Talk:Siddha medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"almost similar"[edit]

needs a better explanation? Richiez (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Improve references=[edit]

The article has unverified facts, and biased approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.192.130 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus, it is mostly sourced to sites and books affiliated with this field, and states its claims as a fact. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's why refimprove tag was originally added. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Rosoft:-Any ideas for development? Create a dump of reliable high quality sources (Keeping MEDRS in mind) over the t/p and then re-build the article from them? Can you help out? WBGconverse 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Establishing medical efficacy[edit]

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)

Agreed. This is a serious problem. The article seems to be more interested in praising & promoting Siddha. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this content valid?[edit]

From this diff. Policy allows it I think, please provide inputs. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because that is not "valid referenced content", which is why it was removed. Ogress 19:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: I did not mean the entire diff. Iff something is valid. Like this? --AmritasyaPutraT 02:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: The use of dictionaries is often questionable. That there appears to be WP:SYNTH; do you have a quote for that cite? Ogress 03:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
For "sanskrit word siddhi". The Oxford and Encarta dictionary also say the same. There isn't a reference saying otherwise about its etymology. I do not have Apte book in print, I copied reference form etymology section of its wiki page. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:51, 8 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):

  • Richard S Weiss (2009), Recipes for Immortality : Healing, Religion, and Community in South India, Oxford University Press, p.93 - this probably refers to this line: "Paul Joseph Thottam, in his introduction to siddha medicine, traces the beginnings of siddha knowledge to the Indus Valley civilization, which he dates to about 6000 B.C.E." (thanks, Questia!) Ai...
  • John Douillard (2004), The Encyclopedia of Ayurvedic Massage, North Atlantic Books, p. 3: "Ayurvedic massage has its roots in Siddha medicine, a system of medicine that was brought to the south of India by the great siddhar or sage Agastya. It is said that Siddha medicine is the oldest system of medicine in the world, with siddhars claiming it to be 8,000 years old." "It is said," without any reference, is very vague, and certainly not "usually considered."

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.

  • 1. A Review on Anti–Arthritic Herbs in Siddha Medicine INTRODUCTION quote: "Siddha medicine has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years" - this quote does not appear in this article; see full text;
  • 2. India's 'yoga ministry' stirs doubts among scientists - full title includes "Ancient remedies and practices see a boost in government support, but evidence of their effectiveness is scarce." ... Quote: "While homoeopathy originated in Europe, and unani is a version of ancient Greek medicine, India also has native medical traditions. These include siddha, which originated in southern India as early as 10,000 years ago, and ayurveda, which dates back to the sixth century bc or earlier." No references.
  • 3. "Siddha System of Life", Es Citamparatāṇuppiḷḷai, p.3-4 - published by "Siddha Medical Literature Research Centre," no preview at Google Books

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)

I had made no comment on this piece. I had only replied to the etymology. 1. "... has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years" - is present in full text. 2. Dating is different form ascertaining effectiveness. 3. It also says "Siddha medicine has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years...". Ambiguity is different from synthesis. For example, documenting ambiguity in the birth year of Gautam Buddha is not synthesis. Your suggestion "some adherents claim Siddha medicine to be 8,000 years old." is very apt. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right; it's in there; sorry. I used the search-function for the webpage, which gave no hit. But I found it when I downloaded the pdf.
As for the dating, most accurate seems to be something like "..may be as old as 4,000 years, although some adherents claim it to be as old as 10,000 years." 4,000 years already would be problematic, of course, let alone 10,000; what kind of sources, or even artifacts, do we have to rely on? No written sources, for sure. But I guess this should not be the main point; that's more like 'mine is bigger than yours' etc. The interesting point, as far as I can see, is: what did, and does, Siddha medicine mean to its adherents? How are mythology, shamanism, and herbal medicine intertwined? How do people actually perceive 'the' world, and what means do they use to interact with it and alter it? And that's not a question of "Is it true?", or "Is it proven to be effective"; in the end it's the question "What does it mean to be human, how do we construct our world?" Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way: is there also an 'indigenous' Tamil name for Siddha medicine, instead of a Sanskrit-derived name? Or is the influence of Sanskritization so pervasive? And if so, what does this tell about the development of Siddha medicine? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I really appeciate, what I perceive as your deep thinking, at the same time I must admit I am unable to fully follow you in the present context. I can only say that I concur with your phrasing along the lines "...may be as old as 4,000 years, although some adherents claim it to be as old as 10,000 years" as far as the ambiguity in dating is concerned. I do not understand what you mean by "influence of Sanskritization". You would agree with me that there is a genuine problem in getting online English Journal references for traditional Tamil work. Do you have access to this library: http://117.239.104.150/nislib/Default.aspx (I am not even sure link will open outside India). This might give some more info too. There is this University brochure kind of document -- You might visit the place and one might even ask why begin with distrust for all the practitioners there? --AmritasyaPutraT 07:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, running into the limits of my English vocubalary: "is very apt". I don't know what it means, and I also didn't search it up. Ah, "geschikt, passend, vaardig".
With "influence of Sanskritization" I mean the process whereby Sanskrit culture penetrated the whole Indian subcontinent. If Siddha medicine is Tamil, then why does it have a Sanskrit name? Was Tamil culture so deeply influenced by Sanskrit culture?.
I will try the links later; peeping away from boring job once and a while... which has to to continue, though.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
We can drop the idea about dating Siddha Medicine and also the recent mention of Sanskrit, although we can consider it to be oldest since it is backed by a few reliable sources, including [1] D4iNa4 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Siddha[edit]

As siddha has popularity in nowadays Yaseen258 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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)

Ministry of AYUSH[edit]

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)

See WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:BALASP states that:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
WP:UNDUE states that:
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.
As of this writing only Mr. KK Aggarwal of Indian Medical Association a voluntary organisation made the following statement that
"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?"
Also, he made the statement generally not specific to Siddha medicine. Including all Alternative medicine such as Ayurvedic and homeopathic.
This is a minority view and should not be included in the first paragraph of the Article as stated in the WP:BALASP & WP:UNDUE because it disproportionate the overall significance of the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.217.50 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The Indian Medical Association is not a tiny minority. Ifnord (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The view of Siddha and other forms of rural medicine (Ayurveda) as quackery is a widely held one, both inside and outside of India, such as:"SS Uttre, the president of the Maharashtra state medical association, said the proposal would dilute medical education and provide a "back-way entry into medicine". He added: "We are going to oppose it tooth and nail." from The Guardian and India is training ‘quacks’ to do real medicine. Mosaic Science (UK Wellcome Foundation) which quoted the Indian Supreme Court when penalising rural practitioners. "The judgement noted that the homeopath had been negligent in practising modern medicine, in which he had no training... "A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan."
More specifically for articles on Wikipedia, see WP:BURDEN: the burden to prove Siddha medicine is not quackery remains with the IP user 103.231.217.50. Jimmy Wales said: "...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." WP:QUACKS. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"...if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments"
What scientific experiment was done on Siddha medicine specifically please provide the details.
"A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan."
Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery)
There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.
Zefr is trying to prove Siddha medicine as quackery without much knowledge on the Topic.45.125.116.118 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
What Zefr's expertise on Siddha medicine is, is irrelevant. We are guided by sources here. This is basic. There appears to be multiple IP in use by one editor here -- WP:SOCKing is very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Fringe theories? How come the following two criteria is not scientific enough?
Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery)
There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.103.231.217.50 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
There are all sorts of courses in all sorts of nonsenses all over the world. So what? To repeat, we reflect what good sources say not the WP:OR of WP:PROFRINGE editors. Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Siddha medicine quackery?[edit]

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.

Previous discussions were about the organizations - Ministry of AYUSH & Indian Medical Association, instead of discussing about the disproportionate entry and the relative significance of the reference associated with the article topic.
Adding reference doesn't mean the edit is perfect, we also need to spend some time on interpreting the references.
Editors using outdated java script tools - For persons who just revert the edits all the time and claim themselves as advanced editors. please spend some time reading the reference and participate in talk discussions.

Correct interpretation of the Articles

Title of Ref - "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery" [1]

References

  1. ^ Steven Novella (3 January 2018). "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery". Science-Based Medicine.

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)

You have not explained your removal of this properly sourced content. Please stop. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:40, 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.

The Criticism section - one sentence - is fine, but it is an important part of the article, so can be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents... The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" and WP:BALANCE: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." --Zefr (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

  1. ^ "IMA Anti Quackery". Indian Medical Association. 2014. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
The purpose of the above article is to compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.
Article clearly states, Indian Medical Degree Act 1916 (which is still operational) covers all registered degrees i.e. modern medicine, Indian System of Medicine, Homeopathic. The Western Medical Science (Modern Medicine) was defined to mean the Western method of allopathic medicine of obstetrics and surgeries but has excluded homeopathy, ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine from its purview
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.


Title of Ref - Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine [1]

References

  1. ^ Michael Safi (2 January 2018). "Indian doctors protest against plan to let 'quacks' practise medicine". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2019. 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?
In this article, Quacks refers to the self claimed doctors from the practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani).
it talks about the government 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)

Do not do that. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The IMA says: "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : [...] 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." So technically the IMA only considers those practitioners of Sidha quacks who practice modern medicine without also happening to be trained doctors. They mention at length, however, that the CCIM, the governing body for Indian medicine including Sidha, deliberately tries to blur the lines and have its practitioners practice modern medicine as quacks ("The main roadblock to eradication of quackery is CCIM..."). Under these circumstances I don't think that rewording the statement in the article from "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery" to "The Indian Medical Association regards practitioners of Siddha who practice modern medicine as quacks" will significantly improve the article. Huon (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur. The article should say "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree too; the source seems quite clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with others opinion, but do we need the same sentence repeating in two places in the article.i.e. lead and criticism. Is that seems to be duplicate.90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:53, 5 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 (UTC)

World Health Organization has recognized siddha medicine[edit]

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

  1. ^ "Guidelines for the regulation of herbal medicines" (PDF). World Health Organization.
  2. ^ "Contribution of world health organization". US National Library of Medicine.
  3. ^ "WHO Working Group Meeting". Press Information Bureau Government of India.
What would you like to discuss? I've removed it from the article as being grossly undue. In the context of your other edits, it puts you one step closer to a block. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point the conversation jumped with a lurch from discussing the World Health Organization to discussing the Indian national government, so I separated that discussion into a new section. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the World Health Organization, we already know that they have been hijacked by Quacks. See:
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It's true that the WHO has some curious corners, but their view is probably due. My problem with this is saying that they have "recognized" Siddah medicine is over-simplified/inaccurate. It looks to me more that the WHO believe it should be regulated and standardized, which is a rather different thing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Indian national government[edit]

Tell me why we should not add this in article, Haven't you found any thing relevant in the above topic 90.185.50.46 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Its mentioned as Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Siddha medicine, are not certified or authorized to call themselves doctors by any recognized government body in India - you don't have proof for this or valid reference but still you have this on the article page. So i wanted to bring this in to discussion for removing this line. Cos i can see that Indian Govt, WHO have recognized it and we have universities providing courses to certify them. Should this be removed!! ? 90.185.50.46 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned that there may be a language problem that is making this difficult. I'm not clear what you're trying to convey in your response.
I've removed it as being grossly WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I am stating that there is a Valid Law in India & separate ministry, which allows to practice siddha medicine. There are universities which offers courses for siddha and on completion ppl are certified as Doctors. Those doctor certificate is authorized to call themselves as doctors. Can you understand this or do i need to make it more simple.!? 90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This appears unrelated to the WHO material. What are you proposing? --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
90.185.50.46, Yes. You do need to need to make it more simple. You need to say "right now the article says X". I propose changing X to Y". You need to tell us exactly what changes you wish to make to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I fell like the highlighted text is not true, i wanted to discuss and know third opinion.
Right Now article says, Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Siddha medicine, are not certified or authorized to call themselves doctors by any recognized government body in India. I propose removing it.90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Right Now article says, Since 1953, the Indian national government has not recognized Siddha medicine or any alternative system of medicine as valid, and there is no proposal to integrate Siddha medicine into conventional medicine practiced in India. . I propose removing it.90.185.50.46 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want us to remove statements about the Indian national government then give us some references from reliable sources that talk about the Indian national government. So far you have only talked about the World Health Organization. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
And incidentally, the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine is not published by the US National Library of Medicine, as claimed by the IP. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Supreme court of India[edit]

