Talk:Tea tree oil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original Stub

The original stub article was largely a copy of the verbiage on the Nambucca website. The health claims are not yet backed by sufficient clinical research to be considered mainstream. Myron 22:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added POV tag

This article reads like a sales pitch. I'm all for tea tree oil, and use it for many things, but the it-cures-what-ails-you tone of this article is innappropriate for an encyclopedia article. "It also reduces hypertrophic scarring." Umm... Says who? Wikipedia? Leading scientists? Piercers? "Tea tree oil is extremely effective in healing blemishes caused by acne or herpes simplex virus." Whose opinion is this? This article needs some NPOV love. 24.23.141.156 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

working on NPOV

I'm working on adding more citations and getting this article in line with a more appropriate tone, balance, etc. I added some context which will hopefully help ameliorate problems with the health claims. I also added some more information on the history and scientific facts of the compound (there is a lot out there!), which aren't controversial nor up for debate. Oasisbob 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good, useful article. Please don't remove disputed claims from the main article -- that would not be neutral, that would be censorship. It seems that some people "believe" in tea tree oil, and some don't. At the very least, it seems a relatively innocuous "active placebo", like Vitamin C -- something to do/take while you wait for your body to heal itself, a way to avoid using stronger modern drugs. Seems like it worked for my "ring worm" and for my eczema. Not a miracle cure - not for people in a hurry! 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made it a point not to remove disputed claims, but to label them as such and focus on adding more information. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources makes it very clear that statements need sources, otherwise they can and should be removed. The burden of proof is with editors who want the unsourced information to stay. In any case, as long as this article stays factual it doesn't really matter what people believe. Oasisbob 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I think this article better represents a NPOV now, I removed the POV tag. The "other claims" section has information which still needs citations or removal, but I view this as more of a issue of verification rather than POV issue. Oasisbob 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Acne and other claims

Therapeutic use of tea tree oil is increasingly popular, but solid evidence from clinical trials is sparse. Efficacy for acne vulgaris is weakly supported by perhaps no more than one reported single-blind clinical trial. Thus it is misleading to bestow special emphasis on this application (such as including a description of specific antimicrobial action against the "main cause" of acne). At best, one can legitimately say that tea tree oil "shows promise", but the promises of scads of compounds and traditional treatments have evaporated when subjected to the "gold standard" of objective, properly run, adequately-sized, replicated, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, peer-reviewed clinical trials. Inasmuch as tea tree oil can have troublesome and even nasty adverse effects that may go unrecognized for quite some time, it is unwise for an encyclopedia to seem to endorse any particular use of it absent sufficient reliable medical evidence. This is why I have pruned the statements about acne. Myron 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't 'pruned the statements'. You've totally torn up NPOV. NPOV is the cornerstone of the wikipedia. If there are qualifications to the evidence supporting its use, add those qualifications. You have no right to remove information to that degree.WolfKeeper 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. An encyclopedia article is not a review of the literature and should be balanced, not comprehensive. The verbiage I removed overemphasizes one potential use of tea tree oil and derives its authority from a single weak study done several years ago that no one seems to have bothered to follow up with further, more definitive research. This does not justify such a detailed description of a single study here. "Alternative medicine" enthusiasts tend to seize on such poorly substantiated material and to recommend self-treatment rather blithely, but that is not what Wikipedia is all about. Wolfkeeper, is your objection based on a wish to promote use of tea tree oil? I don't really understand what you mean by "torn up NPOV" and your concept of "no right". Could you please explain your position more concretely and without polemic? I invite others to comment on all this. Myron 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV. By removing stuff not in agreement with your opinion you are NOT following NPOV. NPOV is more about cataloging opinions NOT achieving some magical, mystical balance. I repeat- have you read NPOV???? Most editors of the wiki get this quite wrong.WolfKeeper 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, 1) I don't know where you get the idea that "the only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV".Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Read it: Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewWolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Balance in a presentation is a concept beyond wiki and beyond NPOV and is neither magical nor mystical and is even more than aesthetic. A good encyclopedia article balances detail against generalization, clarity against conciseness and precision against reaching the audience meaningfully, among other dimensions of choice. 2) I did not remove stuff "not in agreement with" my opinion; the matter is so poorly substantiated in scientific literature that I can have no opinion as to the advisability of trying tea tree oil for acne.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's your opinion.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that my having no POV as to efficacy may come across to you as POV by dint of its possible contrast to your strong belief. 3) If a conviction that tea tree oil is pretty definitely pretty good for acne is connoted by the way you phrased your contribution, then your contribution violates NPOV and calls for redaction.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It's not wrong to have an opinion under NPOV. It's just wrong to remove other peoples. (Slight exageration/oversimplification.)WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

4) You assert "I repeat": could you substantiate that by describing where you previously asked if I read NPOV? Or is your question merely polemical?

