Talk:Hijama

message: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to :hijama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your continued vandalism without any effor to imporve the rticle has left me no choice. To take the position tht ijaaza has nothing to do with hijama is ridiculous at best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksBack (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Warning for Hijama Article 

message: Edits here amount to vandalism as there is no effort to improve upon any given contribution, instead just removing entire edits that people simply disagree with. You cannot seperate ijaaza from hijama anymore than you can seperate beef from hamburgers, although die hard vergitarians who are concerned about animal rights would like people to think so. Make your case why the ijaaza system is not relevant to teaching and practicing hijama or stay out of the mix. They are not a ble to be seperated. If the same, then cupping and hijama should be combined as there will be no difference in practices.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksBack (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "it may well be nonsense, but some people believe in nonsense, and the encyclopædia should document that neutrally" referring to 
"is considered a form of energy medicine because it has been claimed to unclog the meridians in the body"
What are these "meridians"? Have they been proven to exist? "Energy medicine"? Needs links at least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.23.150 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit undo 

message: I took a look at the article, and have the following non-exclusive concerns:
*Hijama is stated to be fundamentally different to blood letting or cupping.  In what manner is it fundamentally different?  The only major difference shown is the quantity done - which is not a fundamental difference.  
*The benefits section needs a citation, and also uses weasel words.  If Hijama is believed to have all those benefits, then there should be at least one study confirming or denying this.  The only reference that indicates some health benefits does not directly refer to Hijama, and states that the process is of use for a limited set of diseases or issues (and that diet plans can have the same effect.)
*The "Other Treatments" section says that it shouldn't be confused with bloodletting, and becomes a mini-segment stating that bloodletting doesn't have benefits.  Does the same apply to Hijama?
*And finally, I have a concern with the reliability of the blogspot link - it performs a search on a blog, which is not guarenteed to be consistant due to natures of searches on these sites.  
As far as I know, there's plenty of unanswered questions when I take a look at the page.  There is content, but it leaves a few unanswered questions and isn't supported by references.  --Sigma 7 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. I'm not against this article existing, or even presenting the possibility that this treatment is effective, I just want to see some evidence from reputable medical sources.Makerowner 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Support merge, unclear how this ended up as a separate article.  a13ean (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Strongly in opposition to merge, s explained above on requires an ijaaza the other does not. One requires the process be dedicated to God for maximum benefit, the other does not. With so many other things some want to kill God. A13ean, do you have any direct experience or an ijaaza to teach or practice this discipline?  UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with article 

message: How much blood is let in this practice? Faro0485 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of bloodletting 

message: I am adding this film because I agree that it is a project that might do wonders in helping to shed some important light on the subject of cupping or hijama. It is a non=profit collaborative effort that I think deserves some recognition and support by anyone interested in the field of cupping or hijama.
Thanks - let me know what you think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.22.161 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comments at Talk:Fire cupping#Collaborative Film on Cupping. It's currently un-funded and un-made film. As such the addition is spam and we should not be directing readers to go and assist them. something lame from CBW 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Don't be ridiculous, nobody here works for the AMA and they have no interest in suppressing dissent. .froth. (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cupping Film Project 

message: I thought I'd do my part to help bring this article into line with scientific medicine. I read the full text of the first article cited. The test wasn't double-blind; the placebo effect was discounted by comparing this study's success rate with placebos for headache treatment in other studies. However, the researchers admit that all of their patients firmly believed in the efficacy of the bloodletting treatment beforehand, which explains why the study was so successful: they would be very unlikely to . Therefore, the results of the study are explained by the placebo effect. Additionally, the researchers' speculation about the mechanism behind wet-cupping applies to the loss of blood alone. Of course, bloodletting has been conclusively refuted for decades. 
I think it's fairly obvious that this journal is not a reliable source. It seems from this and other comments on the talk page that the article was written more to defend Hijama than to offer a neutral treatment of the topic. I suspect that there are strong religious interests in defending this practice since it's apparently specifically endorsed by Muhammad. The Islamic world seems particularly determined to churn out bad studies to defend traditional beliefs. Frankly, it seems that our current understanding about bloodletting fairly conclusively disproves wet cupping as a real treatment. I'm changing the article to reflect this.  .froth. (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed references 

message: With 
# POV for insinuating that Muhammad is the only prophet and not just the muslim prophet
# (saw) is inappropriate for a secular encyclopedia
# Most of the edit is unsourced
# The one source added doesn't appear to be reliable
# This article is about Hijama not Ijaza 
Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. 
SÆdontalk 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 2) I'm pretty sure this has been discussed a lot, and the consensus has always been the same (to not include it).  The tone needs a lot of work, although as I noted above the best place for this is probably a section of the cupping article.  a13ean (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the cupping article would be appropriate but definitely not the way that this was written, as you pointed out.  Also, though the user has been blocked for 31 hours I am at 3RR and won't revert again, would you mind restoring the previous version?  SÆdontalk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I didn't realize he reverted between my edits.  Done shortly. a13ean (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. By the way, I suspect that editor actually owns the website used to support those claims. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I only noticed this because this edit showed up on my watchlist.  Nothing really gets the Bat-Signal out like a redlinked editor leaving vandalism warnings on the talk page of experienced editors.  Cheers a13ean (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I think you would be better off editing a wiki created by fundamentalists, since everyone here is going to think you're crazy. Moving elsewhere would be easier for everyone in the long run. 76.105.194.160 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to begin... 