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)

It appears that Mohanabhil is pushing the same POV in our Unani medicine article. Should that article be semi-protected as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon cannot identify fake citiation. Please go thremugh the references cited 2&3 and study what SC had told. Its not against Ayush systems including Siddha and Unani. Its against quacks in the country. And remove the fabricated version quoting the same. Only Indian medical association possess such an opinion about Siddha and Unani if any. Mohanabhil (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The page appears to be vandalised and the statements “”The Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard Siddha medicine as quackery”” and “”Identifying practitioners of Siddha medicine, 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".[3]”” are totally fabricated and misquoted from the order. Because the SC verdict is about quacks in the country snd not about any of the Ayush systems. Some of the editors are trying to make some fabricated stories in the page and now being semi protected, the vadalised page exists here. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
STOP editorializing in your section headings. Section headings should be neutrally worded questions. Make your point in your comments.
STOP creating new sections when you are discussing the same thing you were already discussing in the previous section.
STOP calling everyone who disagrees with you a vandal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
You claim that some Siddha medicine is legitimate, but the fact is that all practitioners of Siddha medicine are quacks. The three humors -- Vaadham, Pittham and Kapam -- do not exist. In India, there is no governmental recognition of siddhars as legitimate physicians. And even if there was, government recognition of quackery does not make it any less quackery. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 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)

Got any sources for any of those claims?
From our article on Ministry of AYUSH:
"The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Homoeopathy (abbreviated as AYUSH) is purposed with developing education, research and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in India.... The ministry has faced significant criticism for funding systems that lack biological plausibility and is either untested or conclusively proven as ineffective. Quality of research has been poor, and drugs have been launched without any rigorous pharmacological studies and meaningful clinical trial. Ethical concerns have been raised about various schemes that increasingly compel rural populace into accepting AYUSH based healthcare."
The word "Homoeopathy" in the title tells us everything we need to know about the Ministry of AYUSH. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you got any source to prove the edit “the supreme court of India and Indian medical association regards Siddha medicine as quack”? The reference cited is illogical and thus the page is vandalised. Wikipedia says: Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. But it seems the edits was made intentional and was not made in good faith. That is why you are again and again pushing your own views. If you dont like homeopathy, its again your personal view. You are not looking neutral. The discussion is about the opinion of Supreme court of India; not your personal opinion. Please remember that. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Supreme Court document: a) paragraph 17 discusses that a medical practitioner must be trained at a recognised medical university, and b) enrolled and registered by name in the Gazette of India, according to the Indian Medical Council Act, Definitions (excludes AYUSH as of 2018), c) paragraph 38 discusses that persons not registered under the Act or listed in the Gazette are not recognised as valid medical practitioners (excludes AYUSH as of 2018), d) paragraph 42 discusses that AYUSH pseudomedicine practices are not yet established in the general system of accepted Indian medicine, as of 2018.
To persuade other editors that the article is factually balanced per WP:IMPARTIAL, Mohanabhil or other pro-AYUSH editors need to provide WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners are:
1) trained at nationally recognised medical universities
2) names of AYUSH practitioners are included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians
3) reliable sources countering this Supreme Court account that Justices Agrawal and Shantanagoudar refer to AYUSH as quackery
4) WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners have completed adequate bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017
5) WP:MEDSCI reviews stating that AYUSH practices are not quackery and are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community. --Zefr (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I know very little about this however using the first ref in the lead I learned:
"The systems of medicines generally prevalent in India are Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Allopathic and Homoeopathic. In the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems, the treatment is based on the harmony of the four humours, whereas in the Allopathic system of medicine, treatment of disease is given by the use of a drug which produces a reaction that itself neutralizes the disease. In Homoeopathy, treatment is provided by the like. Of the medical systems that are in vogue in India, Ayurveda had its origin in 5000 BC and is being practised throughout India but Siddha is practised in the Tamil-speaking areas of South India. These systems differ very little both in theory and practice."
I was unable to find any info suggesting that Siddha medicines are seen as quackery. Could someone please quote that finding to me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Isn't that covered by the references for the second sentence of the lede? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The other ref is this guy and this book? [2] Surly a better source would be needed here, and easy enough to find if this statement is factual? Actually I was referring to the sentence that referred to it as quackery - I got interrupted while I was reading the first of the three you mention (and it is hard reading indeed) - and mentioned the wrong sentence. I'll try to find time to read the other two but it was my strong impression that India does not see this form of medicine as quackery. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I mean the second sentence of the lede, which has three references. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Ronz OK, I read all of that and more including this:[3] Nowhere can I find that India considers Siddha medicine quackery. Could you provide that quote for me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I've no idea, nor time to look. Ping some of the other editors that have participated. I'm unclear why you're concerned with what "India considers". --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I know almost nothing about this. I just assumed that it is mostly only practiced in India. I see that it says that it is similar to Ayurveda. Which I don't know much about either but have heard more about. Well, thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 11 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)

This isn't about the legal status, but the status in medical science. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 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)

That is my understanding as well from all the reading that I did. It needs to be removed if an editor cannot show a reliable source making the connection. Gandydancer (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unconnected content. Thank you. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

...which was wrong. The issue is still being discussed. If you keep assuming partway through the discussion that you have a consensus, you will be reverted (again) and if you continue this behavior you are likely to be blocked. I don't want to you to be blocked. I think it is very important that editors like you who object to the content of the page get a fair chance to convince everyone else that you are right.
This is 100% WP:OR. As Zefr says above, to persuade other editors that your changes are WP:IMPARTIAL you need to provide WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners are:
  • Trained at nationally recognised medical universities
  • Included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians
  • Have completed adequate bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017
  • Are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community.
You have not done this. you have not even tried to do this. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 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)

Mohanabhil, you need to focus on content and content policies. Otherwise you're going to get yourself blocked or banned. Please review WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 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)

What do the sources say about the supreme court decision?[edit]

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?