My bad. I was getting ahead of myself. I knew we were going to get here.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

5) There is no scientific evidence in the literature backing your implication (when you wrote "thus") that antibacterial action of tea tree oil against P. acnes accounts for the remedy's anti-acne effect. 6) Although P. acnes is commonly associated with acne vulgaris, it is not strictly correct to say that the organism is a "cause" and certainly not "the main cause" of the condition. Causality in illness is a complex matter. Finally, the study behind your contribution did not show that tea tree oil was "less effective" than benzoyl peroxide, but rather that its onset of action was slower. The study at issue was: Bassett IB, Pannowitz DL, Barnetson RS. A comparative study of tea-tree oil versus benzoylperoxide in the treatment of acne. Med J Aust. 1990 Oct 15;153(8):455-8. Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey I never said it was the root cause; but it clearly is a main cause; removal of P.Acnes very often stops acne.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WolfKeeper, you are not clear when you write about "cause", let along "main cause". When you claim P. acnes removal very often stops acne, it is unclear what you mean by "removal", "very often" and "stops". These may seem like simple common English terms, but if you think about them they don't really convey useful information here. Acne vulgaris results from complex processes and it is not known that infection of a comedo by P. acnes is sufficient or necessary. Suppression of bacterial growth may be beneficial in reducing the amount of inflammation in existing lesions or in reducing recurrence of lesions or the rate of appearance of new ones, but it is not always clear whether whatever inhibited the bacterial growth influenced the acne directly or whether its benefit was mediated by its effect on the bacteria. For example, use of tetracycline agents for acne may work not so much through its antibiotic properties as by its direct effect on skin physiology. To get back to your claim, what exactly do you mean by "very often" and just how often is that? What evidence can you cite that P. acnes is a "main cause" rather than a mere opportunistic infection that may or may not make acne more severe, or dramatic, or annoying but that does not in itself initiate evolution of a lesion and that is not necessary for its appearance or development? The current state of the art of acne therapy does not include tea tree oil and even benzoyl peroxide is usually not the treatment of choice. As of now, tea tree oil remains unsubstantiated as being worth using for acne in preference to proven approaches and it is only one of hundreds of thousands of potion notions that attract offbeat champions of disparate motivation. While there is some truth to be found amidst the welter of unscientific health claims circulating in cyberspace, Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for every medical claim that anyone, however passionate or convinced, is moved to post. I tried to act respectfully by reducing the prominence of the material you inserted into the current article, although it should actually be stricken. Can you back your position with science or do you hold that science should be cast aside here? This is less a matter of NPOV than of upholding reasonable standards in Wikipedia. Myron 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reasonable standard for the Wikipedia is NPOV. It is a reasonably widely held view that Tea tree oil helps acne; and there is some science to back this up. Many commercial acne products contain tea tree oil, and it does indeed kill many bacteria, including P.Acnes. Most treatments that kill P.Acnes improve acne, and the scientific evidence is that Tea tree oil does improve acne. Even so, ultimately it doesn't matter whether the view is right or not, the fact that it is a widely held view makes it ok to add to the wikipedia, since it is a noteable point of view.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a private spat, but I found the article to be biased in favor of widespread use of tea tree oil, to the point of being off-topic and sounding ridiculous. Tea tree oil is presented as a magical cure-all, despite a lack of evidence that it does anything more than have an antiseptic effect and contribute slightly to healing acne. Benzoyl peroxide was found by the study to be much more effective. Tea tree oil can be used as a substitute for BP by those who prefer "natural" ingredients, but it is not a replacement. Spreading hearsay as fact, especially medical fact, harms credulous readers of Wikipedia. The article has a POV problem, and I side with Myron.

"For fungal nail infections, application is twice daily and relief or cure is typically seen in 3–4 months." Fungal nail infections CANNOT be treated by topical applications. Creams, lotions etc simply can't get in to the nail root; to treat any nail infection, a drug must be adminstered systemically. E.g. an oral antifungal would treat a fungal nail infection, a topical antifungal would have no effect.--KX36 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Other claims - reliability

Can we get a consensus on deleting the "other claims" section containing a number of unsourced claims if sources are not provided in, say, a week? Bluntly I have to say that none of it looks very reliable and none of it is sourced. The Crow 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, I've been trying to source as much of it as possible. I went ahead and removed this section. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

False attribution in Safety section

The Washington Post article cited in the Safety section does not contain the words "shrinking of the testes" as added by user 71.228.24.41 If you have a source for this, please cite it separately. Catawba 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lobbyist quote in Safety section

For Steven Dentali to say "it's premature to worry, given the paucity of clinical evidence and many questions that the lab work left unanswered," is a boiler-plate special interest group response. His employer, the American Herbal Products Association, has nothing on its website clarifying what questions still need to be answered. Catawba 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

Does anyone have information on the environmental practices commonly used for commercial production of tea tree oil? The plant is native to the wilderness of Australia. Is it commercially grown, or is it harvested from the wild? What is the plant's growth rate, and what length of time does it take to attain a mature plant? Tsugaguy 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some informative links found so far: http://oilganic.com/teatreeoil/ttdefault.htm#crop Click Crop Rotations and Harvesting bookmark link. Sounds like the plants are not destroyed during harvesting, and a plant can live up to 10 years (during repeated 12 to 18 month harvesting?).

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture determined in the 1970's that M. alternifolia is amenable to cultivation for tea tree oil production: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EA9810439.htm

Zandella is at least one large commercial melaleuca farm, with certifications/acreditations from TGA, NOP, NASAA, and BFA, according to their website at http://zandella.com/organic%20tea%20tree%20oil%20Melaleuca%20alternifolia.cfm

There have also been some concerns about invasive plants in this genus introduced in Florida. See http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses/MarineEcologyArticles/MelaleucaMadness.html. Invasive plants destroy ecosystems by outcompeting other plants native to the environment and can destroy animal habitat as well. This may or may not be a factor in Melaleuca alternifolia, the species used commercially to produce tea tree oil.

