Talk:Gua sha

message: I don't quite understand the need of the label on the top of this article.  If you do a google search on "Gua Sha", you will find 109 thousand webpages on the topic.  If you do search on the Chinese term, there are 255 thousand Chinese pages too.  So we are talking about 364 thousand webpages on the topic.  When the topic is about an age-old, commonly known tradition, why is a single source of reference required?  How do you tell which one out of the 364 thousand webpages are authority on this topic?  If I make a link to the google search result page, can I remove this "lack of reference" label?  Kowloonese 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "lack of reference" marker 

message: Why do gua sha and cao gío have to be capitalized? These are ordinary nouns, not proper names. See Wikipedia:Capitalization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. GUllman 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, could we capitalize it consistently in the article?  Sometimes it's Gua Sha and Cao Gío, and other times it's gua sha and cao gío. Which shall it be? GUllman 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Shouldn't there also be a section about the theory behind gua sha and its effects?  Perhaps some information from scientific studies? --Lclchow (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the theory may be, gua sha may be painful, but it gives me a damn good relief afterwards. 81.129.179.81 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No there shouldn't be. If there was any analysis of the science behind the practice the only conclusion could be that this is an entirely useless and misguided procedure.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific studies might conclude that gua sha is helpful, or that it is harmful, or that it has no effect other than placebo. I can think of plausible reasons why any of these cases might be true. For you to conclude that it is harmful, before studies are actually performed, is itself an unscientific act. --ABehrens (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you giving such an emotionally driven and biased response when you are trying to defend the traditional view of skepticism on gua sha, where any kind of skepticism is supposed to be evidence based 11010010ccs (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That was neither emotional nor biased. It is just the idea behind science-based medicine: this is based on pre-scientific ideas, and there is no reason why this should help with anything. Also, you are responding to an eight-year old contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory 

message: I feel as though this part of the article requires expansion or some kind of citation. Why does the coin appear black? What kind of coin do we have to use? Does the currency or denomination matter? Or is this just commonly held belief with no evidence? Either way I feel as though the issue should be clarified.
86.8.37.68 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to the formation of metal sulphide, the sulphur coming from the egg. My mum used to do this to me using a silver ring and a boiled egg, and claim the silver turning black proves that it has drawn the "illness" from me; although I suspect the blackened silver is just silver sulphide. 81.129.179.81 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "After the rubbing, when the coin is removed from the egg, it will appear black." 

message: This article should be merged with the article kerokan as it is basically the same thing. This article even mentions the term itself and I do not see any significant difference that would require a separate article for the term.
In addition, the Indonesian article for Gua Sha is actually an article on the Indonesian term for catching a cold (although rather distinct) and has little relevance to this article at all, I suggest that gua sha redirects to kerokan. Ajitirj (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Came across this article for the first time today, and checked the above suggestion out. Well, there is no longer an article named kerokan, so I presume it was either deleted outright or merged into this one. RobP (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: There’s probably a better literal translation of this character. Someone changed it to some POV marketing bunk and I reverted the IP edit, while also changing the word bruises to “ailments, illnesses”. My edit was then reverted back to an earlier version as part of an edit war between some contributors and some SPAs. Below are some translations of the character, which might help.
* http://xh.5156edu.com/html3/15156.html
* https://www.englisher.net/dict/zh/痧/
* https://zh.m.wiktionary.org/zh-hans/痧
While the character in compound words refers to measles and other diseases, In TCM it is usually used to refer to acute diseases and inflammations, such as they are understood in the practice. There’s lots of quack sites, which define the word differently, but as an encyclopedia a literal translation should probably just shoot for the dictionary def. 
I recommend that the word be translated as ailments or illnesses as this is what it means. Bruises, misleadingly makes readers think that the “sha” refers to the marks caused. It doesn’t; it refers to the things which are supposedly being cured by the scraping.
Edaham (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word shā doesn’t mean bruises 

