What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
Dear Wikipedia editors, The page on Naturopathy presents a highly biased slant against the practice of Naturopathic Medicine by licensed physicians. Wikipedia is an important source of information for the general public, and the bias on this page may prevent patients from seeking care by Doctor's of Naturopathic Medicine. The page is written by administrators who actively cherry pick to present naturopathy as an illegitimate pseudoscientific practice, even though many states license NDs and the federal government recognizes NDs as an important part of the healthcare landscape. I have submitted sections for review that are well cited with many independent sources on ND education, as well as on the federal governments perspective on NDs, and the administrators simply ignore content that does not meet their biased objective. If you look on the talk page many other contributors are frustrated by the cherry-picking that goes on with this page. I feel that this is a case of cyber-bullying, and we need Wikipedia editors to help. One solution is to create a new page for "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" which does not exist yet. This is really a separate topic from "naturopathy" which is a more wide-ranging philosophical term. Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine, or NDs, attend 4 year accredited medical schools and are licensed by many states to practice primary care medicine. In a time when NDs work in hospitals, integrative oncology centers, medical nonprofits, and private practice, there should be a page dedicated to "doctor of naturopathic medicine" that is not labelled "fringe/controversial" and that is open to edits by everyone. Please help!
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. Wrong venue. This is a help request not a request for mediation. If you wish to request mediation for a specific dispute please feel free to reapply, but you will need to list all involved parties, describe specific issues which have been extensively discussed on the article talk page, and insure that the request is about content issues, not about the conduct of other editors, since mediation is only for conduct issues. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