Please expound on this if you have any further info, especially if from governmental agencies or environmental groups who would not be biased commercially. Tsugaguy 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wart treatment?

I've read a lot of anecdotal reports about Tea Tree oil being effective for warts and Molluscum Contagiousum. Any comments?

As common warts and molluscum contagiosum are self-limiting conditions it is difficult to tell if a particular treatment applied in an individual case was efficacious or whether lesions would have resolved anyway. Only an experimental study can resolve this question. Anecdotes are valuable in suggesting topics for research and, with responsible expert consultation, for suggesting treatment where proven remedies have failed. However, they do not belong in an encyclopedia, which should not tout every fad and nostrum even when some people become enthused about it and even when popular articles depict it as a miracle cure or whatever. The encyclopedia should not be cluttered by swarms of claims that will for the most part be discredited after a few years, but should reflect the current state of knowledge which, in this case, does not include reliable answers about using tea tree oil for warts, molluscum contagiosum or, for that matter, acne vulgaris. Tea tree oil carries some risk. Wikipedia should not throw its weight behind promoting it for unproven uses. What, if any, peer reviewed published research supports using tea tree oil for warts or molluscum contagiosum? We need references (not from health fad literature, vendors or from other secondary sources that duplicate and feed off each other) to continue any serious discussion of this. Myron 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally skeptical about anti wart properties, it has no known antiviral properties AFAIK, and it doesn't burn skin like most other wart treatments.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the following is helpful at all, but my understanding is that it does seem to have some antiviral properties.

"Antiviral activity of Australian Melaleuca alternifolia and eucalyptol plant extracts against herpes simplex virus in cell culture. Schnitzler P, Schon K, Reichling J. Department of Virology, Hygiene Institute, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

The antiviral effect of Melaleuca alterfernolia (TTO) and eucalyptol (EUO) and other plant extracts against herpes simplex virus was examined. Cytotoxicity of TTO and EUO was evaluated in a standard neutral red dye uptake assay. Toxicity of TTO and EUO was moderate for RC-37 cells and approached 50% (TC50) at concentrations of 0.006% and 0.03%, respectively. Antiviral activity of TTO and EUO against herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) was tested in vitro on RC-37 cells using a plaque reduction assay. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of TTO for herpes simplex virus plaque formation was 0.0009% and 0.0008% and the IC50 of EUO was determined at 0.009% and 0.008% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Australian tea tree oil exhibited high levels of virucidal activity against HSV-1 and HSV-2 in viral suspension tests. At noncytotoxic concentrations of TTO plaque formation was reduced by 98.2% and 93.0% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Noncytotoxic concentrations of EUO reduced virus titers by 57.9% for HSV-1 and 75.4% for HSV-2. Virus titers were reduced significantly with TTO, whereas EUO exhibited distinct but less antiviral activity. In order to determine the mode of antiviral action of both essential oils, either cells were pretreated before viral infection or viruses were incubated with TTO or EUO before infection, during adsorption or after penetration into the host cells. Plaque formation was clearly reduced, when herpes simplex virus was pretreated with the essential oils prior to adsorption. These results indicate that TTO and EUO affect the virus before or during adsorption, but not after penetration into the host cell. Thus TTO and EUO are capable to exert a direct antiviral effect on HSV. Although the active antiherpes components of Australian tea tree and eucalyptus oil are not yet known, their possible application as antiviral agents in recurrent herpes infection is promising." Siraj88 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename a good thing?

This page was recently retitled from "Tea Tree Oil" to "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil." I don't think this is a bad thing per se, but MTTO is not the normal term used, most of the primary literature I've seen simply calls it TTO or "essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia". Is there really enough confusion to warrant using a more-specific yet not-common title? Oasisbob 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The move was surprising, unexplained and unwarranted. I have seen many publications referring to "tea tree oil" and none to "melaleuca tea tree oil". Someone's notion of "specificity" does not trump common usage or the expectations of people coming to Wikipedia seeking information. There is little danger of people confusing "tea tree oil" with "tea oil". A move like this demands discussion. I say revert to the previous title. Myron 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this was a good thing to question. Thanks so much for inviting me to chime in Oasisbob :-)

• 1. "Surprising" - I would agree it could be surprising. Improvements can be just as surprising as deteriorations.
• 2. "Unexplained" - it was indeed explained I promise! :-) - "This title is more descriptive for where the oil comes from". Is this in dispute?
• 3. "unwarranted" - is a bit strong since it means 'having no justification', not 'having a justification I don't agree with'. I did justify the move. Whether you agree with the justification is another matter. That warrants discussion - which is why we're in the 'discussion' tab. I agree that I should have explained the justification much more than I did though.

