This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The sources I see, while valuable, don't seem to be scientific. The text of the page and the Table in particular look like they were written by www.cowurine.com itself. --Hawkian, 66.229.227.106 ( talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. The sources being quoted here are without any scientific merit, there's serious possibility of original research here, and the complete lack of mention of any contrary opinion is frightening, to say the least. --Bunnybeater —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBunnybeater ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) The article seems totally unscientific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.122.162 ( talk) 11:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Surely the article dosent hold any scientific reference at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.72.237 ( talk) 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you guys take a look at the patents instead of bleating 'there is no scientific basis'? The United States Patent Office doesn't take the submissions lightly. They are all well-researched documents. You cannot claim that the article is non-neutral without links to patents. [Kvjg] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. This article is unsourced and totally POV. This should be merged into one of the many articles on Hinduism. This article does not describe the substance in any other context. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cow's urine has been reported to cure a number of conditions including skin diseases, obesity, cancer and disorders of the heart, liver and kidney --- This has not been proven!-- Abhijeet Safai 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, the patents are pretty clear about the properties of Cow Urine distillate that include medicinal properties. Can you read them instead of deleting the links and claiming that 'there is no scientific proof'? If you want to be neutral, you should comment on the patents instead of deleting them and claiming that the article is non neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, I am not sure why you think it is a copyright violation. Along with the sentence, we are adding the citation and the user has the link to 'The Telegraph'. We could call it a violation only if we aren't putting the link to the source. After all, most of the content in various articles in Wikipedia is taken from news sources and we add the citations. Coming to the patents, if we read the abstracts, we see that the research was carried out by people from the 'Council for scientific and Industrial research, India'. They have documented the properties using scientific methods, found a formula and have applied for patent to that formula. It is definitely not a random statement by a bunch of folks, who got their statement patented! We need to give some credit to the people doing scientific experiments. In regards to your question regarding a reliable source that says cow urine works as a therapy, we did add links to various sources. Some of these sources are those of practitioners who practice traditional medicine, like Ayurveda, Siddha ( Siddha_medicine) etc, which are based on classical texts. In western medicine, these forms are classified as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. In fact, many western medicines don't have any scientific basis, but just rely on some 'clinical trials'. If you are unsatisfied with the existing words in article, we can modify it along with the above information to make it mutually acceptable. But we definitely need to educate the readers that it is an alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I also would like to discuss! Abhijeet Safai 05:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, here is one publication from a scientific journal (Global journal of pharmacology) titled 'Antimicrobial Activities of of Cow Urine Distillate Against some Clinical Pathogens':
www.idosi.org/gjp/4(1)10/7.pdf
It is pretty clear that about the properties of the distillate and how it performs with actual clinical pathogens. I am referring to such publications which resulted in patents. I will definitely try to find the related publications (which are primary sources), but don't rule out their efficacy and remove the patent information.
Regarding your removal of text copy-pasted from the abstract of the patents, I'd like to point you to the copyrights website (
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent). Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. This patent about cow-urine is an idea or a discovery, not a trademark or a work of authorship (which should be copyrighted).
I agree that the text from the news site 'The Telegraph' should need some modification.
Dear Abhijeet Safai, you are welcome to participate! Kvjg ( talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user: Yobol, please see above discussions with Ka Faraq. we can't remove the patents. These are genuine and based on the work which were published in international journals like 'Academic Journal of Cancer Research', 'Biomedical and Environmental Sciences', 'Global journal of pharmacology' etc. They are definitely not questionable journals. It is your biased opinion and it definitely seems you didn't read through the content of the journals. We are trying to make the article neutral and have included the criticisms section. You should add your criticism in that section. You can question the claims, but removing genuine scientific research works and patents is definitely unbecoming on your part. If you want to criticize the claims, do so at the criticisms section. Thanks! 76.103.209.62 ( talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user: Yobol, no where in the article
MEDS is it mentioned that patents are not reliable sources and need to be excluded. Also, the journals are definitely indexed in
MEDLINE. For eg:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821
This is credible enough an per
WP:MEDRS &
WP:PSTS and can be used as a primary source.
