Talk:Gua sha

"lack of reference" marker

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)

• Kowloonese, with the edits that I have made, including the two references I have added (one being an English language text book on how to apply the technique) I imagine that the tag will soon be removed. One of the reasons, I suppose, for asking for references, is that whenever references are supplied it is relatively easy for people such as librarians to follow up on the article. I hope that the way I have added to the article meets your approval, Lindsay658 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Kowloonese -- Further note: I have just removed the tag. We'll see if anyone continues to feel it is unsourced, Lindsay658 00:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

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)

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)

Went through this and changed all uppercase instances to lower case. As you point out they're ordinary nouns and so should not be uppercase. specofdust 11:47, 07 July 2011

Translation of "Gua Sha"

You say that you are not a student of Chinese. Therefore I can assume that you can not read Chinese characters and have no idea of just how many different characters can share the same, identical pronunciiation (which seems rather puzzling if you are a student of Chinese medicine, but anyway . . . .) .

(1) The Chinese character for the Sha in Gua Sha does not mean "sand". It is a composite character comprised of the "sickness" radical plus the graphical component which gives it its pronunciation Sha; and it is this graphical component which, in other circumstances, and on its own, means "sand".

I looked up a Chinese-English dictionary at http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ for 痧, the main entry says it can mean (1) Cholera. (2) Colic. (3) measles 痧子. It is written with the sickness radical and "sand" in the middle. It represents the name of some medical symptoms that is a homophone of sand, its meaning is unrelated to sand except for the pronunciation.

Other usages include:

挑痧 to pinch certain ligaments on neck as remedy for sunstroke.

子午痧 (Chin. med.) an acute disease accompanied by stomach-ache, vomiting, chills, perspiration, and thirst, usu, fatal within a few hours;

發痧 have attack of cholera, colic;

喉痧 [hou2sha1], n., (med.) diphtheria (also called 白喉).

痲疹 [ma2zhen3], n., measles (also called 痧子 61A.91).

癟螺痧 [bie3luo2sha1], n., (coll.). cholera.

害痧眼 contract trachoma.

刮痧 scrape certain parts of the body to obtain relief from nausea or sunstroke;

紅痧 [hong2sha1], n., scarlet fever (＝猩紅熱).

Since this is not a medical dictionary, its explanations only cover colloquial usage. Kowloonese 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(2) "Ye Ming Sha" contains the character that means "sand" and, as you say, in that meaning it is to do with the "mucopurulent discharge" that is found in the eyes after sleep.

(3) The term Gua means "scrape"; and, although one might argue that one uses Gua Sha to remove the fever -- and, therefore, to a Western medically trained English speaker it may seem logical to use the verb "extract" -- the traditional Chinese doctors would always refer to Qing-ing, or "clearing" the fever (by the way, the Qing is the same character as in the acupuncture point BL.1.

(4) Thus, the technical term can mean nothing more or less than (literally) "to scrape for cholera" and, more generally, "to scrape for fever"; and the technique itself would most likely be spoken of as having a Qing-Re, "clear heat", function as its most common application, notwithstanding its other equally importasnt, but far less frequent applications.