Quacks practising medicine great risk to society: Supreme Court
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern that a number of quacks practicing medicine are playing with the lives of people and posing a great risk to society.
"A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people," said a bench of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
"People having no recognised and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Sometimes such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost."
Speaking for the bench, Justice Agrawal noted that even after 70 years of Independence, "people having little knowledge or no recognised or approved qualification are practising medicine".
"The government has been vigilant all along to stop such quackery."
Holding that the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, it said: "But that right is subject to any law relating to the professional or technical qualification necessary."
The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right, both with regard to the standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct, have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper healthcare of persons, the judgement said.
The court said this addressing the question as to whether the persons who do not fulfill the prescribed qualification and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practice as 'Paramparya Vaidyas'.
It dismissed the plea by Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, which was ousted from practising the indigenous medicine after the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 which barred the unqualified doctors in the stream of siddha/unani/ayurveda system of medicine came into force.
The Forum had challenged a 2003 Kerala High Court order rejecting their plea.

Source: Business Standard Also see [About Business Standard.

Top court clamps down on 'quacks'
New Delhi:
Ayurveda, unani or homoeopathy healers cannot practise without getting themselves officially registered, the Supreme Court has ruled while expressing concern at quacks "playing with lives".
Practitioners of alternative medicine need to be registered under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, for which they are required to obtain a degree or diploma from a recognised institution teaching these courses.
"Earlier, there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to doctors, vaidyas and hakimis," the bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and M. Shantanagoudar observed on Friday.
"But the situation has changed and there are quite a good number of institutions imparting education in indigenous medicines."
Therefore, the bench said, there is no excuse 70 years after Independence for people "having little knowledge or having no recognised or approved qualification... practising medicine and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people".
"A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society," it added.
The court dismissed a plea from the Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, which had challenged a 15-year-old Kerala High Court order that had rejected its plea to allow the unregistered to practise indigenous medicine.
According to the petitioners, the requirement for mandatory registration hurts Kerala's paramparya vaidyas - entire families that have for ages been practising siddha, unani or ayurveda for a living, with the elders passing their knowledge on to the next generation.
With the introduction of the IMCC Act, 1970, and certain other laws, these hereditary healers have been debarred from practising unless they get themselves registered.
However, this has been difficult for them because they claim to learn their art from family elders and not recognised institutions.
The forum argued that tradition requires the paramparya vaidyas to hand their knowledge down to their descendants. It claimed their practice has an edge over modern medicine, in that they prepare medicines for each patient separately and these have no side effects.
The state government defended the restrictions, saying many people were practising indigenous medicine without qualification or registration in Kerala, endangering people's lives and health.

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)

I wonder if this 2015 PubMed article which states, "The Government of India has accepted AYUSH and has been promoting their use in public health facilities since 1995." [4] would be adequate? Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There are two topics: the legal status in India and if it is considered effective by mainstream medicine today. I will only comment on the latter: WP:PSCI (the policy on pseudoscience) requires that pseudoscientific topics be clearly defined as such. WP:MEDRS (the policy on reliable sources for biomedical claims) must also be followed for any claim of efficacy. This comment is also valid for the Unani medicine article. —PaleoNeonate – 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:PaleoNeonate. Yes, the latest article edit with RS helped me to see what is going on here. I'm not sure if it is correct or not to have one branch of Indian medicine pronounce judgement on the other when both (in India) have been judged as acceptable forms of treatment providing that practitioners have attended approved schools and have been licensed per national requirements, but that is what is being accepted for this article. I tend to believe that it is not good practice to let one branch make a judgement on the other when they are both acceptable per governmental standards and then use that for WP, but I will no longer argue this now that I can see the broader picture here. I am curious, however, how it is that Ayurvedic medicine is not being called pseudoscience as well. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't recently check if any such material once existed at the Ayurvedic article. PSCI is also not always easy to apply. Distinction between traditional and pseudoscientific is often stressed by proponents (it can certainly be both if still practiced, especially in areas where better medicine is widely available). Sometimes even WHO sources treat traditional medicines especially, partly because of the lower cost and high availability in areas it's widely practiced (and maybe an aspect of comfort with tradition). Finding skeptic sources is often easier, then again we might find something very general that's not about that specific medicine type (various shades of WP:SYNTH possible), or a person's blog (WP:PARITY might allow using such, especially if the source is from someone notable or expert in the field)... —PaleoNeonate – 23:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.[edit]

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:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, 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.[5][6][7][8]"

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)

I wholeheartedly support this bias. Dare to doubt! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 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)

Relevance of Indian Medical Association[edit]

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)

I will reply to your rest of the concerns with this article here. It appears to be outright WP:POV pushing on the part of Zefr and Roxy the dog who are confusing this very ancient medical system to be some 21st century pseudoscience quackery and the text the way it has been presented does violates WP:SYNTH. For starters I too support removal from the lead unless we have scholarly sources backing it, not the agenda-based news sources which are either way unreliable for this subject. ML 911 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of POV pushing again. Thanks. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you are doing anything else here though. You clearly lack understand of this subject and have done nothing except restoring brainless smears. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Is that remark addressed to me, or somebody else? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
RTD, Instead of WP:STONEWALLING it would be best for you if you address the justified concerns raised on talk page against the apparent undue synthesis. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 14:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"Quackery" is indeed a very emotive word, and would best be avoided unless part of a direct quote. On the other hand, omitting this word, it's clearly wrong to say that anyone is 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)
Indeed wikipedia is not truth but based on quality sources. Why we cannot find multiple academic sources calling this medical system a 'pseudoscience' 'quackery' instead of misrepresenting spicy news sources? I don't get it. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:27, 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)

