Talk:Tea tree oil

NPOV dispute - Impartial tone

The article does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), but instead from a point of view against the possibility of beneficial uses for the oil.

Previous comments here in Talk suggest citing studies that might support medical use of the oil. The most active comment thread explicitly mentions a desire to "aim for NPOV". These discussions seem to have focused on the article's potential sources. The present comment primarily brings up a different NPOV concern, regarding the article's tone. Also, one section includes citations that may not meet sourcing requirements. Concerns about the tone in each section are detailed below, as are concerns about the noted citations. Suggestions for improvement are made throughout, closing with some additional thoughts about potential improvements.

Tone

Tone throughout most of the article suggests the against point of view, rather than using an impartial tone. With the exception of two sections (Composition and characteristics and History and extraction), "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another" (quoted from here).

Tone is contentious throughout the four sections discussed below. Delivery of this tone is in the form of a pattern repeated many times: a topic is raised, and a negative aspect is given focus as a rebuttal. It may appear to the reader that each topic is mentioned only to show the negative aspect. Constructive information is consistently absent, about topics raised. To avoid this tone, each topic raised should either be given constructive purpose, or not be mentioned. Negative aspects should be mentioned on their own merit, rather than as rebuttal. Negative aspects are also repeated several times, and sometimes may be used for shock value. Unnecessary repetitions should be avoided. Statements intended to shock the reader should be rephrased or omitted.

Introduction

The second paragraph begins the trends noted above. Its first sentence begins with a negative about folk medicine, before the topic itself of folk medicine is yet introduced. This pattern is repeated when positives about various treatments are raised in the second sentence, but focus is given to a negation in the third sentence.

The fourth sentence similarly focuses on a negative, regarding a lack of patent. It may not at this point evident to the reader why patents are mentioned, or that the oil should require a patent. Oils of naturally-occurring plants are not typically patentable. Again in the fourth sentence, it is noted that the oil has not gained approval as a drug. The wording may suggests that the oil is a drug, which may have unintended negative connotations. Likewise, it may be suggested that the oil should require approval.

The final sentence notes that the oil is poisonous if ingested, without note that it typically is not ingested. That last sentence also notes that it is unsafe for children. Without context of what kind of use is being considered, the reader may interpret this as a claim that any use is unsafe. The study could not address every possible use. Also, considered unsafe may be a more suitable wording.

There is no narrative or descriptive connection between these six negative aspects. This may leave the reader with the impression that after describing what the oil is, the most important topic is that this oil is intended to be considered a bad thing. The escalating rate of raising topics, coupled with the negativity of the topics, may be intended to shock the reader.

Uses

This section does not describe normal use of the oil, though the section is titled "Uses". Here, it may be informational to note that diluted forms of the oil are typically used externally. Examples of typical products would be illustrative.

Three ailments are mentioned with potential treatments, and negative aspects of four treatments gain focus - notably one more than were originally mentioned. The last sentence also covers what appear to be topics of safety, which may be more appropriately discussed in the Safety section.

From Germany I read that they use it on warts. As we all know there are many kinds and what helps or not is like playing the lottery. It doesn't do much harm to list and try I guess.

In a Chinese video, where they show the plantations in the south of China, they claim it was cultivated there for 2000 years. Lots to learn in life, I guess. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:CDE6:E648:7E46:9BC1 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Safety

The first paragraph of this section breaks from the pattern of raising topics only to rebut them, and instead simply lists negatives with no apparent connection to the rest of the article. The entirety of this first paragraph is potentially irrelevant, given that external use is typical. Omitting a description of normal use exaggerates any value this paragraph would have. This exaggeration suggests that this paragraph as a whole may be intended to shock the reader.

The first sentence reiterates the claim of being poisonous, from the introduction. With its prominence as the first sentence, the sentence itself may be intended to shock the reader. The second sentence lists negative effects of ingestion. The inclusion of more than one line's worth of negative medical conditions may be intended to draw attention and shock the reader. The remaining two sentences also cover aspects of internal use.

The rebuttal pattern is resumed with the second paragraph: the first sentence noting acceptability for diluted use, but ends in the rebuttal of oxidation. The second sentence and remaining sentences of this paragraph then detail negative aspects of either not diluting, or of oxidation.

