Talk:Poultice

Unreferenced

Not a single reference for this article. Let's get to work. Mmoyer 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of alleged 'reference'

The removed link (to a freelance writers' page) did not actually provide corroboration of the point the ref. was provided to 'prove'. The single use of a phrase/terminology within a clearly POV article, itself only included as an anecdotal part of an article pertaining to something completely different, (i.e. veterinary usage of home-prepared poultices on horses as treatment), does not constitute an academic reference providing substantiation of an assertion.

Furthermore, the page referenced states clearly at the bottom that unauthorised use or reference of the work is strictly forbidden without prior permission.

We are never so short of actual relevant ref's that we need to create\engineer\manipulate sources to fit a given point. Having no references is infinitely preferable to having incorrect\irrelevant sources lazily cited as evidential corroboration of questionable material. Thanks. Codeye (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the drawing of the poultice

Does this drawing have historical value? I mean was it found on a tomb or something b/c the quality is so bad I'm not sure why it's being used at all. Wouldn't a photo be better or at least a better drawing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instructional rather than informative?

The content relating to poulticing in horses is poorly referenced and comes across as an opinion/instructional test rather than factual and informative. Should this section be removed or heavily edited? 81.135.69.124 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes?

I don’t see the point of the lengthy alphabetical listing of native American tribes that ends in C with the “and many more.” If natives were the first to discover poultices it would be relevant to note this. The fact that many of them used poultices would be relevant in a section talking about how widespread they were and how many groups independently discovered them. But as it is, it’s just a pointless infofump.

The article as a whole could use a lot of work, there’s not much about how they work, why they existed and aren’t used much now, how they were made, etc. 98.222.62.229 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]