  • @Guy Macon: I am not getting why you restored the problematic sentences in the light of above messages. Are we really sticking to this WP:SYNTH? A claim from a volunteer organization isn't authority for this subject as specified above. ML 911 16:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
First, please don't ping me. when I edit a page I watch the article talk page.
Second, Mohanabhil (who is currently blocked for edit warring), removed...
"The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as a danger to national health for its pseudoscience and quackery, having no scientific basis or rigorous clinical evidence of efficacy."
...and inserted...
"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."
Our article on the Indian Medical Association says:
"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a national voluntary organisation of Doctors of Modern Scientific System of Medicine in India, which looks after the interest of doctors as well as the well being of the community at large.... With over 305458 member doctors through more than 1,700 active local branches in 29 States and Union Territories in India, it is the largest association of physicians and medical students in India."
Our article on the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy says:
"The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Homoeopathy (abbreviated as AYUSH) is purposed with developing education, research and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in India... The ministry has faced significant criticism for funding systems that lack biological plausibility and is either untested or conclusively proven as ineffective. Quality of research has been poor, and drugs have been launched without any rigorous pharmacological studies and meaningful clinical trial."
So to answer your question, yes, Wikipedia will always take the side of actual doctors practicing actual science, and will never, ever take the side of quacks relying on pseudoscience. Please read Talk:Siddha medicine#Yes. We are biased. again. Proponents of pretty much every topic on that list have tried to get Wikipedia stop saying bad things about astrology, homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, laundry balls, microlepton fields, holocaust denial, flood geology, ancient astronauts, phrenology, lysenkoism, etc. None have succeeded. The similar attempts on this page will not succeed. You are wasting your time trying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Ditto Macon. The article is now protected but, for once, it is on the right version. Wikipedia and its editors need to desist, and for our own credibility be seen to desist, anything suggesting the integrity of the black arts, black magic, hermetics, magic, sorcery, thaumaturgy, witchcraft, wizardry or any other arcanery dressed up in the language of scientific discourse.
We can of course report that others believe in them, if the information is supported with independent reliable sources and in adherence to core policies of WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Etc.
On a not unrelated note, too many good editors were blocked here. ——SN54129 17:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not all traditional and alternative medicines are pseudoscientific. Wikipedia has policy, and guidelines called WP:NPOV, WP:HISTRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP all of which IMA fails drastically. So yes, the text is poorly written WP:SYNTH and shouldn't be added without clear cut consensus on talk page which currently does not even exist. You are very wrong with creating a false equivalence between this ancient medical system with "homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, laundry balls, microlepton fields, holocaust denial". Also see WP:OR. Problems started on this article after Zefr happened to misrepresent sources on 28 November.[9] I hope you are not saying that Wikipedia didn't followed its own policies before that day. ML 911 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Name one traditional or alternative treatment isn't pseudoscientific. We have a name for those treatments (and there are many) that we learned from traditional/alternative medicine and that we proved to be safe and effective through double-blind clinical trials published in recognized medical journals. We call them "medical treatments" or just "modern medicine". The ones that don't work are the ones we call traditional or alternative medicine. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Refactored from my (El_C's) talk page[edit]

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)

From a cursory glance, it looks like the dispute arose from changes you've introduced in late November. I don't know enough about the matter of the Indian Medical Association's view versus that of the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, even though it is clear that per MEDRS, the former carries more weight on the English Wikipedia. At any rate, I fully-protected the page for a long while, while this gets sorted. Perhaps this is something a quorum of admins ought to deliberate on at Arbitration enforcement, though it is surely to constitute a highly unusual request (I tend to think this isn't something the Committee will want to comment on directly). Myself, I simply don't know enough about the subject, which places me at a bit of a disadvantage in virtually all respects save my detachment. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, in any case. El_C 16:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The dispute on talk page is valid and it is that a volunteer organization is certainly not a credible source since it is not producing scholarly work neither it has any authority. I do think that the problem into this article had been introduced by Zefr's edits and appears to have been violating WP:SYNTH, typically similar to his some of the earliest edits on this article that were violating WP:NPOV and misrepresented sources. [10] Would you mind restoring the version to 28th November[11] until consensus is reached? I would also note the increasing calls on talk page by enough users to remove the problematic content from main article.[12] ML 911 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't feel confident enough at this time to edit the protected page — due to the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions the topic falls under, not even to the status quo ante version, though that is an option that remains open-ended. As for the IMA, it is a reputable body established almost a century ago, which counts among its membership over 300,000 Indian doctors, so labeling it as "not a credible source" seems rather questionable. El_C 17:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Where as Siddha medicine is in use for thousands of years, so it would require consensus throughout mainstream academia that it is indeed a pseudoscience. We don't have single academic source to highlight that. The subject must prefer WP:HISTRS at the same time given its antiquity which a volunteer organization fails to fulfill. This topic does not fall under pseudoscience but WP:ARBCAM the Arbcom sanction created for Alternative medicines as Arbcom agreed that not all alternative medicines are pseudoscience. I also don't think that protection was warranted since nearly all of the edit warring editors (about 4) were blocked before protection. ML 911 17:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
For now, the article does fall under ARBPS instead of ARBCAM, simply because that what the notice at the top of the page says. Since I am the one who added that notice, I will add that I also am open to persuasion about that distinction —i.e. possibly supplanting the former with the latter— but being practiced for thousands of years, to me, is not a convincing argument. Furthermore, the view of the IMA, which quite likely represents modern medical scientific consensus, carries a lot of weight in so far as MEDRS are concerned — a facet you've yet to seriously address. As for the protection, I deemed it as being necessary because, regardless of the short partial blocks applied to some participants in the edit war, there were clearly other editors who were willing to take their place (which does make sense in a dispute as high-profile as this). El_C 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
What carries more weight is decided by sources per WP:RS and WP:CONTEXT and for this subject they should be preferably those who meet WP:HISTRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP since this subject isn't some 21st century claptrap but an ancient medical practice that has influenced creation of present day medicals. To be more clear, pseudoscience is something that pretends to be scientific, not something that originated before modern science. This is exactly why not a single academic source calls Siddha medicine a pseudoscience even after attracting millions of their pages dedicated to this subject. Using a source that has conflict of interest violates WP:NPOV and also WP:UNDUE. ML 911 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Not true. Astrology, Phrenology, Alchemy, The four elements, Hindu cosmology are all ancient, and yet anyone who believes in them today believes in pseudoscience. An ancient origin has nothing to do with whether modern belief in something is pseudoscience. BTW, "not a signle academic source"? It took me less that two minutes to find [13]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikipedia's usual hair on fire attempt to let our readers know in no uncertain terms that anything other than modern Western medicine is pseudoscience is what is actually going on here. And it's not just here - read for example our alternative (or acupuncture) article and then read about the same thing at the Mayo Clinic site, the most highly-rated hospital in the U.S., and perhaps the world. [14] To read our site one would think that CAM is hardly more than witchcraft while the Mayo offers good sound information for a reader. None of this hand-wringing about the lead is actually necessary. The best way to handle this would have been to state, "The Government of India has accepted Siddha medicine and has been promoting its use in public health facilities since 1995." It is my impression that some editors want to complicate this issue as a way to insert a particular POV into the contents of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The way you put it, you make Wikipedia's usual hair on fire attempt to let our readers know in no uncertain terms that anything other than modern Western medicine is pseudoscience and that CAM is hardly more than witchcraft sound like a bad thing. It's actually one of the best things about Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
And, it's not "Western" medicine. It's medicine. Evidence-based medicine to be more precise.
Read National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
It can certainly be both traditional as well pseudoscientific (especially if still practiced today, vs a protoscience)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 14 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)

