This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oil pulling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
added by maree on Apr-2007 Since there was a lot of discussion on the web related to oil pulling, I have added some basic content on what could be the basis behind oil-pulling. This is only a speculative hypothesis and more references to studies and research in this field are requested.
Oil pulling is, let's face it, even considered fringe by alternative quacks. The article's emphasis doesn't reflect mainstream respectable medical knowledge and for Wikipedia, that should not be the case. Wayne Hardman 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a total joke. Probably made by oilpulling.com . Lechasseur 09:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
None of the references to this article presented an opposing view and I find that troubling. Until at least one peer-reviewed journal published a study on oil pulling, a more skeptical review of the practice would be preferable. ALifeMoreHerbal 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the specific claim "It is also used to reduce enamel wear from stomach acid in hangovers and bulimics", is a highly suspicious claim and unsourced.
FlowRate ( talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As ALifeMoreHerbal talked about above, about 2 years ago, this article appears to be a one sided view and no scientific basis for any of the claims.
FlowRate ( talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the introduction to make special note of this topic's pseudoscientific nature and also removed the scientific list (2 items) that were in the first section. This list contained references that referenced the unreliable oilpulling.com and this article.
FlowRate ( talk) 12:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where in Caraka it's mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyuen ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
References need to be up to WP:MED standards. Jmh649 pulled the longest uncited claims, but basically every claim needs support - David Gerard ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | Although it has been found to reduce dental plaque, [1] | ” |
Yes this is a secondary source from a MEDLINE-listed journal, but when reading the whole paper, it does not present a balanced view of the topic. Here are some quotes:
This is not a reliable source imo. The whole journal is pushing a non-mainstream POV. This source is used to support the statement above that oil pulling reduces dental plaque. This is in fact cited to a 20 person study [1]. There is not enough reliable evidence to say there is plaque-reducing action of this practice. If it was a less-biased review paper, they would have said this.
Potentially more reliable sources (I have no access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00784-012-0835-9 Lesion ( talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article seems to be about a sesame oil mouthwash or gargle. Other oil mouthwashes should also be discussed on the main article, e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006701.pub2/full Lesion ( talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we say that oil pulling has "failed scientific verification" or that claims of benefit remain unverified (or something to that effect) since this practice has received very little study at all. My question is not about whether it works or not, but simply how we are phrasing our statements about a lack of evidence to support claimed benefits. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just knocked the mouthwash article around for a while and now I am more convinced than before that this oil pulling business should be there too in a subsection. There is already some content on oil pulling there for one thing. Lesion ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Recently (23 Nov 2018) Roxy_the_dog added to the first paragraph the following text: "The claims made for the benefits of oil pulling are implausible". The subject of this statement is not defined (what "claims" are being referenced?) and the statement of "implausibility" is without citation/reference. I plan on removing this beginning portion of that sentence unless anyone objects. Mtobey ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
J mareeswaran ( talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the oil goes white is a proof that "toxins" are being pulled out of the body is bullshit. The oil emulsifies in the saliva, which is almost totally composed of water, and appears white. The same can be seen in a glass if u shake oil and water together, no "toxins" involved. 92.41.90.87 ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to http://www.checkdentdotcom/dental-blog/profiteering-from-alternative-dentistry.html?lang=en. But I am not allowed, as it seems the site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Can somebody explain why this site is not allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia? J mareeswaran ( talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the concerns raised on WTMED about this article ( [5]), suggest only those parts of the article which discuss the health impact and science of oil pulling need to comply MEDRS, I would think that the rest of the article, describing the historical/religious/cultural aspects of the topic merely need to comply with RS. 188.29.93.72 ( talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Lots of refs out there seems to suggest this remedy is Ayurvedic, but here it says folk. Not sure they are the same thing - Ayurvedic has it's own page too!
Specifically, which toxins and what types of inflammation are treated by this technique. Please be *specific*. Thank you. 24.51.217.118 ( talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(Summary: Jump to the last two lines for the minor change I'm making.)
The "Purported mechanism of action" section begins with this sentence:
This wording doesn't really make sense. This wording seems to have been created by taking a part of a sentence from the referenced study and adding "purported".
