICILLIN, SALT WATER, BICARBONATE OF SODA, BLACK COFFEE – NATUROPATHIC PRACTICE (?)" The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948) the ANMA folks refere to them as Naturoqwacks. (Source, Dr. Donald Hayhurst, President Emeritus, ANMA - You can contact him via the website I am sure he would be happy to talk to you)

Here is the definition of Naturopathy maintained by the American Naturopathic Association.

   -------

The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

We Believe that the body under normal natural conditions is a self sustaining organism. Secondly, that the theory of health and disease is based on Nature Itself. That the body is governed by definite natural laws with regard to the physical, chemical, biological and physiological basis.

That ill-health is, therefore is a result of a departure from healthful living out of harmony with Natures laws. That to the degree that man departs from Natural health-restoring, and health sustaining forces, ignorantly or intentionally, to that degree he pays the penalty in ill-health. That to the degree that man adheres to and applies Natures beneficiate laws, to that degree will the body through it’s natural inherent powers restore itself to normal.

That Naturopathy is a philosophy, art and science and recognizes the body’s inherent processes of healing, and acts in no way to suppress, antagonize or hinder these vital life forces, but rather to arouse, assist and cooperate with them to a restoration to normal.

That to this end Naturopathy proceeds as follows; it makes use of the healing properties as such natural agencies as air, sunshine, water, light, heat, electricity, body manipulations, rest, natural vital foods, organic vitamins, organic, minerals, herbs in conjunction with the cleansing and Eliminating processes of other physical and mental cultures.

Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations.

Naturopathy also provides for the prevention of disease and the preservation of health by teaching the basic fundamental laws of natural living and the application in daily life.

---

You will note this definition specifically excludes those practices adopted by the Naturpathic Medicine folks:

"Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations. "

You can confirm that this definition is still maintained by the organization by contacting the ANA's current President

Dr. George Friebott IV. ND, MD Yungborn Institute PO Box 502 Nordman, ID 83848.

This definition is also consistent with that definition enacted by the US Congress. As noted previously this Congressional act specifically references The Herbalist Charter 34 & 35 Henry VIII, C.8 (1542) in acknowledging naturopathy so defined as a legal occupation under common law. Chap. 352 @ 1326, 5.3936, Public No. 831 [also found as 45 St. 1339] dated February 27, 1929 and its clarifying amendments H.R. 12169 of May 5, 1930 & January 28, 1931 and corresponding House Report #2432 of January 30, 1930. The Landmark Supreme court ruling Lawton V Steele establishes it is lawful of all citizens to work in any common occupation of life Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894). Making the practice of Naturopathy (or if you prefer Traditional Naturopathy) legal in all states without the need for licensure.

The Practice of Naturopathic Medicine, by holding out to be "Primary care" and desiring to prescribe drugs and perform minor surgery encroaches on the Medical Practices acts and therefore is illegal without a license.

Above you have the facts. This is my assessment of the situation. The AANP - representing Naturopathic Medicine, has a political/legislative agenda to obtain licensing in all 50 states. If they recognized as distinct from naturopathy then they would have to stand on their own merit and their their education would be compared to conventional MD's education and they would not make the grade (this has been established over and over I can provide plenty of references). IF they muddy the waters and claim all naturopaths are the same then the comparison is made between themselves and Traditional Naturopaths in which case they have an education that is closer to that of conventional MD's than Traditional Naturopaths. This little propaganda helps them achieve their agenda.

--Ndma1 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on a side not, unlike the Naturopathic Medicine folks, I do not seek to exclude or misrepresent the profession of Naturopathic Medicine in favor of Naturopathy. I only propose that both professions be fairly and accurately represented and be allowed to stand or fall on their own merit. --Ndma1 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the unreliable references. If you still believe the references are reliable you can try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Wikipedia Reliable sources/notice board, as well as everything I was able to find on Wikipeida related to source policy and guidelines. I think the problem is is some people are confusing reliability with what they think to be true. Some people believe something to be true so when a source challenges that belief they dismiss it as unreliable. I would suggest you review [Verifiability#Reliable_sources] for Wikpiedias policy!

Here is the opening paragraph:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations, and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred, although non-English sources are allowed too."

--Ndma1 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Text failed verification

This edit changed the meaning of the text. It is "Traditional" naturopathic practitioners not Naturopathic practitioners.

Jagtenberg T, Evans S, Grant A, Howden I, Lewis M, Singer J (2006). "Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy". J Altern Complement Med. 12 (3): 323–8. PMID 16646733.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The sources says "This paper presents the voices of tradition-sensitive naturopathic practitioners in response to what they perceive as an ideologic assault by EBM"... QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Although there is an idealogical split within the profession in the US, and UK which would support the use of a distinguishing term, there does not seem to be such a splint in Australia. Because of context use of the word "Traditional" in this instance may have different meanings in the US, or UK verses Australia or elsewhere. That being the case use of the actual term in the paper "Tradition-sensative" would seem to be a more appropriate application. This edit has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.112.160 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "Traditional" is to the point and won't confuse the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps while you guys are cleaning up this section, you could take a look at this section containing similar sourcing and pov issues. --Travis Thurston+ 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms from the traditional naturopath camp

This section is extremley odd. Even the section title should be reworded. That's a big mess to fix. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you understood the topic, and the divisions within the profession you would not find this odd at all! --Ndma1 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My head is dizzy after reading it. I don't understand it in-depth and I would like to see more reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with the sources you have? Lets review!

