This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
needs a better explanation? Richiez ( talk) 13:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The sections like "Treatment" and "Varmam", which are critical to establishing medical efficacy of Siddha, lack clarity. There is no scientific explanation of any treatment method, and there is no reference citation in these sections. This compromises the objectivity of the article. Also, it seems mostly to be in praise of Siddha, and has not included any criticism of it. Hence it doesn't seem to be neutral. Given its provenance (religious background etc) and lack of research evidence, it should be deemed pseudoscientific (or unscientific downright, since there seems to be no science involved, even on the surface, but that's my personal opinion) - as are other branches of alternative medicine - unless proven otherwise, at least in terms of its efficacy. Knaveknight ( talk) 08:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
From this diff. Policy allows it I think, please provide inputs. -- AmritasyaPutra T 17:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe David Gordon White does have something to say about the term being Sanskrit. As for the rest of the edits you asked about: I can't tell for the effectiveness of it, but the intro is highly problematic. It was added by Bladesmulti, and tries to portray Siddha medicine as the oldest medical system in the world. The first sentence, "Siddha Medicine (" சித்த மருத்துவம்" or " தமிழ் மருத்துவம் " in Tamil) is usually considered as the oldest medical system known to mankind" is incorrect, as far as I can see: it suggests that this is the common view on Siddha medicine, whereas this is the view of some of its practitioners. Let's have a look at the sources (I have copy-edited them; it seems that the info on those sources was copied from the internet, without even noticing that the first title had a doublure, nor that "Wellington" is not part of the authorname. Typical):
At best, based on these two sources, you can write "some adherents claim Siddha medicine to be 8,000 years old."
Now, there is a claim on its ancientness in these edits: "Siddha is reported to have surfaced more than 10,000 years ago.
On the other hand, Googling for "A Review on Anti–Arthritic Herbs" I found Parthiban.P et al, A REVIEW ON HEPATOPROTECTIVE HERBS IN SIDDHA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, which says "Siddha system is one of the oldest systems practiced since 4000 years in India".
Okay, this took me at least 45 minutes, to check those sources, and conclude that it's all WP:SYNTH indeed.... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the lead is all referenced to http://indianmedicine.nic.in/siddha.asp, but this website no longer exists (404). If you try http://indianmedicine.nic.in/, you get redirected to the Ministry of AYUSH website. This has a section on Siddha ( http://ayush.gov.in/about-the-systems/siddha), which contains some background information, but it does not support much of the material in the paragraph. Can anyone propose an alternative source that could be used? Girth Summit ( talk) 11:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has unverified facts, and biased approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.192.130 ( talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body, unlike the Indian Medical Association which is a voluntary organisation. Unless an Indian Judicial court or Government of India make a statement that Siddha medicine as quackery. It's just an opinion of an opposing organisation and opinions should not be on the first line whether it's source content or not. 103.231.217.50 ( talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
World_Health_Organization has recognized siddha medicine and as per its guidelines [1]
siddha fall into traditional medicines (TRM) and further categorized as - Herbal medicines in systems, which have been used for a long time and are well documented with their special theories and concepts, and are duly accepted by the respective countries.WHO believes that Practitioners of traditional medicines must be skilled enough to perceive multidisciplinary knowledge of the existing era. The WHO has identified some institutions of excellence as collaborative centers for training of personnel in TM all across the world. Every year, good number of selected health professionals and administrators of TM are sponsored for training at international level. [2].
WHO has initiated a way to standardise the international terminologies to facilitate better communication between practitioners of modern and traditional medicine, and support integration of traditional medicine into the national health system. It also states that traditional medicines are an important integral part of Universal Health Coverage Program especially under Sustainable Developmental Goal-3 (SDG-3) of United Nations [3] 90.185.50.46 ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Topic is ready for discussions. 90.185.50.46 ( talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
References
According to WP:PRIMARY,
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
So, what do secondary sources say about the supreme court decision?
Source: Business Standard Also see [ About Business Standard.
Source: The Telegraph Also see: About The Telegraph
Further reading: While it does not specifically mention the Supreme Court, this article gives a good background on the problems the court is trying to address:
" The spin doctors: India’s quacks imperil lives, but are ‘god’ to their patients -Source: The Hindu
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Here, in any of the sources you quoted, you cannot find Supreme court referring to institutionally qualified, registered practitioners of Ayush. The ‘parambarya vaidyas’ referring here are in fact the non qualified, non registered quacks who approached the court for a favourable order. The court rejected it. How can you say any of these sources are referring to Siddha medicine or any of the Ayush systems? The qualified practitioners of Ayush are registered in Central and State gazzette, studied in medical institutions which are controlled by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970. Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and homeopathy are these systems which comes under Ayush ministry. The court was in any way pointing these systems in the order. The editors who made the statements that the order is about Ayush systems are biased and their editions are vandalism in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Mohanabhil, I am going to stop responding to you now because you refuse to treat other editors with civility and respect. Calling veteran editors vandals and accusing them of bad faith is rude, and I refuse to have a discussion with someone who keeps insulting me. Go ahead and have the last word; I will not reply.
As for your accusations of bias, yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
venipuncture, and biased against
acupuncture.
We are biased towards
actual conspiracies and biased against
conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
vaccination, and biased against
vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards
magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against
magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards
modern medicine, and biased against
AYUSH.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry detergent, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against
facilitated communication.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards
holocaust studies, and biased against
holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the
scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against
global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
geology, and biased against
flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
mendelism, and biased against
lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, yes you are biased! As you said, and I had opinioned earlier! But while justifying your bias, you are resorting to some wierd comparisons in my opinion. Yes, you should be biased towards science. But you should be open for critisism. It is the way science works. You should be biased towards astronomy or chemistry or mathamatics, but should be able see around the world to understand there are things which need to be explained and researched critically ofcourse for the benifit of all these sciences. Closing your mind to everything and saying aloud, yes, I’m biased to science is not the way science works.
