Talk:Neatsfoot oil

message: The article mentions when "mineral and other inorganic oils...."  Mineral oil IS organic. Anything containing carbon is organic.  I move the line be  changed to read:"mineral and/or other petroleum-based oils."Tintinteslacoil (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From my casual observations Straight Mineral Oil seems to dry and stiffen leather over time. Apparently this view is shared by some of the Western Leathercrafters I follow, who are now abandoning currently marketed "Neetsfoot Oil", and choosing vegetable oils instead. 2601:547:C501:D90:E89B:C0EB:BEBB:5D91 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Inorganic oils?

message: *Fixed a section header
*Re-added link to "skin condition" -- not sure why it was removed, but please explain if you think it still should be.
*"Obsolete" is a more appropriate description of the term "neat". It's not used at all anymore and most people haven't even heard of it.
*Rather than argue over the wording of the "cold tested" part, I've removed it, as I could find no good sources for it. A Google search doesn't show many results, and most were either forums or Wikipedia mirrors. Equazcion (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above works for me.  I didn't intend to remove the skin condition link, and the rest is all groovy here.  Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit 

message: * Doesn't make sense to say neatsfoot oil remains liquid at room temp in the intro, cause it being an oil denotes that already, so it's redundant. We can point it out when we explain the science later, along with the reasoning that one might not expect animal fat to be liquid at room temp.
* Added reasoning that one would not normally expect animal fat to be liquid at room temp.
* Replaced use of "body fat" to differentiate from "leg fat", cause leg fat is still body fat.
* Removed extraneous "also" from "although it also has been replaced by synthetic products".
* Changed "some" to "certain" in "by synthetic products for some applications", just cause it flows better.
* Under Caveats, changed some language to sound less instructive, opinionated and definitive ("is not" to "may not be", and "should not" to "many recommend against", for example). Also some grammar and flow there.
* Added  template, as some of Uses, Caveats, and Prime/Compund is unsourced.
Any problems with my rephrasing of sourced statements contradicting their sources, please point them out specifically here first (before reverting and 'redoing the edit'). Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  I haven't double-checked against the original sources, but nothing in the changes is ringing "wrong" to me. I was just trying to clean up the stuff on baseball gloves that some IP added.  Your cleanup was better!  Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you tossed back in is original research, assumedly based on your personal experience ("has superior softening properties..."). I don't think it belongs here, unless you can provide a source. Equazcion (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the original person who put it there. The main point I'm concerned about in that section is the difference between pure and compound, as compound can cause  lot of problems when used on horse equipment (definitely can rot stitching), and that bit can be sourced, somewhere, may take me a bit. I suppose "superior softening properties" is vague -- (superior to what?).  I'll make a tweak or two and see if that helps.  Feel free to fact tag anything that raises your eyebrows.  Montanabw(talk) 03:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  more 

message: I, and probably others are looking for the best product.  Obviously this is a complex topic that depends on personal needs, function, environment, etc, but I'm not sure that's good reason to avoid it.  A section that better defines and compares it's characteristics (with other key products?) for context would be useful.  Most of the descriptive terms leave one asking; In relation to what?...Or; So is it any good? I think most people come here because they want more specific and objective info than the generalities on the label. 
For example, my needs are for long term preservation (decades) and also rejuvenating old, brittle antique leather.  How much is possible, how much impossible? How long can say a knife sheath remain serviceable?  How long before leather becomes unbendable or nearly untouchable?  I recognize there are no fixed numbers here, but clues would very cool.  For example, are there any general agreements of various "best" products among old-leather professionals or say; museum curators? 
Clues?  For example I have a 1970's Buck 110 knife sheath in perfect functionality once repeatedly treated with mink oil.  It became floppy-soft at the time and lost its crisp, square shape, perhaps a drawback for some applications.  Important characteristics! I also have untreated, crispy WWII leather sheaths in sound appearance, but dare not use...is neatsfoot the best choice to restore this?...is functional restoration even possible? These are all germane, specific, inseparable characteristics of the complete neatsfoot realm.
Others might need benchmarks or clues for beauty, polish, or softness, discoloration, or say; waterproofing...etc...  --68.127.84.25 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a how-to site; you would do better to consult with experts in the field.  But as for this article, part of the problem is finding written sources per WP:V -- most of the experts convey their info word of mouth, or within highly specialized fields (like historic preservation).  But if you can help us locate more sources, it would be great to know where they are!  Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the <u>BEST</u> leather preservative? 

message: Quote: "Modern neatsfoot oil is sometimes made from lard.[1] It is sold as neatsfoot oil in pure form."
Huh? That seems to contradict its above paragraph, and the ref does not seem to contain the word: neatsfoot.  Suggest deletion or expansion & clarification. --68.127.84.25 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at that, again.  I think Neatsfoot oil compound has all sorts of odd crap in it...  Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's made from lard? 

message: The second para says that neatsfoot oil stays liquid at cool temps.  The explanation, though, involves the actual physiology of the animal that the oil is derived from.  If the animal doesn't come with the oil, how does the oil stay liquid at cool temps?Longinus876 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes No Sense 

message: We need a citation that it stems from an "old word for cattle", otherwise we need to remove that claim.  See:
http://www.memidex.com/neat-foot-oil
Which does not say that neat meant cattle, rather it meant "to use".
I can't find a reputable citation that it stems from a word "neat" or "neet" that meant "cattle".
50.0.125.54 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for etymology of the name 

message: "Some brands have been shown to be adulterated" in reference to vegetable oils, but not mineral oils, seems like a strong comparative value judgement that's not supported by the references. Martin Kealey (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  non NPOV - "Adulterated" - value judgement