3 Sources are professional organizations representing Naturopathy - You allow professional organizations representing Naturopathic Medicine to be considered valid sources - same thing!

2 Public Records (Corporate Filing/status) Issued by a governmental authority

1 US Supreme Court case citation

2 Published books or periodicals

10 Reports commissioned by State Legislatures

1 Report commissioned by the US Congress

1 Criminal Case Record

3 Legally required public filings

5 School Brochures or required filings - You considered these identical sources representing Naturopathic medicine to be reliable.

1 first generation source (eyewitness account).

If you check Wikipedia's source policies you will find that only 1 of these sources (the eyewitness account)is questionable. Go ahead and remove the 5 words based on this source, it has no significant impact on article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Ndma1 (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the references you brought to the table are unreliable. You can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed your advise and posted these sources on the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard."

Here is the reply I received:

Some of the above mentioned sources (1,2,6,,15,16) are fringe and conflict of interest sources. These sources should never be used for a general statement on medicine. These can be used only in the article Naturopathy or topics directly related to Naturopathy to elaborate the view of Naturopaths with proper attribution. For example, "according to Naturopathic viewpoint" etc. However these sources can be used to mention non-medical facts like budget of a Naturopathy institute etc with attribution. The other sources are non-Naturopathy government sources and can be used as reliable source to mention the legal status/situation/infrastructure related to Naturopathy. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "fringe" sources were used specifically for the purpose stated - presenting the naturopathic viewpoint. The governmental sources were also used in exactly the way stated. Thank you! --Ndma1 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended but you think about the sources or whether you agree with what the sources say is not at issue. What is at issue is does the nature of these sources meet wikipedias policies and guidelines. If they do not than everything in the article using sources of the same or similar nature should be removed! for the same reason.

Now here are the sources - do please tell us whether these are in line with wikipedias policies and guidlines or not, and if not why not:

^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948

^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)

^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)

^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)

^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)

^ FBI case files indicate degrees from two NANP accredited schools NCNM and the Arizona College of Naturopathic Medicine were being sold out of suitcases and hotel rooms, the Arizona College of Naturopathic Medicine (accredited by the NANP) was shut down by the FBI. The National College of Naturopathic Medicine claimed that diploma blanks had been stolen from the school and denied any involvement. The FBI was unable to produce sufficient evidence to refute this claim. Excerpted from : State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979

^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Eyewitness account of Dr. George Freibott IV

^ Neither the American Naturopathic Association (Founded 1909), nor the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA (Founded 1952) recognized the CNME as a valid accrediting organization, or the CNME’s definition of naturopathy.

^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)

^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...

^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)

^ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=147E&view=chapter&year=2009&keyword_type=all&keyword=Naturopathy

^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm

--Ndma1 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

This edit added unecessary quotes to the text and the word "Naturopathic" is capitalised. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is almost completely false

In the United States and Canada, the designation of Naturopathic Doctor (ND) may be awarded after completion of a four year program of study at an accredited Naturopathic medical school that includes the study of basic medical sciences as well as natural remedies and medical care.[11][12]

First, this claim usurps the authority of the states: I cannot speak for Canada but in the United States the authority of an educational institution to grant a specific academic degree, in this case "Doctor of Naturopathy" comes from the state. Any school, authorized by their state to grant a particular degree may do so without permission from the federal government or a private accrediting organization because the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States reserves that power to the states.

Secondly, this claim has no standing because none of the US schools accredited by the US grants (or has authority from their respective states) to grant the Doctor of Naturopathy degree.

Third- Misleading generalization and self contradictory:

The limitation on who may be "awarded" the designation Naturopathic Doctor only would apply in those four states that regulate the title "Naturopathic Doctor" (specifically Alaska, California, Kansas and Maine) making this statement true 4 states and false in 46 states.

Then it contradicts itself stating: "The scope of practice varies widely between jurisdictions, and naturopaths in unregulated jurisdictions may use the Naturopathic Doctor designation or other titles regardless of level of education."

It may only be awarded after .... but may be used by anybody in "unregulated jurisdictions"....

Come on folks, you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see this is messed up!

--Ndma1 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal that would be supported by the references presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why bother making proposals, they only get ignored!

--Ndma1 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what was ignored. If you have a proposal that is closer to the source that would work let's see the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you need a proposal to figure this out but her you go:

If the presentation is false or misleading - regardless of the number of sources it should be removed or amended so that it is a fair representation of the facts. --Ndma1 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The degree "Doctor of Naturopathy" ND may be awarded by any school granted authority to do so by the state. Representing the designation may only be granted by CNME Schools is false and misleading! None of the US schools accredited by the CNME are authorized by the state to grant the degree Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) they grant the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD). As result sources notwithstanding the the sentence is saying nothing! The statement infers the claim to be universal, yet the designation only has legal standing in 4 states is also misleading.