And Please recieve my appologies to your criticism that I have insulted you. Of course I didn’t meant to insult anybody and I was making my point. Yes, I told you are biased. And I said you vandalised. Being a senior is respectable. But editing a page which I loves without any properly appreciated references, and at the end, the subject in the article looks like disfigured is what I believe vandalism. And I’m firm in my stand. Thank you. Mohanabhil ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The page is vandalised by citing irrelevant and wrong citiations. The Supreme court of India judgement is cited illogically. Indian medical association is a body of modern medicine doctors who are always against AYUSH systems. Someone vandalised this article by citing a Supreme Court judgement not connected to Siddha medicine and this association news together to fabricate this article. And now the article is locked to prevent vandalism probably by the same editor! Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is vandalised by someone who cited irrelevant SC judgement which was passed against quacks in the country. And now the article is locked to protect vandalism! Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
In India, Siddha medicine is legitimate and officially practiced, comes under department of AYUSH and Siddha doctors are registered under the Medical Council just as modern medical practitioners. Siddha doctors are officially working even in Rashtrapathi Bhavan(Indian President’s banglow). And when you mention the three humours, vatha, pitha , and kapha as non existant, I can understand how much you personally involved in hate spreading and this may be the reason you try to vandalise Siddha medicine article. You no longer appears neutral because you were pushing your own thoughts here. Three humours is the philosophical base of Siddha and other Ayush systems and it is not the topic in discussion here. Amazed to see why you put forth such a point in this discussion.
The discussion here is about wrongly citing Supreme court of India verdict in a different case used by some editors to vandal Siddha medicine article. The judgement can be studied in the same link given as reference and anybody can read and find it is a different case. NO Supreme court judgement is not against Siddha medicine practitioners or any Ayush systems. Some biased editors are behind quoting this to Siddha medicine. And so their aim is to vandal. This is my point. Mohanabhil ( talk) 01:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The supreme court judgement states that: a) Para 42: However, on the model of the 1956 Act, Parliament enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short “the 1970 Act”). The schemes and provisions of the 1970 Act and the 1956 Act are analogous. “Indian medicine” is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean the system of Indian medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. In Section 2(j), the expression “State Register of Indian Medicine” is defined to mean a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine. The Act contemplates having separate committees for Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines. Section 17 enables, inter alia, the persons who possess medical qualifications mentioned in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule to be enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine.
Thus there is a seperate act for Ayush systems named Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. There is seperate gazette under this act as Central registar and State registar. The editor Zefr seems to be completely unaware of the situation. And what he want to quote is regarding Indian Medical Council Act,1956. b)Persons not registered under this Act, etc., not to practice.- No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising modern medicine, homoeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practise any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine:
Wikipedia does not have a page on the same act and some biased editors are using Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 wiki page for wrong citation as gazette of India here. The statements made by Zehr are completey wrong here. Mohanabhil ( talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Look for Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, and study before arguing the legal status of Ayush systems in India http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Indian%20Medicine%20Central%20Council%20Act,%201970.pdf Mohanabhil ( talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The statement “Supreme court of India considers Siddha medicine as quack” is absolutely about the legal status. And the statement is absolutely wrong. The reference given to satisfy the statement is false and cannot be connected. The judgement of Supreme court doesn’t consider Siddha medicine or any Ayush system as fake. The judgement itself is against quacks practicing in the country without any institutional qualification and without any registration in Central or State registar. All the Siddha doctors and other qualified Ayush practitioners are institutionally qualified and registered in Central or State registar which comes under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 which is gazzete of Ayush practitioners. This should not be confused with the Indian Medical Council Act,1956. Mohanabhil ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
AYUSH practitioners in India are: 1) trained at nationally recognised medical universities which are regulated by Cental Council of Indian Medicine which is constituted under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970(Just as modern medical practitioners who are monitered by Medical Council of India) 2) names of AYUSH practitioners are included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians in State and Central Registar which is constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 3) Supreme Court account by Justices Agrawal and Shantanagoudar do not refer to AYUSH as quackery in any way but the judgement is itself against quacks who are non institutionally qualified and not registered under the above said act and gazzette but practicing as Ayush. 4)AYUSH practitioners do not need to have completed bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017 because the course is to equip them handle modern medicine and not Ayush. The government has proposed this bill to equip Ayush practitioners to handle modern medicine where modern medicine doctors are scarce in the parts of country. 5) AYUSH practices are not quackery and are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community. Ayush practioners are serving in mainstream government projects and departments including health services, insurance and railways in the country. There are ample evidence you can find to identify the acceptance of Ayush practitioners in the country by a simple research. If you dont have time to do study about Ayush why are you trying to revert the genuine changes I have made in the wiki page? Mohanabhil ( talk) 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no connection this statement is found in this article: “Identifying fake medical practitioners without any qualification, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions". Because the article is about Siddha medicine and quoting a Supreme court judgement which was against unqualified unregistered quacks does not make any sence in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the unconnected content. Thank you. Mohanabhil ( talk) 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon thinks that his bias in seeing Ayush as quack should be accepted by all. And you are pushing your opinion here by stating Supreme court order is against Ayush. In fact anyone who read the original judgement or the sources where the judgement is published can find the Supreme court judgement is against quacks named as ‘parambarya vaidyas’ and not against any Ayush systems. Guy Macon again threatens that he will block any one who contradict his opinion. Pretending to be impartial/neutral,again he says those who oppose his opinion should be given fair chance to convience! This is the height of something! If anybody is good at technical handling of editing wikipedia, he should not be involved in editing and vandalising pages according to his bias. Mohanabhil ( talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If threatening to request block/ban on me is your policy while engaging in a content debate, you are not even trying to understand the factual error you guys are created in the page. Instead you yourselves try to study the matter and related things. Those points you mentioned above all can be proved with a little bit effort, but I didn’t got enough time to do. I assure you both, Ronz and Guy Macon that I can surely prove everything you pointed. Please give me time. And you guys, instead of threatening me like this, should concentrate more on the factual error. This way of threatening and make use of policies of wiki, is exactly doing the opposite of the meaning of this discussion. Mohanabhil ( talk) 03:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
My evidences for you; AYUSH practitioners are: Trained at nationally recognised medical universities:
1. Courses in various Ayush systems as per Govt of India, Ayush website: http://ayush.gov.in/education/courses-and-study 2.List of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani Medical Colleges with intake capasity as per govt of India, Ayush website: http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/List%20of%20ASU%20Colleges%20with%20intake%20capacity.pdf 3. Indian medicine central council Act, 1970, which governs the education, registration and practice of Ayush practitioners in India from the website of Ayush dept, GOI http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Indian%20Medicine%20Central%20Council%20Act,%201970.pdf
Here, I quote only original documents which clarify anyone who research about the professional qualification of Ayush practitioners in the country. If you need sources which says about the recognised institutions of Ayush, they are plenty.
Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
About: Included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians:
1. List of various state boards for registrations implemented under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and their address and contact details: https://ccimindia.org/state_boards.php 2. List of qualified Siddha practitioners registered in State gazette of the State of Kerala in Travancore- Cochin Medical Council(just for an example for skeptic editors): https://medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/images/tcmc2014/siddhanew.pdf
I dont know how else can I satisfy those who do not believe there is State and Central gazette list of Ayush practitioners rather than referring directly to the lists available online. Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Siddha medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change
|year=2002|year=2002
to
|year=2002
which will not change the appearance of the article, but will remove the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 14:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The edited version of the article states Indian Medical Association considers Siddha medicine as dangerous and so and so. While I checked the reference sited, I found out a blog by Indian Medical Association which states this:
Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1.Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. 2.Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3.Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
The 2nd point here is about Ayush practitionrs who are engaged in prescribing modern medicine to public and they considers it as crosspathy. In fact, Ayush practitioners are meaned to practice Ayush and they are doing so. Thus, genuine Ayush practitioners do not comes under any of these catagories. I’m giving enough respect to Indian Medical Association in this context, but my genuine doubt is what is the relevance of Indian Medical Association opinion in this article? Now the other reference is about a Supreme court judgement which itself is against quacks in the country and nothing to do with Ayush. How can we add the opinion of Indian Medical Association opinion about ’crosspathy’ in their blog as a statement here in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 04:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
confusing this very ancient medical system to be some 21st century pseudoscience. There's no confusion; it is pseudoscience. There are no reliable sources (sources to the standards of WP:MEDRS) that demonstrate otherwise. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The whole lede here needs a rewrite. It bears no resemblance to WP:LEAD but has an embarrassing whiff of WP:BATTLE and is serious POV pushing in either direction. Gogolwold ( talk) 17:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Warring underway on a page that you have previously protected (still appears to be in place, as my request today for protection went to your previous protection). The two 'camps' are 1) those supporting sourced content to Indian authorities vs. 2) those supporting the pseudoscience and quackery of Siddha medicine. Would appreciate your review and resolution. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a medical article, therefore, the focus should be on MEDRS threshold of verifiability, for or against the subject being defined as pseudoscience. It's not relevant if Siddha medicine is recent or ancient, what matters is how it is seen by medical science. I, myself, am quite critical of many facets of medical orthodoxy — it is often years behind the current edge of scientific innovation, an edge that sometimes includes valuable components from complementary medicine, not all of which are pseudoscience. But regardless, that's just how Wikipedia editors have decided to approach medical articles. That India devotes a government Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy is of significance, to be sure, but what the IMA says is of scientific import. El_C 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
regards Siddha medicine as a danger to national health for its pseudoscience and quackery, having no scientific basis or rigorous clinical evidence of efficacy, or something along those lines. So, where did that claim come from? Because its attribution to that ima-india.org article seem to be seriously flawed. I'll give a little while for proponents to respond, on the chance that I overlooked something pivotal, but otherwise, I am inclined to grant the request made by opponents that the article be reverted to the status quo ante (per WP:ONUS), while most likely a dispute resolution request (like a mutually-agreed upon RfC question) settles the matter. As to the question whether this article falls under ARBPS or ARBCAM, I am open to suggestions about that. As to what extent discretionary sanctions should play a role in this particular dispute, if at all, I am also opening that matter for discussion. El_C 03:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Re "nowhere in the source does the IMA says that it tq|regards Siddha medicine as a danger to national health for its pseudoscience and quackery, having no scientific basis or rigorous clinical evidence of efficacy":
"Having not succeeded to take advantage of ambiguity in State Medical Acts and Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules some practitioners of Ayurvedic, Sidhaand, Unani and Tibb, commonly called Ayush, have concocted a fake name like integrated Medicine and practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) under its grab. The Govt. has clarified that they have not recognized integrated system of Medicine and currently there is no proposal to develop integrated system of Medicine by Govt. of India. Even CCIM in their letter dated 5.12.2008 has announced that the term” Integrated System of Medicine” has not been defined in their Act and it is not one of the approved system of medicine in India. “The practitioners of Integrated System of Medicine are quacks and should be treated alike them.
Then there is a variety of fake medical degrees like electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. who call themselves Alternative System of Medicine and under this guise practice Modern Medicine. Alternative System of Medicine is not recognized by law. Since they are a danger to the nation, there is a need to take action against such quacks wherever we find them. In fact, practitioners of Ayurved, Sidh, Unani, Tibb keep jumping from their original system of medicine to integrated or Alternative System of Medicine just to keep practicing Modern Medicine under different façade. If required, they are not averse to concoct new system of Medicine just to avoid detection." )emphasis added). Seems pretty clear to me. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
What is it but a health claim when it comes to a practice of medicine, such as Siddha medicine?It is a health claim to say that something has a particular health effect, but something else to note that a particular tenet is bogus (consider homeopathy's water memory for instance). — Paleo Neonate – 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Two main thoughts. 1) All of the dispute has been about the lede which contains three concepts: a) Siddha medicine is a traditional medicine defined in Wikipedia as a pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE practice, as is the existing definition for each AYUSH article in Wikipedia: Ayurveda, Unani medicine, Siddha medicine, and Homeopathy. This statement is true. b) the IMA - a 92-year old organization representing MD-equivalent physicians and modeled after the 187-year old British Medical Association - regards Siddha medicine as pseudoscience and quackery. The Supreme Court justices regard untrained, unregistered Siddha practitioners as quacks. Both statements are true, as verified in the lede sources. c) the Indian government has established a ministry to improve the education and quality of AYUSH rural medicine. Other than education programs being established and shown by the primary source links in the lede, there are no WP:RS sources to indicate this conversion has been successful or that Indian rural Siddha medicine has improved beyond its historical quackery practices. The Criticism subsection adds detail and sources to the first two lede concepts. It's not clear what the pro-AYUSH editors are disputing when no WP:MEDSCI sources are offered.
2) there are no WP:MEDRS sources supporting Siddha medicine as a valid, science-based clinical practice or having efficacy. Among 388 publications retrieved in a Pubmed search for 'Siddha', nearly all were published in journals identified as unreliable by WP:CITEWATCH (see disclaimer summary and rank #7). Stated by Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t." No Siddha practice or ministry source has a foundation in evidence-based medicine. We shouldn't expect Wikipedia to lower editorial standards to call AYUSH anything other than the quackery nonsense it is. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Siddha medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page was fully protected with two cite errors (just look at the citation section; they are in red). Please fix the errors. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We call it "Siddha" but the Indian Supreme Court calls it "Sidha". Which spelling is correct? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This was tagged {{ dubious}} and is unsourced save for the last paragraph, so I have removed it pending discussion.