I don't think MEDRS is necessary to support a statement that a practice is pseudoscientific (there even is WP:PARITY when needed), but it is indeed required for any health or efficacy claim. —PaleoNeonate – 02:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
El_C Yes, that seems reasonable. Even here in the U.S. I have a lot more faith in our own AMA and their journal articles than I do in whatever our government agencies say about this or that. I don't know about India, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that the IMA is making well-founded criticisms of the most recent governmental regulations that they say are allowing quacks to practice. Especially so when one is aware that the gov't might be going out of their way to be vague, etc., about the regs that they issue because thousands of Indians would be without any medical practitioners with out AYNUSH and they are desperately needed in some areas of India. That said, from my reading the IMA is not saying that AYNUSH practitioners are quacks, rather that anyone that is calling themselves qualified to practice allopathic medicine without completing the required education and obtained a license is a quack.Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, what is it but a health claim when it comes to a practice of medicine, such as Siddha medicine? Gandydancer, I've been a bit busy today, so I had yet to get a chance to look at the source when I wrote the above, but I just did: you are correct. Thanks for the clarity — that changes things. It is key that we fairly represent what the source says. And nowhere in the source does the IMA says that it 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)

You have me at a disadvantage, since that jumping from part of the passage part does make things a bit murky for me. El_C 03:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It was pretty much designed to make things murky. There are a bunch of quacks making lots of money offering various treatments. If the government outlaws one particular treatment they move to another. The very name AYASH tells you what is going on; a bunch of different kines of quacks with completely incomparable methods all under one tent. Here is the US we have homeopathy practiced by [people who really do appear to believe in it. They are wrong, but sincere. They would violently reject Siddha medicine. Yet in India the quacks jump from Siddha to Homeopathy and back again in order to avoid government sanctions. This is a lot like Scientology. In countries like the US where medicine is heavily regulated but religion is less regulated, they are a religion called "scientology". In countries like Saudi Arabia where where religion is heavily regulated but medicine is less regulated, they are a branch of psychology called "dianetics". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It is murky on the part of the IMA — who I'm gathering are saying AYUSH practitioners should not be given shortcuts to practicing conventional medicine. But are they actually saying AYUSH, overall, qualifies as pseudoscience? I'm having a difficult time finding a clear statement from the IMA to that effect which is devoid of being additionally qualified. A lack of clarity which I am guessing is intentional...? El_C 17:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: "thousands of Indians would be without any medical practitioners with out AYNUSH" that would be a good thing. They would be better off reading Wikipediua and WebMD and then guessing a5t tyhe correct treatment.
From Mercury: Life-giving Medicine or Deadly Poison? An Interview with Vaidya Shri Egilane Lebel:
"While Ayurveda for example is known worldwide for oil massages and medicinal herbs, Siddha medicine is often characterised by the use of various minerals and metals. Mercury, in particular, plays a special role.... If the ancient scriptures or a Guru mentions that Lingam [mercury sulphide] needs to be slowly ground for three to six hours, it is imperative that the substance is gently ground for three hours, not two, not one. Such guidance will help to ensure successful neutralization of the poison... In Siddha medicine, mercury is everything. Mercury is the main medicine of the Siddhars. Mercury is particularly important in Siddha medicine because we can practically produce no drugs without it!"
From Mercury Toxicity Following Unauthorized Siddha Medicine Intake – A Mimicker of Acquired Neuromyotonia - Report of 32 Cases:
"All the patients had Siddha medicine intake either in the form of tablet, powder, or syrup form. Most of the patients developed symptoms during Siddha medicine intake and some patient developed symptoms with a short interval after stopping the medicine intake... In all these patients, no specific etiology was found to explain the clinical features other than Siddha medicine exposure. As recent literature evidences supported the role of heavy metal toxicity in patients with native medicine intake, we sent the blood samples of all these patients to estimate the levels of mercury, lead, and arsenic which are the common heavy metal toxins found in native medicines... All patients underwent blood mercury, arsenic, and lead level. Blood mercury level was high in all the patients in the study group. None of patients worked in industry involving mercurial products. In all the patients, only source of mercury exposure was Siddha medicine ingestion, obtained from unauthorized dealers. Twelve patients had blood mercury level in the range of 10–20 ng/ml (normal level is <10 ng/ml); 11 patients had blood mercury level in the range of 20–40 ng/ml; and 9 patients had very high blood mercury level (>40 ng/ml). All patients with very high blood mercury level had prolonged and frequent intake of Siddha medicines. The level of mercury in the blood was directly correlated with the severity of clinical presentation. Patients with high blood mercury levels had very severe clinical features (prolonged and severe neuropathic pain, severe autonomic dysfunction with sweating and rigor, generalized myokymia, and prolonged encephalopathy)."
Needless to say, the idea that the ancient practitioners of Siddha medicine somehow discovered ways to "purify" mercury so that it is no longer a poison is compete bullshit. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
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). —PaleoNeonate – 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, the boldface is a bit much. Would you mind proofreading? El_C 03:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the mercury bit sounds totally bonkers. El_C 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's important to note that according to the report "All the patients in the study bought Siddha medicines from unauthorized dealers and unauthorized Siddha practitioners. None of the patients in the study group was treated by registered Siddha medicine practitioners." Gandydancer (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Which brings us back (full circle?) to deciphering what the IMA actually said about the relationship between AYUSH, qualifications and pseudoscience — also, did they even address Siddha medicine, specifically? El_C 05:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Many times. Examples: [15][16] Not that we need the IMA to tell us that a 3,000-year-old method for making organic mercury compounds harmless when ingested does not exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, we do need the IMA to tell us that, and in no uncertain terms, so long as the lead continues to attributes them so prominently. El_C 17:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the above comment, Gandydancer does not dispute the claim that "In Siddha medicine, mercury is everything. Mercury is the main medicine of the Siddhars" (which can be confirmed in dozens of reliable sources) but makes the extraordinary claim that registered Siddha medicine practitioners don't poison patients with medicine containing mercury. Is there a shred of evidence of this? According to http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/Medical%20Manpower%20Table%202015.pdf There are 65 registered Siddha practitioners per Crore of population (10,000,000 in western notation) so it is hardly surprising that "None of the patients in the study group was treated by registered Siddha medicine practitioners". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon According to the study that you offer:
"Mercury in naturally occurred forms (elemental mercury) and organic forms is toxic to the human body. Hence, much importance is given to the purification of mercury to obtain inorganic mercury (nontoxic form – Vaalai rasam) to be used in medical preparation,[6] so ancient siddhars took utmost care to evolve the specific methods for the detoxification of mercury.[4] Various processes are involved in purification of mercury to remove 15 layers of toxicity.[5] This detoxification method is followed till now for preparation of Siddha medicines. Scientific analysis should be made to identify what chemical change occurs during detoxification process.[7,8] Poor quality drugs, inadequately detoxified drugs, can produce serious side effects to human beings. In our study, all the patients received Siddha medicines from unauthorized dealers (i.e., from persons who did not have qualified Siddha medicine degree, recognized by Indian Government)."
Again, this study clearly states that this study is not dealing with properly prepared medication prescribed by qualified Siddha practitioners. To use this to condemn Siddha makes no more sense than suggesting that the contaminated drugs which resulted New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak where contaminated drugs were dispensed to patients named "Micky Mouse", "Baby Jesus", and such, illustrates a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of any properly prepared product or misconduct of anyone except those directly involved in that scam. Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 16 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)