The statement says nothing, is false and misleading so why is it allowed to remain in the article? --Ndma1 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is allowed to stay in the article becuase you have not made a specific proposal. Would you like the text rewritten then make a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Altenative medicine template deleted again

The template has been deleted again from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I support its continued presence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ndma1, can you give us a reason why you deleted the template. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it was an accident- I was not aware I deleted any templates. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Ndma1 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance I hope you can restore the template. QuackGuru (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell me where it is, and I would be happy to do so!. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been handled --Ndma1 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

This article has been redirected to another page when I click on Naturopathy. I'm trying to avoid editing the article becuase there is too much drama. Could the editor who accidently redirected the page undo the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I support QuackGuru but agree that this seems like a difficult area to edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you agree that the editor who redirected the page should undo the edit. There is another newly created article that looks a lot like this one. See Naturopathic Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is one of the problems with these extremely controversial topics. They get more than there fair share of COI and vandalism. User:Ndma1 moved the page as per here [1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the editor about this discussion. I hope editors will wait for the editor to respond. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article in Naturopathic Medicine should look like the article here because it is the same article... The point is the article here under the heading "Naturopathy" is in fact an article about Naturopathic Medicine NOT Naturopathy. All I did was put the content with the correct article. If it is your intention that a single article should represent naturopathy and Naturopathic medicine then that article should represent a consensus of the profession. Naturopathic Medicine represents a little under 2000 licensed practitioners, Naturopathy represents about 9000 Registered or Certified practitioners. It only seems fair the 9000 at least have equal representation with the 2000! --Ndma1 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the reliable sources to support your conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rounded all numbers to the nearest thousand, here is how it adds up:

Naturopathic Medicin 2005 Sunrise Review, Naturopathic Physicians - State of Colorado, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform Chart 1 shows number of those licensed to practice Naturopathic Medicine in the various states about 2000 members

Traditional Naturopathy:

The Encyclopedia of associations: 40th edition pp 1594 Shows the American Naturopathic Association and the National Board of Naturpathic Examiners of the ANA with 5000 members

The The American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) which also represents Traditional Naturopaths indicates about 4000 members on it's website http://anma.org

Here is the math:

Naturopathic Medicine 2000 ANA Naturopathy 5000 ANMA Naturopathy 4000 Total 11000

2000/11000 = 0.18 or 18%

With respect to the differences in the profession:

The 82% representing "traditional" Naturopathy consider Naturopathy to be different from Naturopathic Medicine, the ANA folks commonly refer to the Naturopathic Medicine folks as "Pseudomedicalists" (Source article "VACCINE, PENICILLIN, SALT WATER, BICARBONATE OF SODA, BLACK COFFEE – NATUROPATHIC PRACTICE (?)" The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948) the ANMA folks refere to them as Naturoqwacks. (Source, Dr. Donald Hayhurst, President Emeritus, ANMA - You can contact him via the website I am sure he would be happy to talk to you)

Here is the definition of Naturopathy maintained by the American Naturopathic Association.

  -------

The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

We Believe that the body under normal natural conditions is a self sustaining organism. Secondly, that the theory of health and disease is based on Nature Itself. That the body is governed by definite natural laws with regard to the physical, chemical, biological and physiological basis.

That ill-health is, therefore is a result of a departure from healthful living out of harmony with Natures laws. That to the degree that man departs from Natural health-restoring, and health sustaining forces, ignorantly or intentionally, to that degree he pays the penalty in ill-health. That to the degree that man adheres to and applies Natures beneficiate laws, to that degree will the body through it’s natural inherent powers restore itself to normal.

That Naturopathy is a philosophy, art and science and recognizes the body’s inherent processes of healing, and acts in no way to suppress, antagonize or hinder these vital life forces, but rather to arouse, assist and cooperate with them to a restoration to normal.

That to this end Naturopathy proceeds as follows; it makes use of the healing properties as such natural agencies as air, sunshine, water, light, heat, electricity, body manipulations, rest, natural vital foods, organic vitamins, organic, minerals, herbs in conjunction with the cleansing and Eliminating processes of other physical and mental cultures.

Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations.

Naturopathy also provides for the prevention of disease and the preservation of health by teaching the basic fundamental laws of natural living and the application in daily life.

You will note this definition specifically excludes those practices adopted by the Naturpathic Medicine folks:

"Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations. "

You can confirm that this definition is still maintained by the organization by contacting the ANA's current President

Dr. George Friebott IV. ND, MD Yungborn Institute PO Box 502 Nordman, ID 83848.

This definition is also consistent with that definition enacted by the US Congress. As noted previously this Congressional act specifically references The Herbalist Charter 34 & 35 Henry VIII, C.8 (1542) in acknowledging naturopathy so defined as a legal occupation under common law. Chap. 352 @ 1326, 5.3936, Public No. 831 [also found as 45 St. 1339] dated February 27, 1929 and its clarifying amendments H.R. 12169 of May 5, 1930 & January 28, 1931 and corresponding House Report #2432 of January 30, 1930. The Landmark Supreme court ruling Lawton V Steele establishes it is lawful of all citizens to work in any common occupation of life Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894). Making the practice of Naturopathy (or if you prefer Traditional Naturopathy) legal in all states without the need for licensure.

The Practice of Naturopathic Medicine, by holding out to be "Primary care" and desiring to prescribe drugs and perform minor surgery encroaches on the Medical Practices acts and therefore is illegal without a license.

