Talk:Mud bath

this artical seems alot like an ad for one particular spa.... it needs to go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.225.140 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The text implies that "The mud [of Miami Beach, Florida] is a combination of local volcanic ash ...". There is no local volcanic ash in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.205.163 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On Correction of My First Revision of the Article

I believe that the latest changes I made should be reinstated per version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mud_bath&oldid=1115051454

My original edits were undone because of a fringe viewpoint as one of the sources I used was a source for alternative medicine. The source was only used for a single sentence in the article. Once told that that was the problem, I went back to the revisions I had made previously and changed the sources on the claim to more reputable sources such as Piedmont Health Care and Mount Sinai Health System. As for what my revisions added, I changed the tone so that it did not reflect an advertisement and found new sources for information that didn't link to resort description pages. I also changed the second paragraph so that it was not a direct copy-and-paste from a Lake Techirghiol resort booking website.

If the new sources in this version of the revision still don't support the claim made, the one sentence, stating that nutrients in a mud bath can be absorbed through the skin, can be removed. However, the rest of my edits were improvements to the original article and corrected the primary issues, and therefore, they should remain as the current version. Kleptotoid (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the offending copy-paste, which was taken from this (the version linked in the article doesn't appear to have worked). Regardless of the appropriateness of any current or proposed content, copyright violations must be removed immediately and should not be reinserted now that it has been brought to our attention. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as the rest of the content, I think the contentious sentence seems to be It works by allowing the skin to absorb nutrients such as sulfur while also cooling the body. That's the thing that stands out to me personally, @Adakiko may have additional concerns. There are three references attached to that: this family health center is not a reliable source for such a claim, per WP:MEDRS. I would say Piedmont is a better source, but it doesn't seem to say anything about absorbing nutrients. Mount Sinai discusses sulfur and says specifically that dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is absorbed through the skin, but says that it's a supplement and is a chemical byproduct. While it does talk about sulfur's use in mud baths, it doesn't say that DMSO is present in mud baths, only that sulfur itself is. Of the three sources the only one that supports the sentence in question is the health center which again, isn't a good source for that kind of claim, especially when they're making the claim solely to promote their services and not from any sort of disinterested perspective. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If that sentence is removed, may the rest of the edits made go through? I don't see why all of my revisions had to be revoked rather than just removing that one sentence. I understand why that sentence should be removed, but the rest of my edits were valid. The edits I made also removed the copyrighted section to discuss the information given in a different way. Kleptotoid (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's give it a bit to give @Adakiko a chance to chime in, but for my part the medical claim was the big issue. I'd leave the Romanian details out entriely from the article for now, given that the rewording still seems very close to that first source and the source added to support the content really doesn't and on first glance doesn't seem to be a super reliable source anyways. - Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RSMED is my major concern; there are others.

• The "Faithfully Guided Health Center" has no indication that their therapy is based on evidence. They claim so, but I do not see any citations. Nothing on their website that I have found meets wp:MEDRS. This is a company that sells mud bath services. They use pseudoscience terminology such as Peat is synonymous with being able to maintain the high temperature of the bath Why is peat "synonymous" with maintaining the high temperature? Does it combust when it comes into contact with your skin? /s That is nonsensical. Their website content appears to be self-serving and its use on Wiki should be considered spam.

While the original content is not the best, I don't see your edits as being an improvement.

• A mud bath is a container or pit of specialized mud that people can bathe in, commonly from areas where hot spring water can combine with volcanic ash. Please check dictionaries for "mud bath" and "bath". For me "container" would be something like a bucket or bowl. A "Pit" is a hole in the ground, often associated with construction; something to avoid falling into, or torture/horror The Pit and the Pendulum. Pit nor container are good noun selections. The third photo of of the article shows someone not in a "container or pit" taking a mud bat. Many places you lay down and someone applies it to your skin. You can sit or lay in mud or apply it to your skin while not in the mud itself.
• Natural mud baths are often formed in lakes, saltwater seas, and hot springs It's not a "bath" it's a source for mud. Your source There are three basic types of mud used in mud baths. That does not support your statement. Faithfully appear to concoct their own from peat and some other mud.
• Your RS sources do not support that nutrients are absorbed.

Adakiko (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)