I regularly order much needed medical supplies for Unicef for a small village (but people from the surrounding area come there) and one of the supplies ordered is melaleuca oil because it reduces the number of separate supplies needed. Much confusion occurred when our supplier simply called it 'tea tree oil'. Since that literally means different things to different people depending on what region of the world they're from and the individual, 'tea tree oil' not only lacked specificity, it also lacked accuracy. Now it is called 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' when we order it in bulk and no one is confused about what exactly we are getting. The best thing about this term is that it shows up easily in searches for both "Melaleuca Oil" and "Tea Tree Oil" in the medical supply database (and also on the web.) I am not 'married' to the term "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil" though. However, I strongly believe in the importance of having the word "Melaleuca" in the title somewhere. The other accurate and helpful terms that are commonly used are "Melaleuca (Tea Tree Oil)", "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)", Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil), and "Tea Tree Oil (from Melaleuca Alternifolia)". Oasisbob's suggestion of "Essential Oil of Melalecua Alternifolia" would work too. As long as 'Melaleuca' is in there somewhere, it will satisfy both kinds of searches and it will at once be more informative. The way it stands now "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" solves this issue but I agree that it's not the only way to do it. :-) I also apologize if I was too 'abrupt' about this.

I also apologize for not providing more explanation than I did. It's just that I've been involved in a big off-line discussion about this with all those involved, and that was the consensus reached that seemed to resolve everyone's confusion as succinctly as possible. Cheers. Siraj88 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think changing the title for ease of searching is not a good idea. Personally, I like the name "Melaleuca tea tree oil", but it just isn't a common name, and wikipedia isn't in the business of creating neologisms. (WP:NEO) ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" or "tea tree oil". If there are concerns about confusion, perhaps clarification in the article about what TTO isn't could be helpful. Is there anything else that is really called "tea tree oil"? I found some mentions of commonly mistaken substances in section 2, but TTO seems unambiguous. Avoiding confusion is good, but I really think we should stick with convention, common usage, and international standards on this one. (I don't think the move was unreasonable, as long as we're here on the talk page now.)Oasisbob 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it's really not a new term (doing a Google search for 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' in quotes yields over 680 results), your point is well taken since it's not as common as the other two. If the current move is not acceptable, would a move to "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)" or "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" be agreeable then? No hint of neologism created there, both commonly used terms are there, and it makes it easy for people familiar with either one to find. I personally knew what 'Melaleuca Oil' was a couple years before I ever heard of the term "Tea Tree Oil". For some it may be the opposite. One thing we can probably agree on is that despite both terms being commonly used, everyone heard, and prefers one term before the other. Both terms are conventional, are an international standard (as you pointed out ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" OR "tea tree oil"), and commonly used. Siraj88 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to titling the article "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)". It's more specific, and articles titled in the "Common Name (Scientific Name)" format are common. I propose waiting a few days for any other voices, then move. Oasisbob 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" as well. Anyone else to chime in? Siraj88 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week. I'll change it from the current "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" to "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" Siraj88 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just updated all the "What links here" pages accordingly Siraj88 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation in title

Incidentally, standard Wikipedia formatting for article titles is that they're all lowercase except for proper nouns and first words. This article would therefore more properly be called Tea tree oil (melaleuca oil) per WP:CAPS. I'm going to move it there.

I trust that this move won't be controversial, as my motivation for it is based on standard wiki guidelines. :) Switchercat ^talk_cont 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And done! I'll get started on fixing the redirecting links. Switchercat ^talk_cont 04:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Medicinal use section

I eliminated subheadings in this section because once the language was tightened there was insufficient material to warrant special subsections for fungi and bacteria. Antifungal and antiseptic are mentioned in the first paragraph of the article and that is enough. A reference to an in vitro study was incorrectly indicated as in vivo so I moved it. Boils are not wounds. The article lacks citations to show that tea tree oil is useful for bug bites, cuts, scrapes and boils (I'm not disputing that it is effective) or that it has "cosmetic properties", whatever that means. Can anyone find scientific support for these claims? Myron 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated claim of less risk when treating acne compared with benzoyl peroxide. Adolescents may be most eager for effective acne treatment but their physical and perhaps psychological development may be most harmed by the recently described anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic actions of topically applied tea tree oil. Myron 08:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The safety of TTO as compared to benzoyl peroxide has nothing to do with what you describe. I don't believe that it is wikipedia's job to form medicinal opinions to protect people from themselves. The article already mentions the Gynecomastia link, its clear from the context of the statement you removed that the comparision is between TTO and benzoyl peroxide, not a blanket statement saying that TTO is safe for everyone always. I think the statement shouldn't be removed. Oasisbob 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per unopposed request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Tea tree oil (melaleuca oil) → Tea tree oil — No need to disambiguate. Although there are a number of different plants called "tea tree", none of them are known for their oil except Melaleuca. Mike Dillon 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concerning the Recent Rename

I reverted back to the previous title that was agreed upon after much more discussion. See the "Rename a good thing?" and the "Capitalisation in titles" discussions. The "disambiguating" is necessary because the term "Tea tree oil" alone is indeed ambiguous to many people and a long time common source of confusion. The article already mentions one example: "Tea tree oil should not be confused with 'tea oil'." Including "melaleuca oil" in the title is the simplest and most useful way to do this by using the standard Common Name/Scientific Name format. Siraj555

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The previous discussions did not reach any concensus to rename that I could see. As for disambiguating something for which there are no common competing meanings, it is against Wikipedia naming guidelines. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Specifically, there are no other articles to be confused with this name and "tea tree oil" by far refers to the subject of this article.