Above you have the facts. This is my assessment of the situation. The AANP - representing Naturopathic Medicine, has a political/legislative agenda to obtain licensing in all 50 states. If they recognized as distinct from naturopathy then they would have to stand on their own merit and their their education would be compared to conventional MD's education and they would not make the grade (this has been established over and over I can provide plenty of references). IF they muddy the waters and claim all naturopaths are the same then the comparison is made between themselves and Traditional Naturopaths in which case they have an education that is closer to that of conventional MD's than Traditional Naturopaths. This little propaganda helps them achieve their agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy is a broader topic than only Naturopathic Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources included above show that Naturopathic Medicine represents only about 18% of Naturopathy. So why is every attempt to bring information about the other 82% of Naturopathy into the article deleted? --Ndma1 (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is becuase your sources are unreliable. Did you thoroughly search in PUBMED. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Different types of information would use different sources. Many of my edits had to do with historical or legal information. Why would the governmental authority issuing the certificate of incorporation be considered unreliable because the corporate filing was not on Pub Med? Why would I search Pub med for a legal citation, Does the fact a Federal Code not appear in Pub Med make the unreliable? PubMed is fine if you are looking for Medical Research, but if you are looking for historical information about a profession, organization you probably are barking up the wrong tree.

This article cites a membership organization (THE AANP) when defining Naturopathic medicine and that is considered a reliable source, but my citing a member organization that represents Naturopathy (the ANA) considered unreliable.

This article cites state government reports and legislative documents related to Naturopathic Medicine and thats considered reliable. I cite state government reports and legislative documents related to Naturopathy and naturopathic medicine (several times the same reports) and that is considered unreliable.

You seem to want it both ways, Membership organizations, Public Records, Governmental reports are OK for information related to Naturopathic Medicine but they are unreliable for information related to Naturopathy.

If I were to use the same yardstick for source reliability you use on this article and delete those statements using sources you have deemed unreliable for information related to Naturopathy the article would be one or two paragraphs long. If I were to delete all sections use a reference other than pubMed or some other 'medical journal' the article would be three or four sentences long.

If you are going argue "reliable sources" then you need to apply that argument uniformly. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Text deleted yet again

If it is not accurate then what is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an #Footnote referencing. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[1] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

The article is fine without the sentence, if you feel the sentence should be included it is up to you to find the sources supporting the claim! --Ndma1 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for grins, angry at the ANA's official platform excluding medical approaches about 168 members broke away from the ANA and formed their own organization. They called themselves the Western ANA but under threat of a trademark infringement suit changed their name to the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians. This is an important event because it marks the Birth of Naturopathic Medicine.

The problem is if the ANA is still around and maintaining the same definition then Traditional Naturopathy is also still around as a distinct profession. So instead of presenting an accurate history they claim the ANA split into six distinct groups and faded into history.

Sources - I included those sources when I modified the article to represent the actual history, somebody deleted it and restored the un-sourced fiction. --Ndma1 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you make a proposal to represent the correct history using reliable references. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Move sentences to criticism

"Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists, says William T. Jarvis.[76]"

It was suggested we move the sentences to "criticism" from "evidence basis". QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The tone of this statement lacks impartiality and violates wikipedia's policies.

----

Impartial tone

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

---

The accusatory nature of this phrase "use unscientific methods and deception on a public" borders on slander,

Both Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine have a sufficiently large following to be classified as "Questionable science" here is what wikipedia says about questionable sciences:

---

Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

---

These things should be cleaned up in this article. That does not mean that dissenting views should be removed, but that those views should be presented with an impartial tone and direct accusations should not be used! --Ndma1 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that simply repeating a quote someone has made regarding their position on Naturopathy? Probably better without the direct quote, but it's observations are valid in stating a body of opinion on the topic, providing they aren't actually forming part of the definition. Is there any amount of scientific debate on the fundamentals of Naturopathy? I thought it rejected scientific method? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.184.225 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are quite clear regarding neutral point of view. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

In answer to your first question, is there any amount of scientific debate, the reality is during the last two decades the conventional medical community has albeit unwittingly adopted may of the fundamentals of naturopathy. Proper diet, eliminating harmful habits, etc. 20 years ago only two medical schools even offered classes in nutrition, now the majority of them do. Various types of hydrotherapy associated with naturopathy are routinely used in particularly in sports medicine, as is massage, stress reduction techniques etc.

Conventional naturopathic training requires science. 1200 hours (more than 1/4 of the 4100 hour didactic portion of the curriculum) is in biology, inorganic and organic chemistry, anatomy and physiology, physical science. These are necessary to understand how the body uses food, how storage, handling and preparation of food may alter it's chemistry and affect the availability of nutritional components in those foods, how foods interact with other foods and substances etc. etc. all fundamental to naturopathy. ALthough Naturopathic medicine and clincial herbalogists may use herbs to try to treat diseases Traditional naturopaths generally use herbs for the limited purpose of supplementing nutrition or supporting normal body functions. Using herbs in this way requires an intimate understanding of both the biochemical make up of these herbs as well as factors and cofactors involved in how the body uses these herbs. All of that is related to chemistry and physiology. To say a conventional naturopath shuns science is like saying a truck driver shuns petroleum - it is nonsensical! --Ndma1 (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tradtional and modern naturopaths

I suggest a new section comparing different views of naturpaths (Naturopathic Medicine v. Naturopathy) be included in this article. Does anyone know of any reliable sources on this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing so is in fact a policy of wikipedia!

Neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. --Ndma1 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed your advise and posted these sources on the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard."