{{
dubious|section}}
In diagnosis, examination of eight items is required which is commonly known as "enn vakaith thervu". These are:
References
I think this is about as appropriate as including the associated chakras in the "medicine" sections of articles on colours. Which is to say: not at all. Guy ( help!) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Reworking the contested lede to present 1) a more representative definition of Siddha medicine and its traditional practices, and 2) attribution by the IMA of Siddha medicine as quackery. This topic conspicuously is pseudoscience, but I found no WP:RS source specifically stating so for Siddha medicine. -- Zefr ( talk) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
---
Siddha medicine is a traditional medicine originating in Tamil Nadu, India and practiced over centuries. [1] The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy of the Government of India regulates training in Siddha medicine and other traditional practices grouped collectively as AYUSH. [2] Practitioners are called siddhars (vaithiyars in Tamil), and may have formal training with advanced degrees, such as BSMS (Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery), MD (Medical Doctor, Siddha) or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). [3] The Central Council of Indian Medicine, a statutory body established in 1971 under AYUSH, monitors education in areas of rural Indian medicine, including Siddha medicine. [4]
In rural India, siddhars have learned methods traditionally through master-disciple relationships to become local "healers". [1] Siddhars are among an estimated 400,000 traditional healers practicing medicine in India, comprising some 57% of rural medical care. [5] [6] Siddha practitioners believe that five basic elements [7] – earth, water, fire, air, sky – are in food, "humours" of the human body, and herbal, animal or inorganic chemical compounds, such as sulfur and mercury, used as therapies for treating diseases. [8]
The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine. [5] [6] Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions". [9]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't.
I also think that the proposed lead is very acceptable. — Paleo Neonate – 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
+The entire supreme court decision is about Sidha. It specifies:
Wikipedia is never going to stop correctly pointing out the the Supreme Court of India has made it crystal clear that the following are two completely different things:
Not. The. Same. Thing. It is time to drop the stick. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Legislation cannot turn bullshit into reality. "The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy of the Government of India coordinates and promotes research in the fields of Ayurveda and Siddha medicine." That is a problem we've seen with the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health for decades. While they have reportedly stopped funding studies into homeopathy (because there is no reason to suppose it should work and no way it can work), they have spent in excess of $3bn trying to validate alternative remedies, with, to date, exactly zero success - other than the success, for the quacks, of conferring spurious legitimacy.
It's the same here. They won't "study" ayurveda, they will try to prove it works. And, much like Chinese studies on TCM, they will probably come up with no negative results. There is a cultural imperative against it.
The relevance of politics is that the quackery is tolerated, promoted or not illegal, or whatever. Politics does not magically make bullshit into not-bullshit. Licensing quackery does not make it not quackery. In the US, several states have licensed naturopaths as primary care providers. They are still quacks. However, we should focus on the practices not the people. In India, more than in America, the practitioners are not generally evil, the licensed practitioners have a quasi-religious belief in what they do. They are sincere and well-intentioned practitioners of bullshit. Whereas the unlicensed practitioners are more often quacks in the classic sense. Guy ( help!) 08:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion initiated to remove the line The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery. from the article.
Abstract Siddha discipline itself may be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is struggling to prove it through Indian judicial system. Siddha medicine cannot be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is not ready to research on the Siddha medicine and they are formed to looks after the interest of doctors as well as the well being of the community at large.
Correct interpretation of the Articles
Title of Ref - "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery" [1]
References
Subject - To address a doctor shortage, Indian health minister JP Nadda is proposing licensing practitioners of ayurveda and homeopathy. This would be a terrible mistake. Author - Steven Novella on January 3, 2018
1. Author debates the Indian health minister JP Nadda's, proposal for new bill in India for “alternative medicine”. The bill would allow such practitioners to prescribe medicine and function as primary care doctors after a brief “bridge” course – basically a crash course in medicine (the exact length of the course has not been determined, but Indian states that have similar laws already license practitioners after a three-month course). 2. He also mentions, Quackery in India comparing the Mao’s transformation of medicine in China, and considers the native practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine based on the short courses. 3. Here Indian Medical Association (IMA) is opposing the bill & mentions quackery by quoting the mistakes of the doctors(practitioners) and their accountability.
Integrity and reliability of an article.
1. Indian Medical Association directly or indirectly described Siddha medicine as quackery.
2. Article is a personal view of an author, with very few quotes without any references.
3. Reference article it self not reliable, integrity is skeptical.
80.62.119.126 ( talk) 09:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the previous lines in this section, i have clearly explained and brought it for discussion. Though its in discussion, i haven't removed it. Hope you can see its placed in critics section. Don't blindly revert the changes 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 15:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trying to vandalise Siddha medicine as quackery without interpreting the reference source correctly, not ready for discussion.
Do not mention IMA. Kindly attach the press release or the research document from Indian Medical Association stating so. The reference article generalizes the Quackery in medical field, but the edit based on it bringing unnecessary focus is on Siddha & Indian Medical Association. Nthamizhs ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only twice and the mentioned appearance states only about the bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[5] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below. 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Title of Ref - IMA Anti Quackery
[1]
References
Title of Ref - Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine [1]
References
The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?
To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only once and the mentioned appearance states only about the severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas & bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[4] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below. 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Chsbi ( talk) 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC) None of the sources mention alternative medicine as quackery. The articles are clear in stating that practice of modern medicine without proper training is quackery. Please dont use predetermined ideas to misinterpret information.