Also, when you made the moves, you left double redirects, which make users have to click an extra link. As it stands now, all previous names of this article can be used to link to it.

One more thing, are you also User:Siraj88? If so, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Mike Dillon 06:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, to 'disambiguate' means simply to "to remove the ambiguity from". Adding the proper scientific name for 'Tea tree oil' does indeed clear up the confusion and ambiguities surrounding this term.

• How could one disambiguate something if it wasn't ambiguous in the first place? Since it is ambiguous it needs disambiguated in this case.
• Your Wiki naming conventions reference is helpful. It states: If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." 'Melaleuca oil' is not deserving of its own article simply because many people don't know it's the same as 'tea tree oil' and not the same as 'tea oil'.
• There was much more discussion on this previously. Please refer to "Name change a good thing?" There was no reference made to this at all when the recent deletion of 'melaleuca oil' was made. Why?
• The article itself names one of the common confusions of "tea oil". Furthermore, the very first sentence reads "Tea tree oil or melaleuca oil..." precisely because of this ambiguity and the fact that not everyone is aware that they are the same thing. Having the proper unambiguous name in the title from the beginning is therefore useful.
• Yes Siraj88 was me - if I was interested in hiding this, I wouldn't have used the same name. It is a name I've lost access to so so your reference does not apply. I appreciate your personal interest in me on one level, but in Wiki, please keep the discussion focused on the substance of the issue and not the person. See the Wiki page on Ad hominem fallacy attacks for reference: Ad_hominem

I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this question: Which is a more useful, less ambiguous, and more informative title? 1. "Tea tree oil" or 2. "Tea Tree Oil (melaleuca oil)" Siraj555 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the other meaning of "Tea tree oil"? This article is not called "tea oil" and there are no other uses of the term "tea tree oil" except in error. That's why the article addresses these misconceptions. In terms of disambiguation, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. In particular:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this same word or phrase is the natural title of more than one article.

There is not more than one article that has "tea tree oil" as the natural title, so it is appropriate to use the common name of this substance as the name for this article, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

There is more information at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, the title is very close to the title 'tea oil' though. Also, this is the internet and we must think more from a global perspective outside of our own region. What is the most common name in your region is not the most common name in other regions. Would you be surprised to find out that 'tea oil' and 'tea tree oil' are commonly confused? They are. So if not, how can it be anything but a good thing to clear up the ambiguity by including the proper scientific name in the title? Siraj555 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's an interesting discusion on the advantages of the proposal to have scientific names in the titles. Consider the following quote which is rings of familiarity with the very disucussion we're having now: "NPOV - Common names are regional, while scientific names are recognized worldwide. Using scientific names eliminates arguments over which name is "most common", "unique", "most widely used", etc." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive12#Plant_Naming_Convention_Proposal_draft Siraj555 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific names are used on Wikipedia for plants and animals, not their products. As for renaming the article for the reason of confusion or dispute over common name, can you point to any other use of the term "tea tree oil" or any other common names for this product? I've seen no evidence that it is called "melaleuca oil" as a common name anywhere in the world. Mike Dillon 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you notice that there is much evidence that common names vary more from region to region and are much more mercurial over time while scientific names are global and much more venerable over time? As for your question, as I said:

1. The term "tea oil" is very common and commonly confused with tea tree oil (I realize you don't dispute this). Therefore, what harm does it cause to solve this problem by including the proper scientific name?
2. I can assure you that just from my own travels alone 'melaleuca oil' is the more common name in many areas and not as common as 'tea tree oil' in other areas--at a very minimum it is certainly *as* common in many natural medicine shops or both common in many regions around the world.
3. Since you obviously have demonstrated the ability to, you can choose to think globally here and in other languages/cultures as well ('tea tree oil' is not as common as the scientific name 'Melaleuca' in at least 2 provinces in mainland China for example). Just because this Wiki page is written in English does not mean the only people reading it have English as their only language. Including the scientific name significantly increases the chances that the Wiki page will communicate more effectively across cultures.
4. Again, 'common names' are generally much more regional and less stable, especially over time. Science is a global language that tends to transcend non-scientific common names across regions and cultures time and time again.
5. We both agree that Wiki guidlines are excellent and they are continually evolving (even more so because they are much newer than *both* of these names). Because they are a very useful guide does not mean we don't have to think for ourselves and do what is best on a case by case basis.
6. Believe it or not, I'm not the only person in the world who uses the term "Melaleuca Oil" more than 'tea tree oil'. In a world with a population of billions, it's very safe to say that out of those who have even heard of tea tree oil/melaleuca oil, there are at least many thousands of people who use 'Melaleuca Oil' more often. In the world of the internet where physical regions are less relevant anyway, many thousands constitutes regions.

You do have a point Mike and you make it very intelligently and impressively and I have learned a lot from reading your thoughts on this (really). I am not asserting that you are wrong that 'tea tree oil' is more common - I agree with you and you've made that point very well. With that said and acknowledged, if you're willing to shift into thinking global and longer term, you will realize I actually have a point too. :-) Realize now that while I do not at all dispute that 'tea tree oil' is more common, even a simple Google search will show that *both* names are common (rather than one having to be 'uncommon' just because one is more common). If you are able to come to terms with that, then you must ask yourself this question: "What significant harm does it do to satisfy both needs by simply having both the common name and the common scientific name? e.g. How does it not add any value?" So how about a win-win? Siraj555

I'd like to see this discussion move toward closure instead of spiralling out of control, but I'll respond to your most of your points.