Here is the reply I received:

(redacted: copyvio from WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Would_these_sources_be_considered_reliable.3F)

--Ndma1 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no definite answer on the reliability of the sources in the manner you are using it. You need to explain what is the particular piece of informationfor each source will be used for at the reliable sources noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the RSN, please fix the cites that you want people to comment on. Don't make them go hunting.LeadSongDog come howl 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The RSN indicated the sources were appropriate for the purpose they were being used. Enough of this nonsense! The sources listed meet wipedias critera, are used in the same manner as numerous sources of similar nature already in the article. If you have a problem with them then you need to start deleting those section using similar sources in a similar way. --Ndma1 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes to lead

The lead was changes again with information using mostly new sources. The lead should be a summary of the body not a thesis to rewrite the body. First, the body is expanded and later the lead summarises the body. I would like to know if any of the information added to the lead summarised the body. If it did not summarise the body it should not be included in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you want it both ways, Change the body so it has a NPOV representing both Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine and you delete that, change the header and you delete that. All I am looking for is wikipedias policy of NPOV be upheld. That means all significant viewpoints are represented in a neutral way. Not just the viewpoint of one legislatively active minority, the AMA/Qwackwatch etc. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK the body has been expanded with sourced material... Very deliberate attention was taken to assure a neutral point of view, and to allow proportional representation of the dominant views of naturopathy. The only modification to the lead, which is fully justified, was the removal a misleading (and non-sourced) statement "(also known as Naturopathic Medicine or Natural Medicine)"--Ndma1 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of body

A summary of the history in the lead was inappropriately moved to the history. The lead should be a summary of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that move was appropriate. In summary style leads, there should be no content that is not first present in the article body. Moving that statement to the article's History section fixes the problem. LeadSongDog come howl 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The text in the lead summarised the body present in the history. This is from the history section: The modern practice of naturopathy has its roots in the Nature Cure movement of Europe.[6][7] The term naturopathy was coined in 1895 by John Scheel,[8] and purchased by Benedict Lust, the "father of U.S. naturopathy".[9] QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the redundancy post-move, but still there's a difference between excerpting one sentence and summarizing the whole section. Surely the US purchase isn't really the main feature of the worldwide history? LeadSongDog come howl 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither is the section about whole grain bread but that apparently is properly sourced (with a couple links to a bread companies) so it is in there ROFL --Ndma1 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A summary of the following text could improve the WP:LEAD. "Beginning in the 1970s, interest waxed in the United States and Canada in conjunction with the holistic health movement.[1][9]" This does not represent the worlwide history but it does improve the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Some or two states

What wording do editors prefer. Some or two states and why. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is even up for discussion, Some is clearly identified by wikipedia as a weasel word in the section instructing editors to avoid weasel words. See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

Excerpted from that:

..... For example, "Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world", is an example of a biased or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."

Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:

.....

The source lists two states, using two, or naming the states eliminates the use of weasel words. Simply stating the facts as represented in the sources without using weasel words is more consistent with wikipedias NPOV policy. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

--99.93.112.160 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

POVFORK

A WP:POVFORK was created because of the content dispute with this article. I suggest we AFD the Naturopathic Medicine article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I see it there are two options.

1. Let Naturopathic Medicine have it's own article, let Naturopathy have its own article and let both be represented with a neutral point of view.

2. Bring this existing article into compliance with Wikipedias Neutral Point of view policy and reflect the views of both Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine in a fair manner.

As it stands now, the Article entitled "Naturopathy" is essentially little more than an advertisement for Naturopathic Medicine and despite Naturopathic Medicine making up a minority of the Naturopathic world, it has been given undue weight directly in contravention of wikpiedias policies. Every attempt to bring this article into compliance with wikipedia policies has been blocked be a few people who by their own admission know little about the profession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

Paints a very good picture of what is happening here. Information suppression

(copyvio redacted LeadSongDog come howl 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

--Ndma1 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This section also appears to be forked into another article:

Naturopathic doctors (copyvio redacted LeadSongDog come howl 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Essentially the same information is presented perhaps one should be removed? --Ndma1 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Schools of Naturopathy/Naturopathic Medicine.

Schools of Naturopathy and Naturopathic Medicine are already represented in the History section:

Today, there are nine schools of Traditional naturopathy offering certificate or degree programs accredited by the American Naturopathic Medical Accredation Board [25]The National Board Of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA currently recognizes two schools offering Doctor of Naturopathy Degree programs [26]

Naturopathic Medicine is represented with six accredited schools accredited naturopathic medical schools and one candidate for accreditation in North America. In 1956, Charles Stone, Frank Spaulding, and W. Martin Bleything established the National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM) in Portland, Oregon in response to plans by the Western States Chiropractic College to drop its ND program. In 1978, Sheila Quinn, Joseph Pizzorno, William Mitchell, and Les Griffith established John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine (now Bastyr University) in Seattle, Washington. That same year, the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine was founded in Toronto, Canada. More recently founded schools include the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, founded in 1992, and Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, also founded in 1992. The University of Bridgeport in Connecticut grants ND degrees through the College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the National University of Health Sciences in Illinois recently developed a naturopathic program and is currently a candidate for accreditation

The "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine Section" covers material already in a different article.. I would propose a link be added to that article in the the section talking about Naturopathic Medical School and the Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine be deleted as being redundant.

