Talk:Siddha medicine

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

"almost similar"[edit]

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

The article has[edit]

unverified facts, and biased approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)

Lack of objective clarity and neutrality[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)

Can I restore valid referenced content?[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: (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)


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