The page is vandalised. The editors seems to have agreed anything as reference source which are not at all connected to the actual content. The sentence “Supreme court of India and Ima considers Siddha medicine as quack” does not have any proper source in the cited reference. Likewise the whole article is somewhat vandalised. Mohanabhil ( talk) 17:16, 9 February 2020 (
The IMA or Indian Medicial Association is a association of practitioners of Modern medicine. Therefore they cannot criticise the physicians of Traditional Medical Systems like Siddha. If they are talking about quacks practicing Allopathy with a Siddha degree, can be justified but if they consider all Siddha practitioners as quacks, its absurd. Siddha courses are 5 and 1/2 year course governed by IMCC act 1970 and CCIM(Central COuncil of Indian Medicine ) is the regulatory body for Siddha. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1970-48_0.pdf
https://medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/images/pdf/dme.pdf /info/en/?search=The_Travancore-Cochin_Medical_Practitioners%27_Act,_1953#cite_note-1 http://www.ccras.nic.in/sites/default/files/viewpdf/jimh/BIIHM_1984/1%20to%2013.pdf According to Travancore cochin Medical act there is a separate body for council of Indian System of Medicine that provides Regitration cretificate to practice any where in the state just like Allopathy doctors do. And Siddha doctors are genuine like other doctors..Please update to avoid wrong information— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddham.in ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
needs a better explanation? Richiez ( talk) 13:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The sections like "Treatment" and "Varmam", which are critical to establishing medical efficacy of Siddha, lack clarity. There is no scientific explanation of any treatment method, and there is no reference citation in these sections. This compromises the objectivity of the article. Also, it seems mostly to be in praise of Siddha, and has not included any criticism of it. Hence it doesn't seem to be neutral. Given its provenance (religious background etc) and lack of research evidence, it should be deemed pseudoscientific (or unscientific downright, since there seems to be no science involved, even on the surface, but that's my personal opinion) - as are other branches of alternative medicine - unless proven otherwise, at least in terms of its efficacy. Knaveknight ( talk) 08:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
From this diff. Policy allows it I think, please provide inputs. -- AmritasyaPutra T 17:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe David Gordon White does have something to say about the term being Sanskrit. As for the rest of the edits you asked about: I can't tell for the effectiveness of it, but the intro is highly problematic. It was added by Bladesmulti, and tries to portray Siddha medicine as the oldest medical system in the world. The first sentence, "Siddha Medicine (" சித்த மருத்துவம்" or " தமிழ் மருத்துவம் " in Tamil) is usually considered as the oldest medical system known to mankind" is incorrect, as far as I can see: it suggests that this is the common view on Siddha medicine, whereas this is the view of some of its practitioners. Let's have a look at the sources (I have copy-edited them; it seems that the info on those sources was copied from the internet, without even noticing that the first title had a doublure, nor that "Wellington" is not part of the authorname. Typical):
At best, based on these two sources, you can write "some adherents claim Siddha medicine to be 8,000 years old."
Now, there is a claim on its ancientness in these edits: "Siddha is reported to have surfaced more than 10,000 years ago.
On the other hand, Googling for "A Review on Anti–Arthritic Herbs" I found Parthiban.P et al, A REVIEW ON HEPATOPROTECTIVE HERBS IN SIDDHA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, which says "Siddha system is one of the oldest systems practiced since 4000 years in India".
Okay, this took me at least 45 minutes, to check those sources, and conclude that it's all WP:SYNTH indeed.... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the lead is all referenced to http://indianmedicine.nic.in/siddha.asp, but this website no longer exists (404). If you try http://indianmedicine.nic.in/, you get redirected to the Ministry of AYUSH website. This has a section on Siddha ( http://ayush.gov.in/about-the-systems/siddha), which contains some background information, but it does not support much of the material in the paragraph. Can anyone propose an alternative source that could be used? Girth Summit ( talk) 11:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has unverified facts, and biased approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.192.130 ( talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body, unlike the Indian Medical Association which is a voluntary organisation. Unless an Indian Judicial court or Government of India make a statement that Siddha medicine as quackery. It's just an opinion of an opposing organisation and opinions should not be on the first line whether it's source content or not. 103.231.217.50 ( talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
World_Health_Organization has recognized siddha medicine and as per its guidelines [1]
siddha fall into traditional medicines (TRM) and further categorized as - Herbal medicines in systems, which have been used for a long time and are well documented with their special theories and concepts, and are duly accepted by the respective countries.WHO believes that Practitioners of traditional medicines must be skilled enough to perceive multidisciplinary knowledge of the existing era. The WHO has identified some institutions of excellence as collaborative centers for training of personnel in TM all across the world. Every year, good number of selected health professionals and administrators of TM are sponsored for training at international level. [2].
WHO has initiated a way to standardise the international terminologies to facilitate better communication between practitioners of modern and traditional medicine, and support integration of traditional medicine into the national health system. It also states that traditional medicines are an important integral part of Universal Health Coverage Program especially under Sustainable Developmental Goal-3 (SDG-3) of United Nations [3] 90.185.50.46 ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Topic is ready for discussions. 90.185.50.46 ( talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
References
According to WP:PRIMARY,
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
So, what do secondary sources say about the supreme court decision?
Source: Business Standard Also see [ About Business Standard.
Source: The Telegraph Also see: About The Telegraph
Further reading: While it does not specifically mention the Supreme Court, this article gives a good background on the problems the court is trying to address:
" The spin doctors: India’s quacks imperil lives, but are ‘god’ to their patients -Source: The Hindu
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Here, in any of the sources you quoted, you cannot find Supreme court referring to institutionally qualified, registered practitioners of Ayush. The ‘parambarya vaidyas’ referring here are in fact the non qualified, non registered quacks who approached the court for a favourable order. The court rejected it. How can you say any of these sources are referring to Siddha medicine or any of the Ayush systems? The qualified practitioners of Ayush are registered in Central and State gazzette, studied in medical institutions which are controlled by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970. Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and homeopathy are these systems which comes under Ayush ministry. The court was in any way pointing these systems in the order. The editors who made the statements that the order is about Ayush systems are biased and their editions are vandalism in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Mohanabhil, I am going to stop responding to you now because you refuse to treat other editors with civility and respect. Calling veteran editors vandals and accusing them of bad faith is rude, and I refuse to have a discussion with someone who keeps insulting me. Go ahead and have the last word; I will not reply.
As for your accusations of bias, yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
venipuncture, and biased against
acupuncture.
We are biased towards
actual conspiracies and biased against
conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
vaccination, and biased against
vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards
magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against
magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards
modern medicine, and biased against
AYUSH.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry detergent, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against
facilitated communication.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards
holocaust studies, and biased against
holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the
scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against
global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
geology, and biased against
flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
mendelism, and biased against
lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, yes you are biased! As you said, and I had opinioned earlier! But while justifying your bias, you are resorting to some wierd comparisons in my opinion. Yes, you should be biased towards science. But you should be open for critisism. It is the way science works. You should be biased towards astronomy or chemistry or mathamatics, but should be able see around the world to understand there are things which need to be explained and researched critically ofcourse for the benifit of all these sciences. Closing your mind to everything and saying aloud, yes, I’m biased to science is not the way science works.