First, if one believes that word-for-word copying from the study is a bulletproof idea, then just look at the gibberish in the second half of that same sentence in the study:
Indeed.
Then, the problem with the sentence is that it says that those claiming it has benefits are unclear about why. The actual situation is that various people are very clear about where the purported benefits come from, but different people have different explanations which diverge. So I'm correcting this to:
Yes, that's it. Great floors ( talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(Update: I just noticed that the "meta analysis" that article is currently based on is a 2014 *blog post*. So I think the 2016 journal-published meta analysis is ok to add, and I'll do that soon.)
I found this 2016 meta study which includes five randomly controlled trials:
I won't bother adding this right now because I'd probably get reverted.
If anyone wants to be ready to revert this addition, one line of attack would be to say the publishing journal isn't prestigious enough. I don't know how WP guidelines judge this criteria. I stuck "journal ranking" into a search engine and this is the first site I found:
The journal of the above study has a "H" rating of 29, whatever that means, and it's ranked 45th out of 120 journals in the "Dentistry (general)" category. And ResearchGate gives it a 0.43.
The relevant criteria I found in WP:MEDRS say that good journals are in indexed in MEDLINE (and this one is indexed), and WP doesn't like journals in the predatory journals list, and this journal isn't there, and that meta research based on randomly controlled trials (like this one) are close to the ideal type of source. So maybe this is ok.
Enjoy. Great floors ( talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not visited this article since I made an extensive update last year to inject some sanity into it. [6] Much of what I added - especially in the Critical analysis section - is gone. Also, there is now way too much pseudoscience material claiming positive health results in the Effectiveness section. Please explain. RobP ( talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The description is incorrect . Swishing is not the way it is done . The correct method is to keep you lips together and alternately suck and release . Five minutes is lots . Turkeytrotlogan ( talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The article claims that there is no "high quality research" on this subject but also dismisses it as disproven by science. These two ideas are contradictory.
Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, but I felt I should highlight this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.70 ( talk) 00:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Senakim ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Senakim ( talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oil pulling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
added by maree on Apr-2007 Since there was a lot of discussion on the web related to oil pulling, I have added some basic content on what could be the basis behind oil-pulling. This is only a speculative hypothesis and more references to studies and research in this field are requested.
Oil pulling is, let's face it, even considered fringe by alternative quacks. The article's emphasis doesn't reflect mainstream respectable medical knowledge and for Wikipedia, that should not be the case. Wayne Hardman 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a total joke. Probably made by oilpulling.com . Lechasseur 09:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
None of the references to this article presented an opposing view and I find that troubling. Until at least one peer-reviewed journal published a study on oil pulling, a more skeptical review of the practice would be preferable. ALifeMoreHerbal 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the specific claim "It is also used to reduce enamel wear from stomach acid in hangovers and bulimics", is a highly suspicious claim and unsourced.
FlowRate ( talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As ALifeMoreHerbal talked about above, about 2 years ago, this article appears to be a one sided view and no scientific basis for any of the claims.
FlowRate ( talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the introduction to make special note of this topic's pseudoscientific nature and also removed the scientific list (2 items) that were in the first section. This list contained references that referenced the unreliable oilpulling.com and this article.
FlowRate ( talk) 12:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where in Caraka it's mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyuen ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
References need to be up to WP:MED standards. Jmh649 pulled the longest uncited claims, but basically every claim needs support - David Gerard ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | Although it has been found to reduce dental plaque, [1] | ” |
Yes this is a secondary source from a MEDLINE-listed journal, but when reading the whole paper, it does not present a balanced view of the topic. Here are some quotes:
This is not a reliable source imo. The whole journal is pushing a non-mainstream POV. This source is used to support the statement above that oil pulling reduces dental plaque. This is in fact cited to a 20 person study [1]. There is not enough reliable evidence to say there is plaque-reducing action of this practice. If it was a less-biased review paper, they would have said this.