You seem to have a strong bias against the article and you definitely didn't go through the links to the primary sources. I also specifically mentioned that this falls under the category of Ayurveda, which falls under the system of
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
By removing the links to primary sources and patents (which are genuine), we are presenting a non-scientific picture and this is not neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.129.232.2 (
talk)
20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Yobol, the article doesn't fail MEDRS (and WP:REDFLAG need not apply) policies even while having links to patents and scientific research because it is not endorsing cow urine as a modern medicine. It is just pointing to some modern research work (by reputed organizations) on its properties and patents. The wordings are clear that there are claims by researchers. Regarding the anti-diabetics things, there is no suggestion in the article that it will cure diabetes. The sources clearly talk only about the results of experiments on rats and there is still a long way to go before reaching conclusions on its efficacy as an anti-diabetic drug.
Again, "patents being non-peer-reviewed and hence shouldn't be mentioned" doesn't apply here, because the article only mentions about research work and not necessarily endorsing any modern medicine, which would fall under MEDRS.
And the mention of its use in Ancient India doesn't imply endorsing medicinal usage in the Modern world. Clearly, the purpose of MEDRS is educate people with reliable information about modern biomedical drugs from sources that reflect current medical knowledge. I don't see a reason why the article would fail MEDRS policy..
Kvjg (
talk)
23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moishe Rosenbaum, the reference you quoted was from an article published in 2001. Much has changed since then and most of the research work has been done after that. The patents have been filed and approved later. You can check the dates of research publications and patents. We need to give due credit to these research works. It is clear that this system of medicine is outside the mainstream science (which is Ayurveda), but Wikipedia is not all about only Western medicine (otherwise why are there some many articles on alternate medicine?). It has been clearly mentioned and the article is not endorsing it but giving a neutral picture about the claims and criticisms. And the claims may be extraordinary for you, but we need to give due credit and we never know it could end up becoming the next breakthrough helping you and others. It may not end up being one also, but the readers should know that there is some research going on in unconventional areas. If you want to add to criticisms, please do so. You may add the article you quoted above in this section. But please don't remove original research being done by reputed organizations. There seems to be some bias against India based research organizations here. Kvjg ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
These are definitely not fringe claims. (They are not claiming you'll become immortal by taking the medicine). Who decides what fringe claims are? Are you claiming that you are better than these researchers? Before a research work (like
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821 ) gets published, it goes through a review process. They don't publish junk work or fringe claims. And I am not saying it will be the next breakthrough. All I am saying is you need to give due credit to research work done by reputed institutes.
You don't need to believe in claims, but you should reserve the right of expression by others about genuine scientific works (which also satisfy wikipedia's policies). I may not agree with you, but I fight for your right of expression. Here, you are just deleting everything and bleating 'these are fringe claims'.
You are not agreeing to reach a consensus. If you believe in net neutrality, then you'd be willing to add to criticisms, not deleting the main text. I will revert back the changes. I can't agree to deletion of patent links and links to publications from scientific journals, which are not objectionable to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks. Kvjg ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You cna't use in vitro research to make confident claims about in vivo effect, you MUST not overstate the journal's findings, and the unsourced list at the end that basically included anything found in cow urine combind with any positive effects of it - real or specuulated- at any dose - was complete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I've cut this down a lot, and even now, it's still an AWFUL article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added in some alternative references for the "Proponents of Ayurvedic medicine believe that Cow urine therapy is capable of curing several curable and incurable diseases" sentence. The combined list, from the references is:
Are newspapers an appropriate source for these claims? If so, is it sufficient to summarise the list as containing both "curable and incurable diseases" (where curable would probably include jaundice and incurable would include diabetes (which is controllable but not curable, to the best of my knowledge)). If we regard the list of conditions given in the Independent as "helps to assist" rather an a claim of ability to cure by itself is it still justifiable to claim that proponents claim cow's urine alone cures incurable conditions? Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to merge this article to Cowpathy. Duplicate info is contained at cowpathy on exactly the same subject with considerable overlap to this article. Cowpathy is actually the broader topic that Cow urine is a subset of. Cowpathy contains background material and context necessary for readers to understand that the subject is not just "any old cow urine", but cow urine as it relates to Ayurveda, Hindu beliefs and Indian society.