I hope that all of this gives you some encouragement to study genuine traditional Chinese medicine from traditional Chinese sources, rather than some distorted western version of it. Best to you Lindsay658 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To make the answer above a little clearer, there is a difference between a particular written Chinese character's "citation meaning" -- as in the English word good's citation meaning of, say, "opposite of evil" -- and its meaning in a specific context (its "context meaning". This idea of a "citation meaning" allows one to distinguish between, say, the bank of a river, and a bank in which you deposit money, on the basis that they are two entirely different words. In the case of Gua Sha, the "citation meaning of the two characters that comprise the compound noun mean "scrape" and "cholera" respectively. Hope that makes my point a little more easily understood. Lindsay658 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The verb 'Gua' does not mean 'to scrape for', it means 'to scrape away, or to clear away by scraping'. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of terms such as 'Qing-re' should bring to us to realise the urgency needed to interpret and update these terms into modern Chinese (Putonghua) and its translation into proper medical terminology. For example, related to 'Qing-re' is 'Re-Qi'. When you have 'Re-qi' then you need to 'Qing- re'. Take a case when Chinese consider there is 'Re-qi', when you have bad breath. I make this point not as an insult, but the Chinese people as a people have a terrible case of very poor dental hygiene; their breath stinks, their teeth are coloured and covered in plaque, and they have terrible gum disease. Why, because according to them, they have 'Re-qi'. And this 'Re-qi' comes from eating food which contain 'Re-qi'. So instead of cleaning their teeth and gums properly, they brew up all sorts of concoctions to 'Qing-re'. My case in point is, why not tell the people that 'Re-qi' is the effect felt when they have an infection? That is they feel heat in the mouth, the gums are in pain and bleed, their teeth and mouth feel pain when they eat and they have bad breath because they have too many bacteria living in their oral cavity, not because there is some kind of 'Qi' that is 'Re' in their mouth? To 'Qing' the 'Re', they need to 'Qing' their mouth, teeth and gums. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the illuminating discussion. The difficulty of standardizing translations of Chinese Medical terms is a well-known issue (at least here in America) and thus is often the subject of many discussions (as in the writings of Flaws, Wiseman, etc.) and amongst my professors who are native speakers. And yes I am aware of the prevalance of homophones in the language. I did not draw this conclusion based on some ill-advised intuitive leap but from a source offered to me in the context of my education (where the term was translated explicitly as I mentioned). But of course, 'caveat emptor.' While I appreciate the time you took to explain, I did not appreciate the initial tenor of your response, it seemed to have an unwarranted vindictiveness in light of my fairly innocuous and earnest remark. As well, note that I used the discussion page rather than making a modification to the entry. Did you perhaps consider the possibility that I'm new to the study of TCM? In the future I will try to frame my comment in question form so as to elicit the scholarship and not the insult.--198.169.189.225 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

'Sha' in this case simply means a 'disease' that is unseen, but could be felt through its effect, rather like the idea conveyed by the English word 'aether'. When speaking the word 'sha', it can have the meaning of sand, and indeed in the various different dialects of Chinese, the technique used may sound closer to 'scraping sand' than to 'scraping cholera'. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

theory

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)

Yes, if there are any real research into it. I think the physical force and movements unknot knotted muscle fibers, and also return into circulation metabolites that had built up in affected areas. It may also stimulate the white cells to act, as well as the immune system. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You need legitimate research, or there needs to be a section that identifies this practice lacks a credible research basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.187.122 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is there really no research behind this to include in the article? --68.123.153.195 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There probably is (considering TCM's thousands of years of experience), but for that one would have to be versed in TCM scientific literature as well as empirical evidence, and those who are probably don't bother due to what ensuing resistance can be expected. Currently the article states "practitioners believe", which is tricky territory due to its implications about the practitioner as well as about the person who chose such a wording. Probably a clumsy compromise as long as further information is missing, but why not just state that instead?--87.152.223.217 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"After the rubbing, when the coin is removed from the egg, it will appear black."

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)Nick

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)

Merger proposal

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)

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)

The word shā doesn’t mean bruises

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)

How can you claim it's ineffective based on such amateur resource?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See argumentum ad populum and Burden of proof (philosophy). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

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)

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)

As the article says in the lede: "Gua sha is actively harmful and has no medical benefit.[1][2] Any apparent benefit from gua sha is due to the placebo effect.[4]". This is an accurate summary of appropriate sources. We don't use unreliable primary research as WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policies. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I really don't understand the objection against a more detailed description, or even the mention, of the relevant studies. Regarding WP:MEDRS, even if you object to the Washington post (which simply mentions the studies that are cited later specifically) and Molineskeptics at the very least, the two pubmed paper references: Nielsen, A. (1 September 2007). "The effect of Gua Sha treatment on the microcirculation of surface tissue: a pilot study in healthy subjects". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Pub Med. and Braun, M. (1 March 2011). "Effectiveness of traditional Chinese "gua sha" therapy in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Pub Med. Are perfectly valid citations. Or am I wrong here? how are those invalid and this from a personal website valid: Ernst, Edzard (11 January 2013). "Gua Sha: torture or treatment?". Edzardernst.com which is included in the content you reverted to? Hiding the studies does not help the cause of skepticism, Showing them and describing the flaws that make them invalid does. Ernesto Berger - Ubi dubium ibi libertas. (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

History into Cạo gió

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Hello, I have video movie which can be attached to this article: https://pl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Plik:Masaz_GuaSha.ogv#file Feel free to place this in article.

Best Regards Tonywwy (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but it isn't suitable. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done. 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)

Restoring old content

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)

Vashi 2008 review

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)

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)

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2GykDzQIA