And Please recieve my appologies to your criticism that I have insulted you. Of course I didn’t meant to insult anybody and I was making my point. Yes, I told you are biased. And I said you vandalised. Being a senior is respectable. But editing a page which I loves without any properly appreciated references, and at the end, the subject in the article looks like disfigured is what I believe vandalism. And I’m firm in my stand. Thank you. Mohanabhil ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The page is vandalised by citing irrelevant and wrong citiations. The Supreme court of India judgement is cited illogically. Indian medical association is a body of modern medicine doctors who are always against AYUSH systems. Someone vandalised this article by citing a Supreme Court judgement not connected to Siddha medicine and this association news together to fabricate this article. And now the article is locked to prevent vandalism probably by the same editor! Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is vandalised by someone who cited irrelevant SC judgement which was passed against quacks in the country. And now the article is locked to protect vandalism! Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
In India, Siddha medicine is legitimate and officially practiced, comes under department of AYUSH and Siddha doctors are registered under the Medical Council just as modern medical practitioners. Siddha doctors are officially working even in Rashtrapathi Bhavan(Indian President’s banglow). And when you mention the three humours, vatha, pitha , and kapha as non existant, I can understand how much you personally involved in hate spreading and this may be the reason you try to vandalise Siddha medicine article. You no longer appears neutral because you were pushing your own thoughts here. Three humours is the philosophical base of Siddha and other Ayush systems and it is not the topic in discussion here. Amazed to see why you put forth such a point in this discussion.
The discussion here is about wrongly citing Supreme court of India verdict in a different case used by some editors to vandal Siddha medicine article. The judgement can be studied in the same link given as reference and anybody can read and find it is a different case. NO Supreme court judgement is not against Siddha medicine practitioners or any Ayush systems. Some biased editors are behind quoting this to Siddha medicine. And so their aim is to vandal. This is my point. Mohanabhil ( talk) 01:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The supreme court judgement states that: a) Para 42: However, on the model of the 1956 Act, Parliament enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short “the 1970 Act”). The schemes and provisions of the 1970 Act and the 1956 Act are analogous. “Indian medicine” is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean the system of Indian medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. In Section 2(j), the expression “State Register of Indian Medicine” is defined to mean a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine. The Act contemplates having separate committees for Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines. Section 17 enables, inter alia, the persons who possess medical qualifications mentioned in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule to be enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine.
Thus there is a seperate act for Ayush systems named Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. There is seperate gazette under this act as Central registar and State registar. The editor Zefr seems to be completely unaware of the situation. And what he want to quote is regarding Indian Medical Council Act,1956. b)Persons not registered under this Act, etc., not to practice.- No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising modern medicine, homoeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practise any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine:
Wikipedia does not have a page on the same act and some biased editors are using Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 wiki page for wrong citation as gazette of India here. The statements made by Zehr are completey wrong here. Mohanabhil ( talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Look for Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, and study before arguing the legal status of Ayush systems in India http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Indian%20Medicine%20Central%20Council%20Act,%201970.pdf Mohanabhil ( talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The statement “Supreme court of India considers Siddha medicine as quack” is absolutely about the legal status. And the statement is absolutely wrong. The reference given to satisfy the statement is false and cannot be connected. The judgement of Supreme court doesn’t consider Siddha medicine or any Ayush system as fake. The judgement itself is against quacks practicing in the country without any institutional qualification and without any registration in Central or State registar. All the Siddha doctors and other qualified Ayush practitioners are institutionally qualified and registered in Central or State registar which comes under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 which is gazzete of Ayush practitioners. This should not be confused with the Indian Medical Council Act,1956. Mohanabhil ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
AYUSH practitioners in India are: 1) trained at nationally recognised medical universities which are regulated by Cental Council of Indian Medicine which is constituted under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970(Just as modern medical practitioners who are monitered by Medical Council of India) 2) names of AYUSH practitioners are included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians in State and Central Registar which is constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 3) Supreme Court account by Justices Agrawal and Shantanagoudar do not refer to AYUSH as quackery in any way but the judgement is itself against quacks who are non institutionally qualified and not registered under the above said act and gazzette but practicing as Ayush. 4)AYUSH practitioners do not need to have completed bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017 because the course is to equip them handle modern medicine and not Ayush. The government has proposed this bill to equip Ayush practitioners to handle modern medicine where modern medicine doctors are scarce in the parts of country. 5) AYUSH practices are not quackery and are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community. Ayush practioners are serving in mainstream government projects and departments including health services, insurance and railways in the country. There are ample evidence you can find to identify the acceptance of Ayush practitioners in the country by a simple research. If you dont have time to do study about Ayush why are you trying to revert the genuine changes I have made in the wiki page? Mohanabhil ( talk) 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no connection this statement is found in this article: “Identifying fake medical practitioners without any qualification, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions". Because the article is about Siddha medicine and quoting a Supreme court judgement which was against unqualified unregistered quacks does not make any sence in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the unconnected content. Thank you. Mohanabhil ( talk) 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon thinks that his bias in seeing Ayush as quack should be accepted by all. And you are pushing your opinion here by stating Supreme court order is against Ayush. In fact anyone who read the original judgement or the sources where the judgement is published can find the Supreme court judgement is against quacks named as ‘parambarya vaidyas’ and not against any Ayush systems. Guy Macon again threatens that he will block any one who contradict his opinion. Pretending to be impartial/neutral,again he says those who oppose his opinion should be given fair chance to convience! This is the height of something! If anybody is good at technical handling of editing wikipedia, he should not be involved in editing and vandalising pages according to his bias. Mohanabhil ( talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If threatening to request block/ban on me is your policy while engaging in a content debate, you are not even trying to understand the factual error you guys are created in the page. Instead you yourselves try to study the matter and related things. Those points you mentioned above all can be proved with a little bit effort, but I didn’t got enough time to do. I assure you both, Ronz and Guy Macon that I can surely prove everything you pointed. Please give me time. And you guys, instead of threatening me like this, should concentrate more on the factual error. This way of threatening and make use of policies of wiki, is exactly doing the opposite of the meaning of this discussion. Mohanabhil ( talk) 03:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
My evidences for you; AYUSH practitioners are: Trained at nationally recognised medical universities:
1. Courses in various Ayush systems as per Govt of India, Ayush website: http://ayush.gov.in/education/courses-and-study 2.List of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani Medical Colleges with intake capasity as per govt of India, Ayush website: http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/List%20of%20ASU%20Colleges%20with%20intake%20capacity.pdf 3. Indian medicine central council Act, 1970, which governs the education, registration and practice of Ayush practitioners in India from the website of Ayush dept, GOI http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Indian%20Medicine%20Central%20Council%20Act,%201970.pdf
Here, I quote only original documents which clarify anyone who research about the professional qualification of Ayush practitioners in the country. If you need sources which says about the recognised institutions of Ayush, they are plenty.
Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
About: Included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians:
1. List of various state boards for registrations implemented under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and their address and contact details: https://ccimindia.org/state_boards.php 2. List of qualified Siddha practitioners registered in State gazette of the State of Kerala in Travancore- Cochin Medical Council(just for an example for skeptic editors): https://medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/images/tcmc2014/siddhanew.pdf
I dont know how else can I satisfy those who do not believe there is State and Central gazette list of Ayush practitioners rather than referring directly to the lists available online. Mohanabhil ( talk) 10:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Siddha medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change
|year=2002|year=2002
to
|year=2002
which will not change the appearance of the article, but will remove the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 14:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The edited version of the article states Indian Medical Association considers Siddha medicine as dangerous and so and so. While I checked the reference sited, I found out a blog by Indian Medical Association which states this:
Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1.Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. 2.Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3.Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
The 2nd point here is about Ayush practitionrs who are engaged in prescribing modern medicine to public and they considers it as crosspathy. In fact, Ayush practitioners are meaned to practice Ayush and they are doing so. Thus, genuine Ayush practitioners do not comes under any of these catagories. I’m giving enough respect to Indian Medical Association in this context, but my genuine doubt is what is the relevance of Indian Medical Association opinion in this article? Now the other reference is about a Supreme court judgement which itself is against quacks in the country and nothing to do with Ayush. How can we add the opinion of Indian Medical Association opinion about ’crosspathy’ in their blog as a statement here in this article. Mohanabhil ( talk) 04:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
confusing this very ancient medical system to be some 21st century pseudoscience. There's no confusion; it is pseudoscience. There are no reliable sources (sources to the standards of WP:MEDRS) that demonstrate otherwise. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The whole lede here needs a rewrite. It bears no resemblance to WP:LEAD but has an embarrassing whiff of WP:BATTLE and is serious POV pushing in either direction. Gogolwold ( talk) 17:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Warring underway on a page that you have previously protected (still appears to be in place, as my request today for protection went to your previous protection). The two 'camps' are 1) those supporting sourced content to Indian authorities vs. 2) those supporting the pseudoscience and quackery of Siddha medicine. Would appreciate your review and resolution. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a medical article, therefore, the focus should be on MEDRS threshold of verifiability, for or against the subject being defined as pseudoscience. It's not relevant if Siddha medicine is recent or ancient, what matters is how it is seen by medical science. I, myself, am quite critical of many facets of medical orthodoxy — it is often years behind the current edge of scientific innovation, an edge that sometimes includes valuable components from complementary medicine, not all of which are pseudoscience. But regardless, that's just how Wikipedia editors have decided to approach medical articles. That India devotes a government Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy is of significance, to be sure, but what the IMA says is of scientific import. El_C 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
regards Siddha medicine as a danger to national health for its pseudoscience and quackery, having no scientific basis or rigorous clinical evidence of efficacy, or something along those lines. So, where did that claim come from? Because its attribution to that ima-india.org article seem to be seriously flawed. I'll give a little while for proponents to respond, on the chance that I overlooked something pivotal, but otherwise, I am inclined to grant the request made by opponents that the article be reverted to the status quo ante (per WP:ONUS), while most likely a dispute resolution request (like a mutually-agreed upon RfC question) settles the matter. As to the question whether this article falls under ARBPS or ARBCAM, I am open to suggestions about that. As to what extent discretionary sanctions should play a role in this particular dispute, if at all, I am also opening that matter for discussion. El_C 03:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Re "nowhere in the source does the IMA says that it tq|regards Siddha medicine as a danger to national health for its pseudoscience and quackery, having no scientific basis or rigorous clinical evidence of efficacy":
"Having not succeeded to take advantage of ambiguity in State Medical Acts and Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules some practitioners of Ayurvedic, Sidhaand, Unani and Tibb, commonly called Ayush, have concocted a fake name like integrated Medicine and practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) under its grab. The Govt. has clarified that they have not recognized integrated system of Medicine and currently there is no proposal to develop integrated system of Medicine by Govt. of India. Even CCIM in their letter dated 5.12.2008 has announced that the term” Integrated System of Medicine” has not been defined in their Act and it is not one of the approved system of medicine in India. “The practitioners of Integrated System of Medicine are quacks and should be treated alike them.
Then there is a variety of fake medical degrees like electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. who call themselves Alternative System of Medicine and under this guise practice Modern Medicine. Alternative System of Medicine is not recognized by law. Since they are a danger to the nation, there is a need to take action against such quacks wherever we find them. In fact, practitioners of Ayurved, Sidh, Unani, Tibb keep jumping from their original system of medicine to integrated or Alternative System of Medicine just to keep practicing Modern Medicine under different façade. If required, they are not averse to concoct new system of Medicine just to avoid detection." )emphasis added). Seems pretty clear to me. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
What is it but a health claim when it comes to a practice of medicine, such as Siddha medicine?It is a health claim to say that something has a particular health effect, but something else to note that a particular tenet is bogus (consider homeopathy's water memory for instance). — Paleo Neonate – 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Two main thoughts. 1) All of the dispute has been about the lede which contains three concepts: a) Siddha medicine is a traditional medicine defined in Wikipedia as a pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE practice, as is the existing definition for each AYUSH article in Wikipedia: Ayurveda, Unani medicine, Siddha medicine, and Homeopathy. This statement is true. b) the IMA - a 92-year old organization representing MD-equivalent physicians and modeled after the 187-year old British Medical Association - regards Siddha medicine as pseudoscience and quackery. The Supreme Court justices regard untrained, unregistered Siddha practitioners as quacks. Both statements are true, as verified in the lede sources. c) the Indian government has established a ministry to improve the education and quality of AYUSH rural medicine. Other than education programs being established and shown by the primary source links in the lede, there are no WP:RS sources to indicate this conversion has been successful or that Indian rural Siddha medicine has improved beyond its historical quackery practices. The Criticism subsection adds detail and sources to the first two lede concepts. It's not clear what the pro-AYUSH editors are disputing when no WP:MEDSCI sources are offered.
2) there are no WP:MEDRS sources supporting Siddha medicine as a valid, science-based clinical practice or having efficacy. Among 388 publications retrieved in a Pubmed search for 'Siddha', nearly all were published in journals identified as unreliable by WP:CITEWATCH (see disclaimer summary and rank #7). Stated by Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t." No Siddha practice or ministry source has a foundation in evidence-based medicine. We shouldn't expect Wikipedia to lower editorial standards to call AYUSH anything other than the quackery nonsense it is. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Siddha medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page was fully protected with two cite errors (just look at the citation section; they are in red). Please fix the errors. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We call it "Siddha" but the Indian Supreme Court calls it "Sidha". Which spelling is correct? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This was tagged {{ dubious}} and is unsourced save for the last paragraph, so I have removed it pending discussion.
