Naturopathy Wikipedia "vandalism"

Vandalism on Naturopathy page of Wikipedia
Expand Messages
Colleen Huber, NMD
Message 1 of 9 , Aug 12 6:40 PM
View Source
It is really unfortunate that Hermes and similar have stooped to spending their time vandalizing the Wikipedia page on naturopathy.

Let's consider the definition of libel: that which "maliciously or damagingly misrepresents"
http://dictionary.reference. com/browse/libel?s=t

I would like Wikipedia to investigate libel and vandalism in the form of deceitful, derogatory statements made against naturopathic medicine by heavily biased anti-naturopathic individuals who are making their attacks over a dozen times per day.

There are clinical studies conducted by naturopathic physicians.  Some of this may be seen on the websites of  www.NaturopathicStandards.org.
http://www.nprinstitute.org/naturopathic-medical-research.html
http://www.ccnm.edu/primary_research
http://www.bastyr.edu/research/studies

Not only are naturopathic physicians overwhelmingly in favor of evidence-based medicine, but the evidence that we draw on spans all known human history and every inhabited continent, a much wider data set than what is generally recognized in conventional Western medicine.  One has a very different impression from the current content of the Wikipedia Naturopathy page.

Years ago when this kind of Wikipedia page battle broke out, there was a headline at the top of the page warning that the page had disputed information.  I think that kind of heading is again warranted if the anti-naturopathic ideologues continue to control the content of this page.

Colleen Huber, NMD
Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)


dremilypenney
Message 2 of 9 , Aug 17 11:27 AM
View Source
The wikipedia page is now considered semi-protected. Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The official policy related to applying and removing semi-protection is located at Wikipedia:Protection policy. This rough guide describes how the semi-protection policy is currently being applied by administrators. Every case is different, and 'passing' every criterion do...
View on en.wikipedia.org
Preview by Yahoo
In order to edit a semi-protected page, I spent some time today getting verified as a registered user. It requires 4 days and 10 edits, then I will be able to edit the locked Naturopathy page. It's a pain, but not as painful as reading the current content of the page.



Colleen Huber, NMD
Message 3 of 9 , Aug 18 6:49 AM
View Source
The following exchange on the Wikipedia "teahouse" the other day was enlightening/depressing as to the depth of the bias there.   You may not want to read it: a long miserable transcript follows:

Q:
 A group of full-time activists (I call them as I reach for the most tactful term) makes changes to the Naturopathy page many times per day. Those changes are consistently in a derogatory direction toward naturopathic physicians. I see that naturopathic physician edits are not allowed to stand; they are reverted back to libel within several minutes by this vandalizing group, many of whom are outside the U.S., evading U.S. libel laws. The Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics is: "Common tactics used by cyberstalkers is to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Various companies provide cases of cyber-stalking (involving adults) follow the pattern of repeated actions against a target." [sic] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying. What recourse does the public or the naturopathic profession have to correct the quickly increasing number of lies that comprise the Wikipedia page on Naturopathy? Is there any interest in at least having a balance of viewpoints reflected on this page? "Talk" or other negotiation with the cyberbullies is not on the table, due to their flagrant violation of law and ethics. Will Wikipedia administrators take action against this problem?
A:
Wikipedia presents materials as they are seen the mainstream academic and medical sources . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Q:

Please answer the questions that I asked: What will Wikipedia do about the false statements, libel and cyberbullying on the Naturopathy page? Naturopathic physicians have approximately twice as many classroom hours and twice as many courses as MDs in the medical schools, verifiable at the respective schools' curricula descriptions online. Unlike MDs and DOs, naturopathic physicians have full-term courses in cardiology, pulmonology, endocrinology, through all major systems, again verifiable at the schools' own curricula descriptions. All of that is contradicted on the Wikipedia Naturopathy page. How will Wikipedia address not only the cyberbullying and libel, but its own impaired credibility?

A:
Because naturopathy is a fringe topic based in large part on pseudoscience, as reported by reliable sources, our experienced editors who work to defend the encyclopedia from content endorsing pseudoscience will always monitor this article closely. This is bound to hurt the feelings of the advocates of naturopathy, but that is the way things are, and all concerned should avoid insulting language. That includes you, with your talk of "evading U.S. libel laws" and "flagrant violation of law and ethics". You are coming perilously close to violating our policy calling for No legal threats. Those who make such threats are blocked from editing until the threat is withdrawn or all court cases are resolved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Q:
Dear Sir,
First, as you well know, you have found no threat at all in anything that I said. Second, if all concerned should refrain from using insulting language, then it would be best for you not to use the word "fringe" regarding a vast and eclectic system of medicine on which many around the world and throughout human history (in fact all of our distant ancestors) relied for their healthcare, a system of medicine that today is practiced in 17 US states by duly licensed physicians, who have scopes of practice that range from time-honored natural modalities through contemporary medical practices such as laboratory analysis, the prescription of pharmaceuticals and minor surgery, depending on the state. That training happened extensively in medical school and was confirmed by the longest and most rigorous medical board certification examinations in the U.S. I regret to inform you that the sources you call "reliable" have only been reliable to consistently misrepresent and falsify the history and the effects of naturopathic medicine. The cyberbullying that has damaged the Naturopathy page on Wikipedia has continually worsened in large part due to the echo chamber reliance on such sources, and I am indicating to you the problems that arise from allowing such behavior to continue. I have shown that the Naturopathy page fulfills the Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics. Please be clear: Are you defending the cyberbullying tactics? If not, what will be done to stop the problem?
A:
Accusing other editors of "flagrant violation of law" without indisputable evidence is inappropriate behavior here on Wikipedia and perilously close to a legal threat. If reliable scientific sources say that naturopathy is largely based on pseudoscience, then so too shall Wikipedia. It cannot be any other way. You are, of course, entirely free to promulgate your beliefs on other websites, but Wikipedia does not exist to validate or promote pseudoscience in any way, shape or form. As for your other unproven accusations, I believe in being polite to those with whom I disagree. I recommend the same course of action to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Q:
I have shown that the actions of the referenced editors fulfill the description of cyberbullying by Wikipedia's own definition. I have asked that this be corrected by Wikipedia. It seems that you are unlikely to examine or to correct the problem.

