Talk:Liniment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Misplaced section[edit]

I feel the section about Topical medication forms is misplaced, but I don't know where it should be put, if need be. --Perilisk (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Embrocation[edit]

It would be worthwhile to add a section on embrocation products used by amateur and professional cyclists. There's even a quarterly cycling culture publication called "Embrocation Cycling Journal". --User:Schlocky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.184.127 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Capsaicin[edit]

Capsaicin??? Isn't it the stuff in HOT peppers? ???! 70.54.202.152 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right, it's also a counterirritant. See that article. -- œ 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Always rubbed in"?[edit]

I don't know whether this is the case with modern liniments, but the label on this old Sloan's Liniment bottle specifically instructs that it should not be rubbed in. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiger Balm ayurvedic[edit]

User: Sudip Regmi. The content added here and restored here says:

"Tiger Balm was developed using Ayurvedic formula[1] ..."

References

The source is a tax case, in which people selling Tiger Balm argued that it should be treated as Ayurvedic and so get a better tax rate. The tax board cited a prior case that found that " Ayurvedic Medicine not having been defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the common parlance test would have to be resorted to, for finding out whether a medicine is treated as an Ayurvedic medicine by the public. ... If the customers and practitioners in Ayurvedic medicine, the dealers and the licensing officials treat the products in question as Ayurvedic medicines and not as Allopathic medicines, that fact gives an indication that they are exclusively ayurvedic medicines or that they are used in Ayurvedic system of medicine, though it is a patented medicine." And they applied that to this case.

The source says nothing about whether it was actually developed using Ayurvedic formula. This is completely unsourced and is promotional. If you have a reliable source for this actually being developed from an ayurvedic formula, please provide it.

If you want to say it is treated as Ayurvedic under Kerala tax law, the content would be supported but this would also be WP:TRIVIA and we would not include that. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I wonder if I am writing you correctly here, I have not used talk feature before, please confirm if you read this. I used that reference as that was govt related doccument. If you see product label of Tiger Balm itself clearly says it is Ayurvedic Proprietary medicine, here is image from web that I took https://i.imgur.com/qJdPdRU.png for your reference.
This is what article talk pages are for - discussing disagreements over content. Again what you wrote is that it was developed using was developed using Ayurvedic formula - you are making a claim about history - about how Tiger Balm was created a long time ago. The tax board source and the label only state that it is considered ayurvedic now, and the tax board claim only applies to Kerala. The historical claim and the claim of how it is seen and marketed, are two different claims. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Ok I bow down to your bully, only because you have more experience in vandalizing others edits, any references have no value to you if you don't want to have it there. Better get a job or at least edit to make something useful, there are so many articles that needs contribution! I have lots of work and I can only contribute when I reach to the page when I need it, and find something is missing or wrong.

Content that is well sourced is very welcome! Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arsenic[edit]

I seem to remember that some of those old liniments had significant arsenic content, sometimes contributing to skin penetration efficiency. I however see no safety or related section here. Just a reminder, if others also remember such and know relevant sources. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to expand the history section. Montanabw(talk) 10:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liniment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)