{{
dubious|section}}
In diagnosis, examination of eight items is required which is commonly known as "enn vakaith thervu". These are:
References
I think this is about as appropriate as including the associated chakras in the "medicine" sections of articles on colours. Which is to say: not at all. Guy ( help!) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Reworking the contested lede to present 1) a more representative definition of Siddha medicine and its traditional practices, and 2) attribution by the IMA of Siddha medicine as quackery. This topic conspicuously is pseudoscience, but I found no WP:RS source specifically stating so for Siddha medicine. -- Zefr ( talk) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
---
Siddha medicine is a traditional medicine originating in Tamil Nadu, India and practiced over centuries. [1] The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy of the Government of India regulates training in Siddha medicine and other traditional practices grouped collectively as AYUSH. [2] Practitioners are called siddhars (vaithiyars in Tamil), and may have formal training with advanced degrees, such as BSMS (Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery), MD (Medical Doctor, Siddha) or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). [3] The Central Council of Indian Medicine, a statutory body established in 1971 under AYUSH, monitors education in areas of rural Indian medicine, including Siddha medicine. [4]
In rural India, siddhars have learned methods traditionally through master-disciple relationships to become local "healers". [1] Siddhars are among an estimated 400,000 traditional healers practicing medicine in India, comprising some 57% of rural medical care. [5] [6] Siddha practitioners believe that five basic elements [7] – earth, water, fire, air, sky – are in food, "humours" of the human body, and herbal, animal or inorganic chemical compounds, such as sulfur and mercury, used as therapies for treating diseases. [8]
The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine. [5] [6] Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions". [9]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't.
I also think that the proposed lead is very acceptable. — Paleo Neonate – 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
+The entire supreme court decision is about Sidha. It specifies:
Wikipedia is never going to stop correctly pointing out the the Supreme Court of India has made it crystal clear that the following are two completely different things:
Not. The. Same. Thing. It is time to drop the stick. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Legislation cannot turn bullshit into reality. "The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy of the Government of India coordinates and promotes research in the fields of Ayurveda and Siddha medicine." That is a problem we've seen with the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health for decades. While they have reportedly stopped funding studies into homeopathy (because there is no reason to suppose it should work and no way it can work), they have spent in excess of $3bn trying to validate alternative remedies, with, to date, exactly zero success - other than the success, for the quacks, of conferring spurious legitimacy.
It's the same here. They won't "study" ayurveda, they will try to prove it works. And, much like Chinese studies on TCM, they will probably come up with no negative results. There is a cultural imperative against it.
The relevance of politics is that the quackery is tolerated, promoted or not illegal, or whatever. Politics does not magically make bullshit into not-bullshit. Licensing quackery does not make it not quackery. In the US, several states have licensed naturopaths as primary care providers. They are still quacks. However, we should focus on the practices not the people. In India, more than in America, the practitioners are not generally evil, the licensed practitioners have a quasi-religious belief in what they do. They are sincere and well-intentioned practitioners of bullshit. Whereas the unlicensed practitioners are more often quacks in the classic sense. Guy ( help!) 08:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion initiated to remove the line The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery. from the article.
Abstract Siddha discipline itself may be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is struggling to prove it through Indian judicial system. Siddha medicine cannot be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is not ready to research on the Siddha medicine and they are formed to looks after the interest of doctors as well as the well being of the community at large.
Correct interpretation of the Articles
Title of Ref - "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery" [1]
References
Subject - To address a doctor shortage, Indian health minister JP Nadda is proposing licensing practitioners of ayurveda and homeopathy. This would be a terrible mistake. Author - Steven Novella on January 3, 2018
1. Author debates the Indian health minister JP Nadda's, proposal for new bill in India for “alternative medicine”. The bill would allow such practitioners to prescribe medicine and function as primary care doctors after a brief “bridge” course – basically a crash course in medicine (the exact length of the course has not been determined, but Indian states that have similar laws already license practitioners after a three-month course). 2. He also mentions, Quackery in India comparing the Mao’s transformation of medicine in China, and considers the native practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine based on the short courses. 3. Here Indian Medical Association (IMA) is opposing the bill & mentions quackery by quoting the mistakes of the doctors(practitioners) and their accountability.
Integrity and reliability of an article.
1. Indian Medical Association directly or indirectly described Siddha medicine as quackery.
2. Article is a personal view of an author, with very few quotes without any references.
3. Reference article it self not reliable, integrity is skeptical.
80.62.119.126 ( talk) 09:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the previous lines in this section, i have clearly explained and brought it for discussion. Though its in discussion, i haven't removed it. Hope you can see its placed in critics section. Don't blindly revert the changes 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 15:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trying to vandalise Siddha medicine as quackery without interpreting the reference source correctly, not ready for discussion.
Do not mention IMA. Kindly attach the press release or the research document from Indian Medical Association stating so. The reference article generalizes the Quackery in medical field, but the edit based on it bringing unnecessary focus is on Siddha & Indian Medical Association. Nthamizhs ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only twice and the mentioned appearance states only about the bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[5] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below. 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Title of Ref - IMA Anti Quackery
[1]
References
Title of Ref - Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine [1]
References
The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?
To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only once and the mentioned appearance states only about the severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas & bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[4] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below. 80.62.119.126 ( talk) 12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Chsbi ( talk) 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC) None of the sources mention alternative medicine as quackery. The articles are clear in stating that practice of modern medicine without proper training is quackery. Please dont use predetermined ideas to misinterpret information.
The page is vandalised. The editors seems to have agreed anything as reference source which are not at all connected to the actual content. The sentence “Supreme court of India and Ima considers Siddha medicine as quack” does not have any proper source in the cited reference. Likewise the whole article is somewhat vandalised. Mohanabhil ( talk) 17:16, 9 February 2020 (
The IMA or Indian Medicial Association is a association of practitioners of Modern medicine. Therefore they cannot criticise the physicians of Traditional Medical Systems like Siddha. If they are talking about quacks practicing Allopathy with a Siddha degree, can be justified but if they consider all Siddha practitioners as quacks, its absurd. Siddha courses are 5 and 1/2 year course governed by IMCC act 1970 and CCIM(Central COuncil of Indian Medicine ) is the regulatory body for Siddha. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1970-48_0.pdf
https://medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/images/pdf/dme.pdf /info/en/?search=The_Travancore-Cochin_Medical_Practitioners%27_Act,_1953#cite_note-1 http://www.ccras.nic.in/sites/default/files/viewpdf/jimh/BIIHM_1984/1%20to%2013.pdf According to Travancore cochin Medical act there is a separate body for council of Indian System of Medicine that provides Regitration cretificate to practice any where in the state just like Allopathy doctors do. And Siddha doctors are genuine like other doctors..Please update to avoid wrong information— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddham.in ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)