I think it's best we stay focused on the IMA attribution to the lead, since that is the main sticking point. That AYUSH fails the threshold of MEDRS is not anything that I think anyone here takes issue with. But we have to be careful when we attribute a claim to a reputable organization, which itself may or may not be as adamant about this core issue. El_C 17:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well in a "compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine"[17][18] the IMA says "Since they are a danger to the nation, there is a need to take action against such quacks wherever we find them." and in the next sentence and in the intro define "quacks" as practitioners of Ayurvedic, Sidhaand, Unani and Tibb, commonly called Ayush. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
El_C: Specific to considering the IMA attribution in the lede, this 2014 "wing" committee statement is an organizational policy among some 16 others (see left column of links for IMA "wings", i.e., committees with guidelines). Is the question about using the IMA source in the lede about whether the IMA is "adamant" or credible? The language used in the wing statement about Siddha quackery is undeniably adamant, showing the IMA believes there are some 4 lakhs (400,000) AYUSH practitioners of quackery in India, and 1 million in total who are a "threat to the nation’s health from quackery and about non-entitlement of practitioners of Indian Medicine who are practicing Modern Medicine." There are many other example statements from the IMA anti-quackery wing of being adamant, including "The main roadblock to eradication of quackery is the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) which keeps issuing clarifications/notifications without any authority of Gazette notification that practitioners of Indian Medicine are allowed to practice Modern Medicine. They are deliberately misguiding the Govt. authorities and courts so that confusion may continue." Regarding credibility, the IMA is to India as the BMA is to the UK and AMA is to the United States, among numerous other national medical associations that influence federal government health policies. Use of the IMA source in the lede shows the IMA as both adamant and credible for delivering science-based Indian national medical practices versus the quackery of Siddha medicine and other AYUSH practices. --Zefr (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Zefr, the IMA's credibility (vis-a-vis the Ministry of AYUSH) never came under question —at least not by myself— but them (the IMA) being adamant in no uncertain terms that AYUSH practices constitute pseudoscience is, however, a key question which required substantiation here. Based on your findings, I am now leaning toward the conclusion advanced by proponents that this burden has been met. But for now, let's more narrowly focus on the IMA in-line attribution in the lead, which may or may not still require some modifications in the interest of fairly representing what that specific source being quoted actually says. Please note that the additional sources, such as the ones provided most recently by Guy Macon and yourself, may prove to be an elegant solution. That having been said, opponents and agnostics, your (well-sourced) views are welcome, too. El_C 18:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree 100%. The text in the article should say exactly what is in the sources, with citations that satisfy WP:V. Right now it is a bit of a paraphrase. Zefr, would you care to suggest specific wording and citations for a rewrite? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
El C, +1 from me Guy (help!) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that three editors disagree with my reading of this information I certainly will not continue to argue my point, however I cannot agree with your understanding of the IMA's position. From everything that I've read their argument is not that AYUSH practices constitute pseudoscience (which is not to say that they do not think it is) but that some practitioners have been claiming to be practicing allopathic medicine even though they are not trained or licensed as allopaths, and they are calling them quacks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're wrong —about that specific in-line attribution source— but we have more IMA sources now, so the question is how to fairly represent (overall) this body of +300,000 doctors on the position they take toward AYUSH. Because, as I mention above, that position is of scientific import. El_C 03:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess I have missed something new though I thought I had followed up on everything offered. The only thing that I have been able to find is the IMA's position on anyone, including practitioners of AYUSH, who were calling them selves allopaths. They called them quacks. In the U.S. it would be a similar situation as having P.A.'s or anyone else calling themselves able to practice on the same level as a Doctor of Medicine and putting their shingle out. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
To make the analogy more accurate you would have to add:
The P.A.s aren't like M.D.s with less training but instead use a completely different 3000-year-old theory of medicine.
The P.A.s don't provide (with some restrictions) many of the same treatments as M.D.s but instead provide treatments that cause heavy metal poisoning.
The P.A. have powerful allies in the government trying to make all of this legal.
Bottom line: all of the Siddha practitioners give organic mercury to patients. It is a core part of Siddha. They only attempt to be "allowed to practice allopathic medicine" when someone tries to say that giving mercury compounds to patients is allopathic medicine. Allow them to do what they have been doing under that label of "folk medicine" or "traditional medicine" and they are fine with that. The key point isn't what they are called or what training they have but rather that they be continue to be allowed to give mercury compounds to patients.
Contrast this with homeopaths -- another part of AYUSH. Homeopaths prescribe treatments that, while ineffective, are completely harmless and safe. That's why we allow homeopathic "drugs" to be sold over the counter in the US while anything containing organic mercury is completely illegal. --Guy Macon (talk)
El_C (or any editor), I can find only the following: "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.", which does not call practitioners of AYUSH quacks. I also cannot find Sidha medicine mentioned separately from the others. Could someone please quote those for me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede draft[edit]