Panchagavya has more Google results than Panchgavya which is the title the article is now having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudrakshan ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have discussion on this point! -Abhijeet Safai 09:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai ( talk • contribs)
Respected friends!
i want to update u all that we have got more than SOME us patent for indian cow distilled urine.
o1.for its DNA DAMAGE REPAIR PROPERTIES 02.ANTI CANCER PROPERTIES 03.ANTI OXIDENT PROPERTIES 04.SAFE PESTISIDE FOR FARMING
SO NOW IT IS NOW PROVED ON SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS THAT OUR COW IS KAMDHENU N MOTHER OF HUMAN BEING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.183.1 ( talk) 06:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The sources I see, while valuable, don't seem to be scientific. The text of the page and the Table in particular look like they were written by www.cowurine.com itself. --Hawkian, 66.229.227.106 ( talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. The sources being quoted here are without any scientific merit, there's serious possibility of original research here, and the complete lack of mention of any contrary opinion is frightening, to say the least. --Bunnybeater —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBunnybeater ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) The article seems totally unscientific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.122.162 ( talk) 11:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Surely the article dosent hold any scientific reference at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.72.237 ( talk) 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you guys take a look at the patents instead of bleating 'there is no scientific basis'? The United States Patent Office doesn't take the submissions lightly. They are all well-researched documents. You cannot claim that the article is non-neutral without links to patents. [Kvjg] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. This article is unsourced and totally POV. This should be merged into one of the many articles on Hinduism. This article does not describe the substance in any other context. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cow's urine has been reported to cure a number of conditions including skin diseases, obesity, cancer and disorders of the heart, liver and kidney --- This has not been proven!-- Abhijeet Safai 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, the patents are pretty clear about the properties of Cow Urine distillate that include medicinal properties. Can you read them instead of deleting the links and claiming that 'there is no scientific proof'? If you want to be neutral, you should comment on the patents instead of deleting them and claiming that the article is non neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, I am not sure why you think it is a copyright violation. Along with the sentence, we are adding the citation and the user has the link to 'The Telegraph'. We could call it a violation only if we aren't putting the link to the source. After all, most of the content in various articles in Wikipedia is taken from news sources and we add the citations. Coming to the patents, if we read the abstracts, we see that the research was carried out by people from the 'Council for scientific and Industrial research, India'. They have documented the properties using scientific methods, found a formula and have applied for patent to that formula. It is definitely not a random statement by a bunch of folks, who got their statement patented! We need to give some credit to the people doing scientific experiments. In regards to your question regarding a reliable source that says cow urine works as a therapy, we did add links to various sources. Some of these sources are those of practitioners who practice traditional medicine, like Ayurveda, Siddha ( Siddha_medicine) etc, which are based on classical texts. In western medicine, these forms are classified as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. In fact, many western medicines don't have any scientific basis, but just rely on some 'clinical trials'. If you are unsatisfied with the existing words in article, we can modify it along with the above information to make it mutually acceptable. But we definitely need to educate the readers that it is an alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I also would like to discuss! Abhijeet Safai 05:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, here is one publication from a scientific journal (Global journal of pharmacology) titled 'Antimicrobial Activities of of Cow Urine Distillate Against some Clinical Pathogens':
www.idosi.org/gjp/4(1)10/7.pdf
It is pretty clear that about the properties of the distillate and how it performs with actual clinical pathogens. I am referring to such publications which resulted in patents. I will definitely try to find the related publications (which are primary sources), but don't rule out their efficacy and remove the patent information.
Regarding your removal of text copy-pasted from the abstract of the patents, I'd like to point you to the copyrights website (
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent). Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. This patent about cow-urine is an idea or a discovery, not a trademark or a work of authorship (which should be copyrighted).
I agree that the text from the news site 'The Telegraph' should need some modification.
Dear Abhijeet Safai, you are welcome to participate! Kvjg ( talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user: Yobol, please see above discussions with Ka Faraq. we can't remove the patents. These are genuine and based on the work which were published in international journals like 'Academic Journal of Cancer Research', 'Biomedical and Environmental Sciences', 'Global journal of pharmacology' etc. They are definitely not questionable journals. It is your biased opinion and it definitely seems you didn't read through the content of the journals. We are trying to make the article neutral and have included the criticisms section. You should add your criticism in that section. You can question the claims, but removing genuine scientific research works and patents is definitely unbecoming on your part. If you want to criticize the claims, do so at the criticisms section. Thanks! 76.103.209.62 ( talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user: Yobol, no where in the article
MEDS is it mentioned that patents are not reliable sources and need to be excluded. Also, the journals are definitely indexed in
MEDLINE. For eg:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821
This is credible enough an per
WP:MEDRS &
WP:PSTS and can be used as a primary source.
