Talk:Cow urine

Sentence not supported by cited sources
It's the following sentence from the section on the religious significance of gomutra: "In Hinduism, cow urine has a special significance as a drink and colas are made out of it in India."

There are two statements here: one is about its use as a cola alternative: this doesn't belong in the section on religion and there's also a whole paragraph about it in the next section. No need to repeat it. The second statement is about its special significance in Hinduism. This is supposed to be backed up by the Mirror article, but all this article talks about is a bunch of people who drink it for its supposed health benefits. The word "cult" is used here figuratively. There isn't anything in the article to support any religious overtones in the whole thing. Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories, templates
Unless the categories (like "Agriculture in India", "pseudoscience") are backed by reliable sources then only you should include them. I removed a nearly empty template and other one where the sock had linked this article. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Protect this page
I've noticed lot of hoaxes and pseudoscience is being promoted here. ਗੁਰਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ 06:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillgurbir89 (talk • contribs)

Cow urine
Sorry I had to undo your edits, since they were unsourced. please feel free to add them back along with reliable sources.  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi User:DBigXray, I hope you're doing well and thank you for your message on my talk page. The reference in the article referred to a "growing cult" rather than the adherents of Hinduism in general. Additionally, the second sentence describes the statements of a "cow-centric website". I, therefore, believe that those edits were completely justifiable. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The mirror article says that the cult believes it cures cancer, general hindus believe it has these properties, accordingly I have reverted based on what the source says. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. I've gone ahead and made some minor changes to the lede post move to reflect the updated title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 05:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Gomutra → Cow urine – Just about every reference uses "cow urine". There are also a few sentences about its usage in Nigeria where it's not known as "Gomutra". 67.149.246.163 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Colin M (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is not about cow urine as a scientific topic, but about the homeopathic use of it. Per WP:SURPRISE this would confuse people who expect a scientific article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say it's about more than that. See the "as floor cleaner" and "in organic farming" subsections. Also the "scientific studies" section. Colin M (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to or . We should use English. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support move to Cow urine in folk medicine or Cow urine in alternative medicine. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the remarks above about floor cleaning and organic farming, maybe it should be, or . —BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with just "Cow urine"? It's simple and to the point. And it seems to be a common practice for other articles related to animal products to just use the unqualified name of the substance/body part. e.g. Tiger penis rather than Tiger penises in folk medicine or Cultural uses of tiger penises. Also Deer penis, Deer blood, Pig milk, Pig bladder. Colin M (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The pig ones seem to be named fine, since they discuss it in scientific terms. The deer/tiger ones need a name change, since they are entirely about folk medicine and seem to have no basis in scientific fact.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed, though no great objection to other forms suggested. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits
Roxy the dog, LuckyLouie Are you guys even reading the sources before restoring edits by a blocked sock containing irrelevant content unsupported by sources?


 * source 1 = Only talks about advice given by Shraddha Vyas, which is much broader than cow urine and includes advice such as the pregnant woman should "wear a specific gemstone, clothes of specific colours, offer specific flowers to the gods and recite a specific chapter".
 * source 2 = Only calls promotion of "cow urine and dung as super drugs" to be a "propaganda based on pseudo science".
 * source 3 = an opinion piece with no mention of 'pseudo-science' or any 'debunking'.

How do any of these inferior sources support "researchers debunk any other claim of curing diseases and consider it pseudo-science"? They don't. There have been enough researches and they don't conclusively reject cow urine so far.