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

  1. ^ a b "About Siddha medicine: Origins". National Institute of Siddha. 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  2. ^ "About the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences". Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. 2017.
  3. ^ "Siddha medicine: Courses". National Institute of Siddha. 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  4. ^ "Home page of the Central Council of Indian Medicine". Central Council of Indian Medicine. 2008. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  5. ^ a b KK Aggarwal, VN Sharma (2014). "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Retrieved 28 November 2019.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  6. ^ a b Michael Safi (2 January 2018). "Indian doctors protest against plan to let 'quacks' practise medicine". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2019. 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?
  7. ^ "Siddha medicine: Basic concepts". Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. 25 February 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  8. ^ "Siddha medicine: Materia medica". Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. 25 February 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  9. ^ Justice RK Agrawal (13 April 2018). "Judgment by the Supreme Court of India: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya vs State Of Kerala". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
Well done, Zefr. That is quality work. El_C 08:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: I have since taken the unusual step of supplanting the existing lead with this improved new version. We can now begin discussing early unprotection. El_C 08:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I like the new lead. I like it a lot. One question; is the mention of PhD a normal unrelated PhD that can can be said about pretty much anything ("some garbage collectors have advanced degrees, such as Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"...) or is there an accredited college that offers a PhD in Siddha?
As for unprotection, I would like to see if anyone who objected to the previous lead objects to this one. It would be better to discuss the objections instead of edit warring. Should we specifically invite them to comment? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I agree. Although I don't think there's a need to ping anyone individually, certainly, if there are any objections, now would be the ideal time to present them. El_C 09:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There are a couple of cite errors in the references section.
Minor quibble: The source[19] comes close, but doesn't quite match the wording of...
"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"
The five elements are not just "in" food, but food and everything else is composed of the five elements and nothing else. Also, the five elements should not be confused with the three humours or the seven basic tissues, which if I understand correctly are made of the seven elements. I think it is like the elements that science knows about and how it would be equally correct to say "my body is made of muscle, bone, blood..." or "my body is made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen..." or "my body is made of electrons, protons,..." (and don't even let me get started on Quarks!)
Alas, while I can see the problem, my writing is not up to improving the wording. Someone described my writing stile as being like a bicycle going over railroad ties: "Fact! Fact! Fact! Fact! Fact! Fact! Fact!..." :( --Guy Macon (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Perspectives on Guy Macon's queries, and a larger issue to raise. 1) By using the National Institute of Siddha website as a source, we give it credibility that is no doubt undeserved. NIS grants MD and PhD degrees that no conventionally-trained MD or PhD would accept. "Siddha medicine" and Siddha science" are oxymoron terms, since we know these practices are quackery nonsense, while acknowledging that rigorous critical evaluation won't occur – who would waste the time? The vastness of AYUSH practices across India causes the government to try to improve the quality of training and patient care by supporting AYUSH education, but that means it is inevitable that AYUSH will endure, and not be converted to valid medicine and science; 2) regarding my draft for the 5 elements-3 humours-7 tissues, how do we write an encyclopedic lede to include concepts so wacky? "Keep it terse" was my thought - and when the article can be edited - try to improve the subsections on disease and diagnosis (but with a caveat: the only sources are the primary ones perpetuating nonsense by pro-Siddhas). 3) on a wider scale are the other WP articles on AYUSH. Rewriting Siddha medicine entrains revision of Unani medicine (relatively ignored), Ayurveda, Naturopathy, and Homeopathy (all 3 readily contested). AYUSH advocates have successfully suppressed neutral and critical pro-science revisions of those articles, persuading me and other science editors to avoid looking at them. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking at WP:FRINGE/PS, it seems clear that this article concerns classic pseudoscience. WP:Lunatic charlatans also applies; to quote Jimmy Wales: What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't.
The problem, as seems to be a regular occurrence, is that admins treat repeated reversions of the addition of material that clearly does pretend that pseudoscience and quackery is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse" as edit-warring, rather than seeing it as defending the encyclopedia. The result is, as Zefr says, that editors trying to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are put off editing these articles, and nonsense proliferates. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I confess it is bloody annoying when you get blocked for improving the project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Since the topic was discussed a bit and quotes provided, I'll also add that when proponents mention "allopathic medicine", they mean mainstream medicine, while at the same time assuming that it only works superficially by treating symptoms (it's of course more than that), but that they somehow could treat the root of the problem with their alternative medicine rather than only the symptoms. An implied claim that would be inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice (and it's not a problem with the proposed text). —PaleoNeonate – 03:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the proposed lead is very acceptable. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It really is fine the way it is. BTW, can someone with the admin bit please fix the two huge red cite errors? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for thinking about some improvements but I am yet to inspect the sources and make my view on this. Like someone else noted above, we need to mind WP:DUE and if the sources are represented correctly. Mohanabhil (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very well-written compared to the previous lead, however I still need to know where to find the quote where the IMA calls the practitioners of Siddah medicine quacks and calls Siddah medicine pseudoscience. So far I've only been able to find the IMA address AYUSH practitioners who have stepped outside of their area of medical practice and are claiming to be legally allowed to practice allopathic medicine. Then the IMA goes on to describe any new branch of medicine that they, or anyone else, has cooked up to get around any legal constraints, and they call these practices "pseudoscience." Without this information Wikipedia, which puts so much emphasis on the importance of using only excellent referencing for all of our text, is not providing our readers with information that they can trust or if they question it, it can be easily found in the references that are provided. In this case it is especially critical since the article as presently written is saying that the Indian government is giving permission for quacks to treat their own people. Gandydancer (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2020[edit]

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)

 Done. El_C 17:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)