--Ndma1 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these traditional naturopathic schools or "accrediting entities" recognized by the USDoE like the CNME and the 6 ND schools? Perhaps that deserves a mention. --Travis Thurston+ 05:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the US Congress has already recognized naturopathy as a legitimate common occupation which may be legally practiced with no formal educational requirements I am not sure what bearing it has on the topic. It also warrants understanding that the DOE gives no input to curriculum of specialty accrediting entities, the accreditation process in the US is voluntary and it is the states that have authority to approve educational institutions to grant certificates or degrees I am not it serves any purpose but to forward a particular POV. If Traditional Naturopaths sought licensing, or to practice medicine then you would have an apples to apples comparison and that is an issue that would warrant closer review. At the same time, I have no objections if you have sources and can present that in a way that does not violate wikipedias NPOV policies. --Ndma1 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

American, Canada and North America.

Seems to be a bit of redundancy here...

North America

In five Canadian provinces, fifteen US states and the District of Columbia, naturopathic doctors who are trained at an accredited school of naturopathic medicine in North America, are entitled to use the designation ND or NMD. Elsewhere, the designations "naturopath", "naturopathic doctor", and "doctor of natural medicine" are generally unprotected.[13]

In North America, each jurisdiction that regulates naturopathy defines a local scope of practice for naturopathic doctors that can vary considerably. Some regions permit minor surgery, access to prescription drugs, spinal manipulations, obstetrics and gynecology and other regions exclude these from the naturopathic scope of practice.[84] [edit] Canada

There are five Canadian provinces which license naturopathic doctors: British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.[85] British Columbia has regulated naturopathic medicine since 1936 and is the only Canadian province that allows certified ND's to prescribe pharmaceuticals and perform minor surgeries.[86] [edit] United States US jurisdictions that currently regulate or license naturopathy include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico,[87] US Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.[61] Additionally, Florida and Virginia license the practice of naturopathy under a grandfather clause.[88] US jurisdictions that permit access to prescription drugs: Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. US jurisdictions that permit minor surgery: Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. US states which specifically prohibit the practice of naturopathy: South Carolina,[88][89] and Tennessee.[88][90]

Naturopathic doctors are not mandated to undergo residency between graduation and commencing practice,[5] except in the state of Utah.[91]

--99.93.112.160 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

verification needed

Wikipedia policy on verification:

Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.

---

Just because the Encyclopedia of Associations is not on line for free (but is free in many libraries) does not mean the source has verification issues or warrant a verification tag. Go to a library, check the source and then if you feel the source is not consistent with the information in the article a tag would be appropriate.

Thanks! --Ndma1 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What issue are you having with this source? The Encyclopedia of Associations: 40th edition pp 1594 --99.93.112.160 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Encyclopedia of Associations is a well established source.. (blatant wp:copyvios redacted - LeadSongDog come howl 05:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) [2][3][4][5][6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that these quotes are already available to the public, were properly attributed, and were not used for commercial purposes the posting would tehnically fall under the fair use provision of US Statutes ad case law... --99.93.112.160 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but pretty much irrelevant. See WP:NFC.LeadSongDog come howl 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Verfication needed:

The Encyclopedia of Associations is a well established authority and fulfills the sourcing criteria for Wikipedia. The information presented in the article uses the exact number in the encyclopedia. --Ndma1 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor of Naturopathy (ND)) vs Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD)

(cur) (prev) 05:16, 30 January 2010 Travis.Thurston (talk | contribs) (57,285 bytes) (→Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine: you clearly know enough to know that all degrees except for SCNM are ND degrees) (undo)

What I do know is that all of the US CNME approved schools advertise Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine which is designated by the US Department of Education "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD). Using the designation ND which the US Department of Education ascribes to "Doctor of Naturopathy (ND). In such disputes, the granting authority (in this case the US Department of Education) takes precidence. This attribution of ND to Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine is done primarily for political and legal reasons. First, some states licensing Naturopathic Medicine objected to "NMD" because it could be confused with "MD". Secondly, the last three states to regulate naturopathic medicine (ID, MN, CA) included provisions to protect traditional naturopaths right to do what is already legal for them to do. I understand the desire for advocates of Naturopathic Medicine to want to muddy the waters by claiming there is no distinction between Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy (aka Traditional Naturopathy)but such propaganda goes directly against wikipedias NPOV policy. With respect to adhering to wikipedias NPOV policy I see there are two choices here. 1. Degree designations can be properly ascribed according to the granting authority (Department of Education) and the politics and propaganda saved for lobbying efforts. 2 We can add a sub-section in criticism documenting the long history of propaganda used by the NANP and later the AANP to mislead and deceive legislators and the public in their attempts to obtain licensure.

Personally I lean towards a live and let live approach where both professions are presented with a fair, balanced NPOV article. If the Naturopathic Medicine folks wish to follow in the steps of Osteopathy let them, but don't drag Traditional Naturopaths through the mud to do so. In wikipedia there is a prohibition against participating in such disputes, but there is absolutely no prohibition documenting such disputes with proper sources in a NPOV manner. My documentation of the 'pseudo-medicalist' goes back to 1936, and is made up almost entirely of independent third party sources (Legal rulings, public documents, depositions) all in compliance with wikipedias verifiable source doctrine. --Ndma1 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ED Gov Page

The Department of Education, by statutory authority of the US Congress is the granting authority and therefore as a matter of law supercedes the CNME's claims otherwise. If the CNME feels that DOE is in error there are channels they can follow, when and if the Department of Education decides it made an error and changes it's grant of authority CNME position will be legally valid. Until then the CNME and state laws notwithstanding (Reference Article VI Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution), the legal designation for Doctor of Naturopathy is represented by the initals (ND), and the legal designation for Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine is represented by the initials (NMD).--Ndma1 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Every graduate from the CNME accredited schools, recognized by the US Department of Education (in the US), graduates with a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine Degree" and is abbreviated as ND, except for SCNM which uses the same title a but abbreviated with NMD. It's a fact, and for someone who knows the history of Naturopathic Medicine in North America as well as you do and deny it, is blatant ignorance...