1. The way that things like the potential confusion between "tea oil" and "tea tree oil" are normally dealt with here is by adding the {{dablink}} template at the beginning of the article. Something like:

   {{dablink|This article is about the essential oil derived from plants of the genus Melaleuca. For the oil derived from the tea plant, see [[tea oil]].}}.

2. It's interesting to note that all of the links to versions of this article in other European languages use names that are related to "tea tree oil", not melaleuca: Teebaumöl (German), Theeboomolie (Dutch), Teepuuöljy (Finnish). A quick glance at the Spanish article on Melaleuca shows that the term in that language is also "aceite del árbol del té", not "aceite de melaleuca". As for whether one is more common than the other, a Google search for the two phrases show nearly 1.3 million results for "tea tree oil" and about 30,000 results for "melaleuca oil". I know that a Google search isn't definitive for worldwide colloquial usage, but according to this metric "tea tree oil" is 40 times more common.
3. English Wikipedia is targeted at English speakers. The article already accomodates non-English speakers and those who only know the name "melaleuca" by providing a redirect from melaleuca oil and by calling out the alternate name in the first sentence.
4. Tea tree oil doesn't have a scientific name. The plant it's derived from does, but Wikipedia convention generally doesn't name anything with scientific names except species of plants and animals.

I realize that you think changing the name adds value for a global perspective, but readers using names other than "tea tree oil" are already accomodated by the existing redirects. Someone searching for "melaleuca oil" or linking to it will find this article, not to mention the redirect from tea tree oil (melaleuca oil). There isn't really anything gained by having "melaleuca oil" in the title that isn't provided by having the alternate name in bold text in the first sentence. Mike Dillon 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes 'tea tree oil' is 40 times more common (which means 'melaleuca oil' is common too). 30,000 results is quite a lot don't you agree? 'Tea tree oil' is also many more times commonly confused than 'melaleuca oil' As for redirects, they confuse many users. When both the common name and the common scientific name are in the title, people recognize that they are the same thing in the search engine results without even having to click to go to the page. So again: "What significant harm does it do to satisfy both needs by simply having both the common name and the common scientific name? e.g. How does it not add any value?" Siraj555 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that redirects confuse anyone since I've never seen that happen in my time here (except for blatantly incorrect redirects). As for the harm done by having what I consider to be a redundant name, it's simply that it's unnecessary to add the parenthetical and that the common name is clearer.

I've posted a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) to solicit broader input. Hopefully getting more people's perspectives can bring this issue to a resolution. Mike Dillon 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal use

The article says: "Indigenous Australians have used oil extracted from the tree's needles for hundreds, and possibly thousands of years."

I find this comment very misleading, and probably incorrect. The words "have used oil extracted" certainly seems to imply (or very ambiguous to say the least) that Aboriginal people seperated and collected the essential oil from the body of the plant. My observation of traditional Bundjalung plant use is that heated leaf-pultices were applied to wounds and infections, and inhalation of crushed leaves for sinuses.

Of course Aboriginal's used aromatic plants, but I'm unaware of any record or reference to Aboriginal Australian's extracting volitile plant oils so as to have essential oil in a isolated form prior to European colonisation. Infusions of aromatic leaves in water maybe a possibility. However, as far everyone knows, it was colonial Europeans in Northern NSW who first extracted tea tree oil using steam distillation. The inspiration for tea tee oil was traditional Bundjalung knowledge, but I'm fairly sure that tradition was primarily pultice based.

Further, if this article was orginally from industry sources, I'd be concerned that the association between modern tea tree oil usage and traditional Aboriginal use has been exagerated for industry PR/safety image purposes. John Moss 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the History section, including the Aboriginality aspect of tea tree oil use.

I have also made an addition to the referenced wording: changing the tense on "was" to "is" regarding the Bundjalung traditional usage of tea tree. I have been with Bundjalung friends when they have shown me tea tree and how to use it, so I don't think Wiki should perpetuate anything that incorrectly assumes extinction of traditional knowledge. John Moss 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Animal Safety

A user added a statement that TTO is especially toxic for cats. Looking at the citation (a journal abstract from a 3rd party), the cats experienced toxicosis at ~20ccs of TTO applied topically to each. 20ccs is a lot, I wouldn't say that cats are more affected than other household animals. This article referred to topical toxicity: not oral toxicity, so its inclusion was misleading. I don't think topical TTO cat toxicity is out of the scope of the article, but it needs to be explained better. Oasisbob 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the information to match what the actual cited articles reported, namely that EXTERNAL application of UNDILUTED tea tree oil and/or at "inappropriate" high doses has been associated with toxicity, including death, in cats and other animals. The comments others have added about needing to check with a veterinarian first or cats having extremely sensitive skin may be well and good, and indeed anyone is welcome to add those comments if they have reliable citations to back them up, but those comments are not the conclusions of studies cited in the article and have therefore been removed. Further, it could well be that cats are more affected than other animals and could suffer serious effects at much lower levels than 20ccs, but for lack of data the cited studies do not and cannot make that claim. However, as the cited studies do specificly deal with death in cats, I feel it is prudent to maintain mention of this. - Litmaerle (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

want to know

i would like to know that when the tea tree oil loses it smell does it lose its qualtitys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.182.62 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