Notably, this is the article's first mention of external use. This information is somewhat obscured by three factors: absence from the relevant Uses section, presence in the irrelevant Safety section, and position in the middle of a sentence regarding a toxicity study. This obscuring and the negativity present in the remainder of the paragraph together suggests that the paragraph as a whole is intended to shock the reader. This impression is additionally supported by the concluding sentence of the Safety section ending with the phrase "should not be used".

Other animals

"Death" is the fifth word in this section, which visually is drawn out by the preceding comma and two references that follow. There is only one sentence in the section. This design suggests the section is intended to shock the reader. The sentence does not flow with the rest of the article. On its own, it does not mention enough about the referenced studies to know how the results may be relevant.

Research

The first sentence quotes a study with a claim about treatments for skin problems. Is it an appropriate citation? The study is from an organization that focuses on cancer. Is the study about cancer, or about how tea tree oil may affect cancer treatment? Claims about skin problems would appear to be in the specialty of dermatology.

The second and third sentences each reiterate a point mentioned in the "Uses" section. As this iteration does not provide new information, it may also be seen as reiterating the summary in the introduction, instead of expanding on the list.

Citations

Other animals

The three references in this section may not meet sourcing requirements. The article currently focuses on medical use. In absence of discussion about veterinary use, the section's references might be interpreted as references to medical sources. Any such references should not be about animal studies (see here). The three references are also to primary sources, which "should generally not be used for medical content" (see here).

I think the statement “ Tea tree oil is not recommended for treating nail fungus as it is not effective.[14] ” in the Uses section misrepresents the reference cited. Having just read the reference it states that there are clear therapeutic mechanisms but not yet enough evidence from in vivo trials to recommend use in a clinical context. That is very different to claiming tea tree oil is not effective, which implies clinical trials have proven it does not to work. This is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.216 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential edits

The oil seems to have worldwide commercial availability. I'm not yet sure how to find good economic sources. A top hit on a search engine suggested that the market is in the low billions of USD per year. Including some economic information would give the article a broader scope, giving context to discussion about the current scientific understanding.

Searching PubMed today found two secondary sources [1] [2] that are of note for this "Talk" discussion. As these studies were both conducted in vitro, they may be unsuitable for the article itself (see here). The abstracts of both studies conclude with a recommendation for further study in vivo. These studies are dated 2003 and 2018, suggesting that the scientific community has yet to come to consensus on the matter of medical uses of the oil. Is there a consensus we might reference? If instead there is conflict, the article should "neutrally document the conflict" (see here). Would a note regarding the lack of scientific consensus in the article's introduction be appropriate?

Yakmandango (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

How is WP:MEDRS relevant to the comments, which are primarily about tone and POV? --Yakmandango (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make health claims, your sources must follow WP:MEDRS. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. However, that appears to be irrelevant to comments about tone and point of view. --Yakmandango (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but I disagree with your comments about NPOV, and I was just re-enforcing our policy on health claims, because new editors normally want to make absurd health claims for TTO. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Any notes would be welcomed. As it stands, I feel the article's tone is not neutral, for the many and specific reasons I mentioned. The tone may have suffered during the article's ... "long and sordid" history (that archived Talk page is something else...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakmandango (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest reading both archives to see the sort of thing we have to contend with. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the article necessarily mirrors the reality. TTO was thought (through misconception and as a result of a need for an industry to find a use) to be useful for myriad things. The harsh lens of science has however revealled it to be almost a totally useless (maybe even positively harmful) substance that would be better left in the trees. TTO is itself a story of hopeful ignorance dashed by empirical study. If there are sources we are missing, then bring them forth - but the tenor of most sources is (crudley) "nope, doesn't work" or "doesn't work, and may be harmful - avoid". The article mirrors the sources. The fact that the OP is querying top-tier WP:MEDRS like the ACS, is worrying. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The primary concern raised is about tone. If there is a misconception in the history of its use, that should be noted explicitly in the article in a neutral tone, rather than being only implied and otherwise affecting the article with a contentious tone. Having read the Talk archives, I understand there's a history here. For my part, I hope that WP:AGF might still apply. I don't represent anyone, though that statement is easy to make. Without a contribution history, the prose of these comments should give some partial indication of intention and quality of authorship. I just read the article and thought its tone was too rough for this site. I am willing to help improve, should I get a feeling that consensus might be found regarding the proposed direction of improvement. I hope to make quality contributions. Posting the admittedly long-winded comment was my attempt to provide enough information about what I might change, to solicit feedback. Easy reverts help keep an article on track, though they also present an rather high bar for entry for a new editor. Having read and considered many policies, guidelines, and essays, I found them naturally agreeable and feel that I've met the bar. --Yakmandango (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a tone problem. Much of the article is about mundane things (extraction/composition) and the medical stuff is just a good summary of good sources. On the other hand it would be also good to add information on market size, commercialization, etc. if good sources can be found. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Got it. It seems that we do have an ongoing NPOV dispute here, with a handful of editors on each side of the "is there a NPOV?" question.