You seem to have a strong bias against the article and you definitely didn't go through the links to the primary sources. I also specifically mentioned that this falls under the category of Ayurveda, which falls under the system of
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
By removing the links to primary sources and patents (which are genuine), we are presenting a non-scientific picture and this is not neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.129.232.2 (
talk)
20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Yobol, the article doesn't fail MEDRS (and WP:REDFLAG need not apply) policies even while having links to patents and scientific research because it is not endorsing cow urine as a modern medicine. It is just pointing to some modern research work (by reputed organizations) on its properties and patents. The wordings are clear that there are claims by researchers. Regarding the anti-diabetics things, there is no suggestion in the article that it will cure diabetes. The sources clearly talk only about the results of experiments on rats and there is still a long way to go before reaching conclusions on its efficacy as an anti-diabetic drug.
Again, "patents being non-peer-reviewed and hence shouldn't be mentioned" doesn't apply here, because the article only mentions about research work and not necessarily endorsing any modern medicine, which would fall under MEDRS.
And the mention of its use in Ancient India doesn't imply endorsing medicinal usage in the Modern world. Clearly, the purpose of MEDRS is educate people with reliable information about modern biomedical drugs from sources that reflect current medical knowledge. I don't see a reason why the article would fail MEDRS policy..
Kvjg (
talk)
23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moishe Rosenbaum, the reference you quoted was from an article published in 2001. Much has changed since then and most of the research work has been done after that. The patents have been filed and approved later. You can check the dates of research publications and patents. We need to give due credit to these research works. It is clear that this system of medicine is outside the mainstream science (which is Ayurveda), but Wikipedia is not all about only Western medicine (otherwise why are there some many articles on alternate medicine?). It has been clearly mentioned and the article is not endorsing it but giving a neutral picture about the claims and criticisms. And the claims may be extraordinary for you, but we need to give due credit and we never know it could end up becoming the next breakthrough helping you and others. It may not end up being one also, but the readers should know that there is some research going on in unconventional areas. If you want to add to criticisms, please do so. You may add the article you quoted above in this section. But please don't remove original research being done by reputed organizations. There seems to be some bias against India based research organizations here. Kvjg ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
These are definitely not fringe claims. (They are not claiming you'll become immortal by taking the medicine). Who decides what fringe claims are? Are you claiming that you are better than these researchers? Before a research work (like
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821 ) gets published, it goes through a review process. They don't publish junk work or fringe claims. And I am not saying it will be the next breakthrough. All I am saying is you need to give due credit to research work done by reputed institutes.
You don't need to believe in claims, but you should reserve the right of expression by others about genuine scientific works (which also satisfy wikipedia's policies). I may not agree with you, but I fight for your right of expression. Here, you are just deleting everything and bleating 'these are fringe claims'.
You are not agreeing to reach a consensus. If you believe in net neutrality, then you'd be willing to add to criticisms, not deleting the main text. I will revert back the changes. I can't agree to deletion of patent links and links to publications from scientific journals, which are not objectionable to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks. Kvjg ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You cna't use in vitro research to make confident claims about in vivo effect, you MUST not overstate the journal's findings, and the unsourced list at the end that basically included anything found in cow urine combind with any positive effects of it - real or specuulated- at any dose - was complete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I've cut this down a lot, and even now, it's still an AWFUL article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added in some alternative references for the "Proponents of Ayurvedic medicine believe that Cow urine therapy is capable of curing several curable and incurable diseases" sentence. The combined list, from the references is:
Are newspapers an appropriate source for these claims? If so, is it sufficient to summarise the list as containing both "curable and incurable diseases" (where curable would probably include jaundice and incurable would include diabetes (which is controllable but not curable, to the best of my knowledge)). If we regard the list of conditions given in the Independent as "helps to assist" rather an a claim of ability to cure by itself is it still justifiable to claim that proponents claim cow's urine alone cures incurable conditions? Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to merge this article to Cowpathy. Duplicate info is contained at cowpathy on exactly the same subject with considerable overlap to this article. Cowpathy is actually the broader topic that Cow urine is a subset of. Cowpathy contains background material and context necessary for readers to understand that the subject is not just "any old cow urine", but cow urine as it relates to Ayurveda, Hindu beliefs and Indian society.
Panchagavya has more Google results than Panchgavya which is the title the article is now having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudrakshan ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have discussion on this point! -Abhijeet Safai 09:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai ( talk • contribs)
Respected friends!
i want to update u all that we have got more than SOME us patent for indian cow distilled urine.
o1.for its DNA DAMAGE REPAIR PROPERTIES 02.ANTI CANCER PROPERTIES 03.ANTI OXIDENT PROPERTIES 04.SAFE PESTISIDE FOR FARMING
SO NOW IT IS NOW PROVED ON SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS THAT OUR COW IS KAMDHENU N MOTHER OF HUMAN BEING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.183.1 ( talk) 06:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)