Talk:Tea tree oil

message: 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)
thread_title: Tone

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Tea tree oil#Uses|Uses]]

message: ====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)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Tea tree oil#Other animals|Other animals]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inflammation of the mouth lining 

message: 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.
--AntientNestor (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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.
--AntientNestor (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative to antibiotics 

message: “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)
thread_title:  Tea Tree Oil as reproductive toxin