Since the article has been that way for this long, any controversial changes must require consensus, not edit warring. 2402:3A80:8AC:7F37:66AB:7E76:BE86:A45B (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector as the admin blocking Roxy last time, can you take a look at this misrepresentation of sources and unresponsive attitude? 2402:3A80:8AC:7F37:66AB:7E76:BE86:A45B (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, it's been 47 minutes since your post. Give the editors some time to respond before you start tossing around personal attacks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ivan. I am kinda busy looking after my dying father. It could be a few hours before I can respond further. I note that my changes are improving the article, and, yes, of course I’ve looked at the sources. thing is, I interpreted them correctly. Wikipedia should not be even hinting that drinking cow piss could be of benefit to sick people. We need wp:MEDRS for that. Good luck to any editor who can find them. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming benefits. Can you cite diffs? The article has been like this for a long time and went through overhauling last year. present version is not actually different. 2402:3A80:8AC:7F37:66AB:7E76:BE86:A45B (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This section is full of such claims. WP:FRINGE obligates us to clearly describe the distinction between a fringe theory (alleged medicinal benefits of cow urine) and the mainstream view (that it is unquestionably pseudoscience). Here are a couple of references to get the process started:, . - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources which we see on This section are from reliable publishers such as Sterling, Penguin, etc. and they are not used for claiming any benefits but only show the prevalence of this subject. Looking at the two sources of yours, 1st one is a critic of a political party and criticizing their political actions, where as 2nd source is about Urine therapy than specifically being about cow urine. 2402:3A80:8AC:7F37:66AB:7E76:BE86:A45B (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Couple questions. Is the claim that cow urine has medicinal benefits a fringe view? Are you advocating that the article only refer to the claims of cow urine's medicinal benefits, and exclude sources which present information contrary to those claims? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources that contradict the benefits can be added but they should be backed with some real research. As of now the researches have not concluded anything. 2402:3A80:8AC:7F37:66AB:7E76:BE86:A45B (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer the question, and see the well crafted edsum currently at the top of the history page.-Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I had similarly the same content for similar reasons as pointed out above, that the sources does not support content. And precisely this is what this section was actually about. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, here is the background for the current kerfluffle at this article. Basically, it seems the Indian government wants to promote belief in the medical benefits of cow urine/cow dung, with a majority of scientists in that country refusing to cooperate, citing zero scientific evidence for its efficacy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
Describe the Gaunyl:
 * Gaunyl a portmanteau of gau (a sanskrit word for cow) and phenyl. Eatcha (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the section called " As a floor cleaner " -- Eatcha (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Image caption: not identified with Ayurvedic medicine
Regarding the removal of "Ayurvedic medicine" from the image caption: there isn't any historical India-centric cow urine "treatment" outside of Ayurvedic medicine. Even the detailed information contained in the original image file notes that the image was part of an exhibition called “Ayurvedic Man: Encounters with Indian medicine”, so I'm not sure what the justification is for removing the link from the image caption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had reinstated the image after someone removed it. A (too) quick check didn't show any reference to Ayurvedic medicine; but if you are sure that is what the picture depicts, then feel free to reinstate the link. However, the article already has links in the text so it may not be necessary. Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Treatment" is a fairly broad medical term, so I may reinstate it, just to help clarify that cow urine treatment in India was Aryvedic and not part of either folk remedy treatments or Western medicine treatments. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

US Patents for Cow urine does not validates its claimed benefits
Since many Hindutva leaders are claiming cow urine as some kind of elixir by putting forth this US Patents as argument, this pseudoscience need to be demolished by giving detailed facts and explanations.--Jirdawanasingh (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Some editor(s) on here want to suppress the above users edits and talk page comments. The user has not been banned from editing and his/her views should be allowed to be expressed on the talk page. Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This edit (below) has been repeatedly added and removed from the article. I have copied it here to aid the discussion. Please do not delete, but feel free to comment on it's content. Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Blockquote

US Patents
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted patents claiming novel uses for cow urine. These patents were granted to an Indian innovation which claims that cow urine can make antibiotics, anti-fungal agents and also anti-cancer drugs more effective. The patents are in the name of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), in collaboration with, Gau Vigyan Anusandhan Kendra.

The USPTO does not recognise or validate the claims. The granting of patents only means that they recognise CSIR’s rights over them. The legitimacy of claims of medicinal properties and therapeutic benefits of cow urine is a debated issue. It is not patents but the results from animal studies and clinical trials in humans which would attest the effectiveness. There are no animal studies and human clinical trials and panchagavya ( cow dung, cow urine and  cow milk) has not been rigorously tested even on cells lines (in vitro).

There are no peer-reviewed and endorsed scientific basis for the claimed medical benefits and thus these are categorized as pseudo-science. }}


 * The main focus of the cited articles in the The Hindu and The Wire is criticism of panchagavya research practices and journal publishing. We don't need three paragraphs that over-explain the existence and irrelevance of the cow urine patents. Either cut it down to size or make it part of a larger section that integrates the larger themes the articles are discussing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Urine diesel
The article currently has a section about a single study where diesel emulsion was made with urine instead of water. It had similar results to using water, which makes up 95% of cow urine. I've removed it as trivia, but another editor reverted saying it is an important aspect of cow urine. I couldn't find any secondary sources discussing this though, so I suspect this is a minor aspect of cow urine. I believe this section should be removed. I invite to discuss why diesel emulsions are important here. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good explanation. Section removed. Capitals00 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)