EU doesn't want to ban tea tree oil

I removed the section about a rumor that the European Union plans to ban tea tree oil. "The Guardian" published a badly-researched article which was stating that the EU was planning to ban Tea Tree Oil. In reality, all that happened along these lines was that Germany's "Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung" (State Department for Risk Evaluation) published a paper which advises customers to be careful when applying undiluted oil to skin, as doing so could lead to irritation; and further recommends that cosmetical products should include tea tree oil in at most 1% - which was just a recommendation; no such law has passed until today (Feb 18. 2009). As such, stating that "The EU" is about to ban or has plans on banning tea tree oil, is incorrect. To say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.195.41 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"and when used at 10% concentration never been shown to cause resistance, but has been shown to at lower percentages" Could somebody work out what this is intended to mean, and rewrite it in English? I already cleared up one piece of nonsense, but I'm stumped here.218.14.48.191 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Safety concerns way overblown

Skin irritation is the worst possible thing that can happen if you don't drink the stuff. Just don't use it on large areas of the skin it if it gives you a rash. Tea tree oil is an excellent antifungal, with traditional uses in China for athlete's foot and ringworm dating back thousands of years. Would the Chinese have kept using it that long, even up to the present day, if it did not work? Deepmath (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of fact, it's not that good an antifungal, a lot of the conventional chemicals work much, much better, and if you put it in your ear and you have a perforated eardrum then it may make you deaf. it's pretty good at staph and other bacteria though at about 10% strength, but it causes irritation at higher strengths in lots and lots of people.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tea tree oil is essentially 'organic' turpentine. Terpenes are rather toxic when ingested and can cause serious tissue irritation. There may be some cancer risk, who knows how safe it is. If it had been a synthetic product, it would be have been treated much differently by the 'organic' minded chem scared public who buy these things. I bet there are tons of better, safer and cheaper topical disinfectants out there that can do the job. The way it has been hyped, we need some documentation to back its claimed effects. The only advantage I can think of is that it is an oil which should be capable of penetrating into pores. The fumes are pretty hefty when applied to the face though 93.161.107.239 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The main advantage is that it doesn't seem to induce resistance (when you use it stronger than about 8%). Most other things do. The terpenes have been used by various plants over geologic times to protect themselves, that's probably why.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't use it neat, there's no reason to think it's significantly toxic when applied to skin at reasonable concentrations. It might be a mild estrogen mimic though; like peanuts.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tea tree oil as soother for mossie bites

I woke up in the middle of last night with three massive swollen itchy bites on my leg, I assume mossies as I keep my bedding clean so doubt was bed bugs. I found tea tree oil in my (very basic) medicine cabinet, dabbed some on, then washed my hands, as I didn't want to accidentally get the taste in my mouth! Though it smelled lovely, will definately put a few drops in a bowl of hot water to inhale if I ever get a cold (thankfully, haven't had one for years) Within 10 minutes the itch had gone, after an hour, there was no swelling at all. Brilliant - otherwise I could have created an open sore by scratching - it really was so itchy and uncomfortable until I put the TT oil on. How should it be diluted to use on childrens or babies - I intend to take it with me whenever I go to outside events such as evening BBQs when mossie bites can be a misery. A little dab on shoes or a tissue might even be a deterrant... JanT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.116.173 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

May Be Banned in Europe

I read a news article that said that Tea Tree Oil is under review and may be banned in the European Union. This for two reasons: 1) due to the fact that it can suppress the immune system and then trigger dangerous MRSA infections and 2) because it can trigger severe and chronic inflammatory skin reactions in some people.

Here is one article on this (there are others too)--

This one is from a major British newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/18/medicineandhealth.health98.245.150.162

(talk) 23:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Used sweet tea oil (8 drops to 1/2 cup veggie oil) on my dogs back.

Following advice for the skin disorder my dog has, I used sweet tea oil in above mix on my dog. She licked some of it and now has tremors in her back legs. Have I hurt/killed my dog? What can I do? I have stopped using it on her. I used it maybe 6 times, with the 8 drop/1/2 cup veggie oil mix. It really worked but then the tremors started. She is still the happy 70 pound 6 year old from before I used it. But the tremors scare the heck out of me. Please, I can not afford to take her to the vet, is there something I can do at home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.39.236 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no cleanup page listed. If it is for cleanup, please apply the correct cleanup page reference. 70.198.49.81 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Safety

"Tea tree oil is very toxic if ingested internally, and may result in dizziness, nausea and disorientation." Well, that is daunting, and good to know! What quantities are how toxic, and what would be appropriate treatments? 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This statement about tea tree oil being "very toxic" isn't very well supported by the literature. There are reports of infants and children having toxic reactions, but all of them recovered quickly with treatment. The toxicity of TTO is believed to be similar to other essential oils with similar proportions of terpenes. I updated the article with more health info. Oasisbob 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"If ingested internally," is there an external way to ingest now? :-D --KX36 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point. A quick check in my med dictionary confirms that ingestion can only be by mouth. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Toxicity claims are very well supported. The post above is irresponsible and reveals a lack of extensive reading on the subject. Tea Tree Oil taken internally can cause loss of muscle coordination, muscle twitching and nerve damage. Don't make statements on safety that could adversely affect others. Don't comment on safety at all unless you really know what you are talking about.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Current version betrays a lack of understanding of LD50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.8.3 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisions per WP:MEDRS