What's more, schools like Clayton USED to offer a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree, also abbreviating the title as ND until they stopped offering the program last year. This ND degree, like its "accrediting body", was never recognized by any government entity. Are you telling me that there's a correspondence school that is currently offering a ND degree with the title "Doctor Naturopathy"? It appears you've searched the web, looking for a page (and it happened to be a ed.gov page with incorrect info) to support your inaccurate POV. I would offer you to look in many directions, like CAND.org, naturopathic.org, NCNM.edu, etc., etc. and you will find that NONE of them offer or accredit a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree. But of course you already knew this...

Please don't attempt to confuse the reader by perpetuating the idea that the "Doctor of Naturopathy" is the only way to be an ND, and that all practicing, primary care providing, "medicalized" naturopathic physicians are NMD's and only NMD's. In all the licensed states, to have an ND behind your name and practice medicine, you HAVE to have a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree. I'm a Naturopathic Physician, I went to NCNM, and my protected and recognized title is Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. Abbreviated ND. --Travis Thurston+ 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have bit my tongue until but I think it is time to but my cars on the table. My issue is the naturopathic medicine advocates attempting to confuse the public that Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine are the same degree. That naturopathic medicine is the same profession and the thousands of non CNME naturopaths are all frauds obtaining their degree from a diploma mill. In the decade or so that I have been aware (and admittedly mildly amused most of the time) at this rift in the profession, not once has the AANP/CNME acknowledged the American School of Naturopathy (Southern "winter campus" operated in Tangerine, FL. until 2002 and now operates in Priest River ID.) or the Yungborn Institute also founded by Dr. Lust in 1896 both federally chartered prior to the formation of the Department of Education and therefore still federally recognized under the grandfather clause in the DOE act. Here are two examples of Naturopathic schools that hold to the 4100 hours of Naturopathic Study, and residential clinical internship called for in Standardized Naturopathy and the Natonal Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA (First Federally recognized in 1956). But the AANP crowd never mentions them or the 5000 graduates practicing in the US. Instead they point to Clayton and then mutter stuff about diploma mills. the CNME makes a big fuss about "Correspondence Schools" but completely ignore the fact that Dr. Benedict Lust created the first Naturopathic Correspondence program in the US. This program was included monthly installments in the ANA's magazine "Herald of Health" as well as a packaged program that could be purchased separately. If one completed the program they would receive a certificate of completion, however to be granted an actual degree, the student must first successfully challenge a comprehensive certification examination and complete a residential internship at a Naturopathic hospital or clinic (yet another first in naturopathy introduced by Dr. Lust).

Here is the whole story about Clayton, Yes they are operating on the legal margins. The State of Alabama (where Clayton is headquartered) has not granted Clayton authority to grant degrees in Alabama so they only grand degrees outside of Alabama, and use a different school (outside of Alabama) to grant degrees to people in Alabama. Clayton has no authority by any state to grant degrees but the seem to fall through a legal loophole. The courts have ruled the State of Alabama has no legal standing to shut them down because Clayton does not issue degrees to citizens of Alabama. Because Clayton does require 'substantial' (FBI's words not mine - certainly not the 4100 hours required by Standardized Naturopathy) they cannot be legally classified as a diploma mill. The "loopholes" in the law allowing this marginally legal practice have since been closed so there will be no more marginally legal operations like this (which is a good thing!). But other than The American School and Yungborn which are federally chartered, there are half a dozen other schools that do have legal authority from the State to grant the Doctor of Natropathy degree, and about 20 that have legal authority from the state to grant certificates and undergraduate degrees in Naturopathy or Natural health representing more than 75% of the conventional naturopaths in the US. SO why is it the only school you folks ever seem to bring up is Clayton? Unless the purpose is to mislead the public about the legitimacy of conventional (or if you prefer Traditional) naturopathy?

I will say the same thing I said to the Minnesota Legislature in 1999. "There are two distinct manifestations of Naturopathy in the US. One that has been recognized by the US congress as a common occupation, which does not undertake to practice medicine and is already a legal profession, we can call these folks "Classical Naturopaths". Then there is a group that wishes to adopt conventional medical practices and therefore may not be legally practiced without a license, the advocates of "Naturopathic Medicine" who back the bill we are discussing today. Different tiers of practitioners is not at all uncommon in healthcare. In Minnesota there are no less than four tiers in nursing, Nurses assistants which are not licensed, Licensed practical Nurses, Registered Nurses and Registered Certified Nurse Anestistists. All fulfilling a legitimate niche in the field of nursing and all peacefully coexisting. This bill before you breaks with that tradition in that instead of peaceful coexistence it disenfranchises Classical Naturopaths. This bill was introduced because one of three "Naturopathic Medicine" practitioners, Dr. Helen Healey, was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. There are currently 3 Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine known to operate in the state of Minnesota, at least one of those three has chosen to ignore the law and violated the Minnesota Medical Practice acts. Yet there are about 45 Classical Naturopaths, none of which has been arrested for violating the law, none of which has harmed the public. Fourty-five honest, hardworking law abiding citizens engaged in the legal practice of Naturopathy and harming nobody who would become criminals overnight should this bill become law. Neither I nor any of the Classical Naturopaths I have had the pleasure to talk to object to Dr. Healey being allowed to practice legally, or the state at her request regulating the profession, but we most certainly and rightfully object that the Classical Naturopathic community specifically, and hundreds of practitioners of various modalities that make up Classical Naturopathy would be disenfranchised in the process."

