This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tea tree oil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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".
"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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Yakmandango ( talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. [1]
References
[…]alternatives to antibiotics ought to be considered[…]randomized clinical trials are now required to cement a place for TTO as a topical medicinal agent.
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
References
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
“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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tea tree oil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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".
"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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Yakmandango ( talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. [1]
References
[…]alternatives to antibiotics ought to be considered[…]randomized clinical trials are now required to cement a place for TTO as a topical medicinal agent.
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
References
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
“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)