It's still my impression that the tone is not neutral. Would it be possible for an editor who sees the tone is neutral, to respond to a few of the twenty or so specific issues of tone that were described as tone problems, in my original comment? My reasons are stated, and seeing reasons for the opposing position could help iron stuff out.

If not, I could also just make some edits. Given how pervasive that I see the tone issue, I'd rather edit a "working copy" (or whatever they are called). Since I don't understand the reasons why editors might see the tone as neutral, any edit I might make would be without consensus. Editing a working copy would avoid the possibility of edit wars, and keep the NPOV dispute process from unnecessarily shaking up the article's text. I read that working copies are do-able, but I'd yet have to learn how to use them. So, I'd prefer to read some responses to the specific issues, and I'm hoping someone might share their "is neutral" impressions.

By the way, I don't plan to add or remove the article's existing references. That wouldn't have a notable affect on tone. The hope is to improve or "neutralize" tone, without getting distracted by sourcing. --Yakmandango (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought all your "close reading" was fanciful and tone-deaf; your substantive points (questioning sources) just plain wrong. Trying to base an argument on what you personally think is the "intent" behind the words of the hundreds of editors who have written this article, is a fool's errand. Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Given no constructive responses relevant to tone, I will proceed to learn this "working copy" thing, as to illustrate by way of concrete example, what I believe might be a NPOV version of the current article. --Yakmandango (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have abandoned the idea of improving this article. I am a new editor, and felt pressure against my contribution from active editors. Alex, Roxy: please consider being more constructive in the future, to avoid driving away people who are trying to be helpful.

Yakmandango (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Inflammation of the mouth lining

The section "Uses" suggests the product is useful to treat 'inflammation of the mouth lining', whereas "Toxicity" warns 'should not be used in or around the mouth.'. As only the second statement is referenced, I am removing the former.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative to antibiotics

An announcement from Clinical Microbiology Reviews, a respected academic journal, of a proposed academic investigation into the product's anti-microbial properties with reference to antibiotic resistance was reverted as speculation. It's usually easy for readers to distinguish between announcements of investigations and speculation as to what their results might be, so I propose to reinstate.

References

--AntientNestor (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As the outdated 2006 source states, the antimicrobial properties of tea tree oil exist only in vitro. See WP:MEDINVITRO. This source also concludes that there is a "lack of clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy against bacterial, fungal, or viral infections," i.e., it has no effect worthy of discussion in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The point for inclusion is that researchers are now reconsidering the substance in the light of antibiotic resistance, not that the existing trials have shown any value. @Zefr: you are right to point out that a more recent source is needed and I'll come back to this when I find one.--AntientNestor (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of coming back at this, with a more recent study. It's examining the feasibility of replacing some antibiotic deployment with tea tree oil, thereby reducing the antibiotic resistance threat. It's still only WP:MEDINVITRO as yet, as User:Zefr points out.

References

--AntientNestor (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A primary source in a defunct no-impact journal for which you've mis-stated the article date does little to build confidence this is worth including. Rather the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

How have I mis-stated the article? I can't comment on the standing of the journal, but the piece came out only a few months ago so it doesn't appear to be "defunct". All considered comments welcome.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil as reproductive toxin

“Tea-tree oil: RAC concluded that classifications were warranted in nine hazard classes, with reproductive toxicity (cat. 1B) being the most stringent.”

source https://echa.europa.eu/-/highlights-from-november-2023-rac-and-seac-meeting Falang-bar (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)