Within six weeks the Minnesota Coalition for Natural Health - the grass roots organization that got the bill introduced originally, turned against the bill, and ultimately the first Health Care Freedom act was passed in the United States. Today Naturopathic Medicine is regulated in Minnesota (Registration) but Naturopaths are also able to continue to practice under the Health Care Freedom Act. Of the last three states to regulate Naturopathic Medicine, MT, CA, ID, two Idaho, and California included specific exemptions to allow Traditional Naturopaths to continue to engage in the already legal practice of naturopathy. The tide has turned, the AANP's dream of eliminating all other naturopaths is dead. The Dream of teh ANMA and others to destroy Naturopathic Medicine is dead. Despite dissenters on both sides, like it or not Naturopathy is divided into two distinct groups. It is time for both groups put aside their differences, and work together for the benefit of the profession as a whole. Then Naturopathy can reach it's full potential. Those who would seek to destroy the other only hurt their own profession in the long run and are stifling the progress of the profession. --99.93.112.160 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All well and good. Your reply still doesn't address your incorrect assertion that practicing "medicalized" ND's hold the title "Doctor of Naturopathy" and that "Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine" only use NMD.

Oh, and please answer me this; Can a person acquire a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree anymore? Thought maybe you would know this. As far as my googling goes, I can't find one school that offers it anymore. --Travis Thurston+ 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not even talking about titles, I am talking about academic degrees. NONE of the CNME schools advertises or grants the Doctor of Naturopathy degree, the all advertise and grant Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree. The DOE represents these as two different degrees. Doctor of Naturopathy (ND), Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD) they do NOT present the representation Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND OR NMD) as you have asserted. A title is a different issue entirely various states reserve the use of various titles for licensed individuals however that is not legally a grant of any kind (such a grant is prohibited by federal law). --Ndma1 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC

Exactly. None of the CMNE schools grant a naturopathy degree. The ed.gov page in question refers to CNME being an accrediting body that it recognizes. Bottom line is that the accrediting agencies that oversee the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree (ND and NMD) are recognized and are able to receive Federal Student Aid. ANMA is not recognized, therefore the students of "Doctor of Naturopathy" degrees are not eligible. This page does not pertain to anything but the degrees recognized by CNME. --Travis Thurston+ 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To your second question. The sources I listed identify 4 schools granting the Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degree recognized by the ANMA (The University of Natural Medicine, Trinity College of Natural Health, International Institute of Original Medicine, Canyon College). The NBNE has approved two schools that are currently operating, American School of Naturopathy, Yungborn Institute. Thats six. There are also other schools that are affiliated or recognized by smaller groups, more general natural health organzations or foreign organizations. The Kingdom College of Natural Health, Corinthian Naturopathic College. This list should not be considered exhaustive, and it deliberately excludes non-doctorate certificate and undergraduate degree programs, but in answer to your question, yes people can still earn a Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degree in the United States. IF that option every goes away there are about a dozen colleges throughout Europe that also offer Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degrees. Germany and Eastern European countries have curriculum and practices that most closely follow Traditional Naturopathy while the United Kingdom is divided similar to the US only the Traditional Naturopaths are the only ones on track with the British self regulation program (the British version of Licensure). --Ndma1 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It's amazing that you can get a doctorate degree from Canyon College after taking 25 distance learning classes with no clinical training. Not to mention a bachelors degree isn't even required before admission to the program and their accrediting body IS NOT recognized by the DoE. "The online ND degree program requires completion of 68 credit hours" and you can substitute credits with "Previous Life Experience".[7] I would imagine this program will soon follow the fate of Clayton's. It seems that the American School of Naturopathy and Yungborn Institute don't even have websites. Based on what I am seeing here, I'm not convinced these degree programs are still in operation. Perhaps I'll put a call into Canyon on Monday to clear it up. --Travis Thurston+ 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed, I thought the Trinity Degree more lacking! The norm for a professional doctorate is about 60 credit hours with a Bachelors as a prerequisite. The course does require a Bachelors with a minimum 2.5 GPA. In the US accreditation is not required and degree granting authority is granted by the States. Most colleges allow at least limited APK (Assessment of Prior Knowledge) for credit. This has been the case for about 20 years or so. I agree there should be a clinical or practical aspect to the training something many of these programs lack. I am astonished that you missed the absence of Biology, Organic Chemistry, the fact these are missing makes me seriously question the depth of both the nutrition and herbology components of the program. Also missing is Physical Science which should be prerequisite for naturopathic manipulation. In any event, Traditional Naturopaths do not hold themselves out to be primary care, undertake to diagnose or treat disease, prescribe drugs or perform 'minor' surgery. Once again, you seem to fall into the trap of comparing apples to oranges - a common issue with the Naturopathic Medicine folks. I have already discussed Clayton above so I am not sure why you choose regress. The question is has the state given this school authority to grant the degrees it does, if so the degree is completely legal, if not then you should probably file a complaint with the state AGO. --Ndma1 (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)