message: It has NOT been shown to be effective for cancer and that is what the link says. However, it has not been discredited by western science, please give a citation if it has.  It has been showing in scientific studies to be effective in things with large n values. Don't delete or censor scientific information. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer

message: I think the following should be amended or removed, or moved to the Chinese cupping article, because it sounds more like a description of the Chinese model than the present one: "Hijama is considered a form of energy medicine because it has been claimed to unclog the meridians in the body, and is viewed by some practitioners as a cure that can alleviate black magic and possession.[4]"
MERIDIANS are a Chinese concept.  
Ericcartmanfat (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Medicine

message: I cited some scholarly  articles that are published in PubMed, which is a reliable source I believe. Yet my paragraphs were deleted twice because WP:MEDRS.They do not comply with Wikipedia reliable souces in medicine. I've checked the link, and it self says "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years"! 
So I need explanation on thus matter please. Thanks. 
Arabiah Arabiah (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had found "literature reviews" all would be well. You were adding primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PubMed Articles 

message: Hello,
I've added two new studies to the articles, both were rejected because they are not reliable?
One of them is a literature review, so it is not a primary resource. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000376/ The reason my previous input were rejected is that they are primary This is thge response I got: "If you had found "literature reviews" all would be well. You were adding primary research". Now when I added a literature review study, it was rejected. 
The other one is a studyhttp://phypha.ir/ppj/browse.php?a_id=500&sid=1&slc_lang=en which does not seem to be different than the article already cited in the section labelled "Bloodletting comparison".
I hope I can know why these two studies were rejected. Thanks. Arabiah Arabiah (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source is indeed a review, but from a fringe altmed journal and so lacking WP:FRINDependence; also it considers Chinese research into Traditional Chinese Medicine, which is known to be unreliable. We must use reputable sources. You were right the other source is primary: I have removed it, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  All resources not reliable? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hijama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911211305/http://www.hmc.org.qa/heartviews/VOL5NO2/special_section.htm to http://www.hmc.org.qa/heartviews/VOL5NO2/special_section.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From my reading of this, there are some problems with the first couple of paragraphs in the 'Evidence' section.
The first paragraph currently says "Favorable effects were shown when wet cupping was combined with adjuvant conventional treatments." The source itself actually says that cupping was an adjuvant to the conventional drugs. This is quite a major difference - it changes the meaning, suggesting that cupping was the core treatment, which is not what the source seems to be saying. The source itself looks pretty dodgy (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies), and probably doesn't meet MEDRS, but if it is going to be used we should be honest about what it says. 
Propose: either striking this paragraph altogether on the grounds of unreliable sourcing, or at least rewording this sentence to better match the source.
The second paragraph is very odd. It goes into great detail describing the methodology of a single primary study published in the American Journal of Chinese medicine. I again don't think that this meets RS, but furthermore it's not clear that this is a study about Hijama as opposed to regular wet-cupping. Comments on this talk page above seem to suggest that there is a an important distinction between Hijama and wet-cupping, and calls to merge the two pages have been opposed, but this source is (a) in a journal about Chinese rather than Islamic medicine and (b) uses the phrase wet-cupping throughout the abstract, not even including the word Hijama in the keywords section. If this is not unambiguously about Hijama as opposed to regular wet-cupping, then it belongs on that page rather than here; if, indeed, it belongs anywhere as a small-scale primary study.
Propose: striking the paragraph altogether, unless (a) it is demonstrated that this is specifically about Hijama, and (b) a good reason for using a small-scale primary study for a claim about medical effectiveness is suggested. 
Thoughts?Girth Summit (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think this should be merged with cupping - it's not apparent why it deserves its own article rather than a section of the cupping article. Redirects can go to sections, can't they? But those primary studies clearly fail MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Tronvillain's proposal of merging with "Cupping" which is Hijama without the religious overtones. Looking at this talk page, it is clear that religious concerns have kept the page as it is, rather than reliable sources. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And even the somewhat reliable evidence is on wet cupping in general anyway - even the Hadith evidence review. --tronvillain (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support a merge with cupping, since most of the sources referred to in this article seem to suggest that Hadith is an Arabic word for the practice of wet-cupping - we could have a section in the cupping artical explaining that. If the page is kept however, it should only use sources that are specifically about the practice of Hadith, and how it differs from 'vanilla' wet-cupping.Girth Summit (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with 'Evidence' section