A:
It seems that we disagree about what the problem is, having thoroughly debated the issue, but that is relatively common here on Wikipedia. I could be wrong and if other experienced editors think so, then I will pay most serious attention to their opinions.
The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing, a place for answers, discussion and advice. It is not Wikipedia's Night court nor a place that issues binding decisions about anything, other than advancing the goal of building a better encyclopedia. You are entitled to seek more formal action if your concerns are so deep. Please read our policy regarding dispute resolution for much more detailed information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A:
Wikipedia has a policy of not giving equal validity to fringe subjects and pseudoscience. This is not bullying.Charles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A
First, your whole attitude appears to be that you are here to right great wrongs, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. However, why don't you start over? Instead of starting with the assumption that we are mistreating you and your subject, let's start with a quest for neutrality. Here are my suggestions. First, I am aware that there are some naturopathic medicine programs, that, like osteopathic medicine programs, have outgrown their fringe roots and have adopted most of the content of allopathic (orthodox) medicine. If you can source them, and you should be able to do so, you should be able to add them. Also, if you feel that that your contributions are being disregarded, as other editors have noted, we have dispute resolution forums, some of which are for content disputes, which this is. Some of them are particularly suitable to the extent that some naturopathic programs have incorporated some of the wisdom of allopathic medicine, and have licensure in some states. Those might include the fringe theory noticeboard, but it may have anti-pseudoscience warriors. They also include the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which most volunteer moderators start off with little knowledge of the subject matter and expect the parties to state the material. Beyond that, there is requests for formal mediation, by an experienced mediator. So what you should do is, first, find the sources that are out there that show that naturopathic medicine has grown up and become partly orthodox. Second, back off from your hostility and ask other editors to back off from their hostility. Third, discuss on talk pages, with references to reliable sources. Fourth, engage in dispute resolution, possibly at DRN or RFM. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


August 16, 2015, to Jim Heaphy / Cullen:
While discussing Wikipedia cyberbullying on Teahouse a few days ago, you said that I was "perilously close" to a violation that I had not committed.  My attorney and I now would like you to state exactly what peril, that is, what consequences, you threatened against me.  He has the entire text of what was discussed, so he has seen your two vague threats, and you do not need to re-copy those.  This was after I reported a violation of law on Wikipedia: libel and cyberbullying on the "Naturopathy" page, where only non-naturopaths are admitted to write false statements against the naturopathic medical profession and naturopathic physicians in particular.  You then disparaged the naturopathic profession and naturopathic physicians, using the subjective and biased terms "fringe" and "pseudoscience," without justification, and you defended those who had committed libel. Please clarify exactly what peril you threatened against me.



dremilypenney
Message 4 of 9 , Aug 19 9:38 AM
View Source
Hmm. At least we know what we are up against.

According to this thread copied below, there is a strong bias against anything considered "fringe" and "pseudoscience" on Wikipedia in general. It might be worthwhile to compile a list of "reliable sources"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, that prove the validity of Naturopathy as a discipline (that is, that Wikipedia deems reliable) before going further with their conflict resolution protocol  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. The main issue is the editors will continue to uphold the current bias unless we can prove it to be unfounded, on THEIR terms.

Another noteworthy point: Wikipedia culture expects a strong etiquette of cool headedness, and it will only hurt us to get emotional or hostile, while defending our cause. Not easy to do given the circumstances, but very important.

If anyone would like to contribute additional reliable sources that would help build the case that Naturopathy is a valid science based healthcare discipline, feel free to add them to this thread, or start a new one.

Emily Penney, ND
(waiting on my "Wiki editor" status)
Hillsborough, NC



Joshua Goldenberg
Aug 19 9:45 AM
View Source
HI there,

Reliable evidence based on their criteria as best I can understand needs to be secondary level research aka systematic review. We just published this.

http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/estimated-effects-of-wholesystem-naturopathic-medicine-in-select-chronicdisease-conditions-a-systematic-review-2327-5162-1000192.pdf

My understanding is that this is admissible. They will not accept primary research studies.

Joshua Goldenberg, ND
Bothell WA



Melanie Whittaker
Message 6 of 9 , Aug 19 11:16 AM
View Source
I suggest that you contact AANP at this point. Really, the national organization should handle this after seeing just what this person is telling you.

Melanie Whittaker, ND
Stanwood, WA



dremilypenney
Message 7 of 9 , Aug 19 1:32 PM
View Source
Thanks Joshua. When my waiting period is up, I will try editing and submitting the link you gave. I think Melanie might be right though, this probably is something the AANP should handle.

Emily Penney, ND
Hillsborough NC



Judy Fulop
Message 8 of 9 , Aug 20 10:27 AM
View Source
I would like to chime in here. I did aa deposition for a patient recently. The first thing the apposing attorney said on record was that she didn't know what naturopathic medicine was..so she went to Wikipedia...  :(
Judy Fulop
Wheeling Illinois



Dr. Zoya Voitenko ND, MA
Message 9 of 9 , Aug 20 10:46 AM
View Source

It should be officially handled by AANP and CAND.

Dr. Zoya Voitenko, MA, ND
Naturopathic Doctor
Mississauga, Ontario