Potentially more reliable sources (I have no access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00784-012-0835-9 Lesion ( talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article seems to be about a sesame oil mouthwash or gargle. Other oil mouthwashes should also be discussed on the main article, e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006701.pub2/full Lesion ( talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we say that oil pulling has "failed scientific verification" or that claims of benefit remain unverified (or something to that effect) since this practice has received very little study at all. My question is not about whether it works or not, but simply how we are phrasing our statements about a lack of evidence to support claimed benefits. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just knocked the mouthwash article around for a while and now I am more convinced than before that this oil pulling business should be there too in a subsection. There is already some content on oil pulling there for one thing. Lesion ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Recently (23 Nov 2018) Roxy_the_dog added to the first paragraph the following text: "The claims made for the benefits of oil pulling are implausible". The subject of this statement is not defined (what "claims" are being referenced?) and the statement of "implausibility" is without citation/reference. I plan on removing this beginning portion of that sentence unless anyone objects. Mtobey ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
J mareeswaran ( talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the oil goes white is a proof that "toxins" are being pulled out of the body is bullshit. The oil emulsifies in the saliva, which is almost totally composed of water, and appears white. The same can be seen in a glass if u shake oil and water together, no "toxins" involved. 92.41.90.87 ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to http://www.checkdentdotcom/dental-blog/profiteering-from-alternative-dentistry.html?lang=en. But I am not allowed, as it seems the site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Can somebody explain why this site is not allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia? J mareeswaran ( talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the concerns raised on WTMED about this article ( [5]), suggest only those parts of the article which discuss the health impact and science of oil pulling need to comply MEDRS, I would think that the rest of the article, describing the historical/religious/cultural aspects of the topic merely need to comply with RS. 188.29.93.72 ( talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Lots of refs out there seems to suggest this remedy is Ayurvedic, but here it says folk. Not sure they are the same thing - Ayurvedic has it's own page too!
Specifically, which toxins and what types of inflammation are treated by this technique. Please be *specific*. Thank you. 24.51.217.118 ( talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(Summary: Jump to the last two lines for the minor change I'm making.)
The "Purported mechanism of action" section begins with this sentence:
This wording doesn't really make sense. This wording seems to have been created by taking a part of a sentence from the referenced study and adding "purported".
First, if one believes that word-for-word copying from the study is a bulletproof idea, then just look at the gibberish in the second half of that same sentence in the study:
Indeed.
Then, the problem with the sentence is that it says that those claiming it has benefits are unclear about why. The actual situation is that various people are very clear about where the purported benefits come from, but different people have different explanations which diverge. So I'm correcting this to:
Yes, that's it. Great floors ( talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(Update: I just noticed that the "meta analysis" that article is currently based on is a 2014 *blog post*. So I think the 2016 journal-published meta analysis is ok to add, and I'll do that soon.)
I found this 2016 meta study which includes five randomly controlled trials:
I won't bother adding this right now because I'd probably get reverted.
If anyone wants to be ready to revert this addition, one line of attack would be to say the publishing journal isn't prestigious enough. I don't know how WP guidelines judge this criteria. I stuck "journal ranking" into a search engine and this is the first site I found:
The journal of the above study has a "H" rating of 29, whatever that means, and it's ranked 45th out of 120 journals in the "Dentistry (general)" category. And ResearchGate gives it a 0.43.
The relevant criteria I found in WP:MEDRS say that good journals are in indexed in MEDLINE (and this one is indexed), and WP doesn't like journals in the predatory journals list, and this journal isn't there, and that meta research based on randomly controlled trials (like this one) are close to the ideal type of source. So maybe this is ok.
Enjoy. Great floors ( talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not visited this article since I made an extensive update last year to inject some sanity into it. [6] Much of what I added - especially in the Critical analysis section - is gone. Also, there is now way too much pseudoscience material claiming positive health results in the Effectiveness section. Please explain. RobP ( talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The description is incorrect . Swishing is not the way it is done . The correct method is to keep you lips together and alternately suck and release . Five minutes is lots . Turkeytrotlogan ( talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The article claims that there is no "high quality research" on this subject but also dismisses it as disproven by science. These two ideas are contradictory.
Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, but I felt I should highlight this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.70 ( talk) 00:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Senakim ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Senakim ( talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)