message: The effectiveness of Gua Sha is well known among Chinese and many other Asian people. That's why it's so popular. Now I understand there is possibility that it's just "ancient myth" and lack of modern scientific evidences. Fine. But if you want to make that claim, I would like to see some hard science evidence, like double-blind tests or at least some comparing group tests. (I do realize that double-blind might be hard in this case.) 
But the reference (#2), Crislip C (20 February 2015) "Traditional Chinese Pseudo-Medicine Hodgepodge" Science-Based Medicine, is such an amateur article. Good the hyperlink links to the article directly. When I read it, I can't believe this is something some people uses to disclaim such a serious medical technique. All it does is to quote randomly what some other people are saying. Really??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.48.175 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source, per WP:PARITY. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I love how the Argument from Popularity fallacy was used above without any shame! Oh how I wish schools would teach logic and critical reasoning. RobP (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

text: If I stand on my head and stick balls of cat poo up my nose, it simultaneously cures my shingles and Erectile dysfunction. There are literally no mainstream scientific studies, which disprove this treatment! Not one! Nor are there any anthropological/archaeological studies, which call into question the existence of my tribe, who have been using the remedy en-masse for thousands of years. Edaham (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: difference being that you just made something up on the spot as opposed to the therapy of gua sha, the popularity of which suggests at least some extent of effectiveness. i also notice that you havent actually said anything which proves this comment wrong 11010010ccs (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See argumentum ad populum and Burden of proof (philosophy). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you claim it's ineffective based on such amateur resource? 

message: Please remember that WP:Biomedical information must be generally be sourced to WP:MEDRS. Restoring unreliable sources (and the maintenance template along with them) degrades the article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not take MEDRS applicability to dispute that which is already without standing, ELSE the floodgates would be open to a tidal wave of woo. This treatment is pre-scientific nonsense . Seriously, please note, from the “Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience” proclamation: 
*The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors… when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience":
*Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
*Neutral point of view as applied to science: “Wikipedia: Neutral point of view”, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. 
See: Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience and also Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans RobP (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Yes you are wrong. The primary and lay press sources are not "valid" sources for biomedical information, they are unreliable sources per WP:MEDRS. We do not want to indulge in the formulation of "unreliable sources says X however Edzard Ernst disagrees" as this is a classic WP:GEVAL as well as bordering on original research. Ernst and Crislip are useful sources per WP:PARITY to augment the reliable review article we are using: PMID 29908818. In general, if in doubt about a medical source feedback can be sought at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I noticed that the history section only discusses how Gua sha was transferred from China to Vietnam as Cạo Gió. I propose this section is renamed "Cạo gió". Whaddya think? VdSV9•♫ 13:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History into Cạo gió 

message: Hello,
I have video movie which can be attached to this article:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Masaz_GuaSha.ogv#file
Feel free to place this in article.
Best Regards Tonywwy (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but it isn't suitable. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

text: . Files from other language Wikipedias can't be used here.  They must be uploaded here, or preferably, on Commons.  However, in this case, I'd wager there are copyright issues, and it looks like an advertisement anyway, so it would be inappropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020 

message: Most of the information in this article was removed over a period starting roughly in January of 2019.  Much of the removal appears to have been due to concern over Gua Sha's safety and/or its lack of support in evidence based medicine.  I have attempted to balance these reasonable concerns while restoring much of the original information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harimau777 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring old content 

message: The article discusses side effects of Gua Sha (dermatitis, burns, etc) citing this Vashi 2008 review (currently reference 5). However, having read this review, Gua Sha is not one of the practices discussed in any of the subsections and I'm wondering what the source of these claims actually is. As it stands, the citation should be removed as it is misleading — the cited article does not state what it is being quoted as saying! 2A00:23C8:1484:DC00:9CA:BBC5:E2B:52E8 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read the actual citation, as I have no access. However the landing page for the article at JAAD specifies "coining" another name for this practise, (as mentioned in the lead), so your objection is really nonsensical. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have come across some videos where an Asian lady is getting this done and the practitioner is very gentle with the lady's face. Now, I am not sure which is the correct way of doing it, but honestly, I feel that the negative side effects mentioned in the article is the result of the wrong way of doing it. Here is an example I found on YouTube; and before anybody cries "Original Research not allowed", I would point out that I am simply providing this information for everybody's consideration. --50.32.119.84 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vashi 2008 review