In response to a request for WPMED assistance, initially addressed to Doc James [1] I've started to revise the medical claims made in this page per MEDRS. To be continued... —MistyMorn (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

People With A Financial Interest in Selling Tea Tree Oil Should Disclose That When Posting Here

People With A Financial Interest in Selling Tea Tree Oil Should Disclose That When Posting Here.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were truly your concern, you would be selling tea tree oil, too, not bitching about others that sell it. I have a bottle from "JASÖN" and one from "Tea Tree Therapy, Inc." somewhere in California. There's a company called "Melaleuca" that might sell it, etcetera ad nauseum. Now what's the price of tea in China have to do with it, again? Deepmath (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that a sociopath always thinks that everyone else is a sociopath too.

Yes requiring disclosure of financial interest when posting on Wikipedia is a very good idea. It may already be a rule, but may be very hard to enforce. Unless of course, Wikipedia starts suing companies that violate this rule (are you listening Wikipedia?).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of commercial interests would be a good thing as it bears directly on partiality/impartiality of comments. But how could such disclosure be validated? Wikipedia has the ability to determine whether the IP addresses of contributors go back to marketers, but what's to prevent a marketer from creating and using a private account on a home computer? Still, this article's safety section seems to have been seriously watered down by folks, who whether out of commercial interest or over zealous personal advocacy, have deleted peer-reviewed medical journal information like the New England Journal of Medicine reference. That's not good. The Wiki currently mentions one child developed gynecomastia, the NEJM paper reports three cases identified by a single doctor! Un Mundo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil and Lavender Oil and gynecomastia in boys

Science News July 1, 2006 Vol. 170 page 6 indicates that products containing lavender oil or tea tree oil can cause enlarged breast in young boys.

Some qoutes:

"Lavender oil and tea tree oil contain compounds that act like female sex hormones and interfere with male hormones,"

"Bloch recommended that the boys stop using lavender-containing products. When they followed his advise, gynecomastia disappeared within a few months."

"These oils possess both estrogenic and anti-androgenic properties," Henley reported at the Endocrine Society meeting in Boston this week.

"Young boys should avoid the oils, Bloch advises. Many personal-care products contain them."

"-B. Harder"

Somitcw 02:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to that article? It would be good to put it in the Reference section. Catawba 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Full article is only available to subscribers: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8.asp

Non-subscribers can get to the table of contents: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/toc.asp

Non-subscribers can also see the references and sources: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8ref.asp

Somitcw 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this summary omits some key points. Here is a better source with a more accurate summary detailing the NIH report:

NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2007, February 1). Lavender And Tea Tree Oils May Cause Breast Growth In Boys. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070131204136.htm

If there aren't any objections, I'd like to make some minor modifications using the above source. --Alex Shkirenko (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Shkirenko appears to be vandalizing/trolling this article repeatedly. Looking at the history, the article has read for over 7 months basically as follows:

A case study reported in a recent publication showed a possible association between repeated topical application of products containing lavender oil with prepubertal gynecomastia (abnormal breast development in young boys). The study involved just three individuals.[23] All three cases included the use of lavender oil. In one of the three cases, a product was used that contained lavender oil as well as tea tree oil, and other ingredients.[24] The prepubertal gynecomastia reversed after discontinuing use of products containing lavender oil. [25]In the same paper, results from cell culture assays indicated that both essential oils exhibit weak estrogenic properties. Researchers indicated that other components in these products may also have contributed to the gynecomastia, but those components were not yet tested. Researchers also noted that estrogenic activities have also been reported for many other commonly used essential oils as well as foods such as almonds and peanuts.[26] Other articles have cast doubt as to the conclusions of the article and dismissed the study as having used "poor methodology".[27][28]

As with many antibiotics, if used in 4% concentrations or below it may activate stress reactions in bacteria which can cause them to become less sensitive to antibiotics in vitro.[29] Tea tree oil is not recommended for use in the ears.[30]

According to one Admin, Shkirenko was previously suspended on Wikipedia for vandalism and his/her account has just recently been unblocked.

Shkirenko has now repeatedly attempted to deleted/remove the following information

• The study included only 3 individuals
• All three individuals used products containing Lavender Oil
• Only one of the boys who used products with lavender oil also used products with tea tree oil.
• More than just the Tea Tree Oil Association has questioned the study.

All of the above information is factual and referenced in the original document. I think additional facts could be added and are invited, but should probably be done so without trying to remove the information previously established.

Shkirenko seems adamant in removing this information for unknown reasons. As others have encouraged, DISCUSSION is welcome.

HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the others which have encouraged discussion is in fact shkirenko I've been asking HawaiiHangin10 for quite some time to move his concerns to the discussion area. Now that you are here, what exactly is your concern over my edits. I've posted my intentions here for a while. (...and as long as we are discussing our histories, HawaiiHangin10 seems to have a very very short history which began fairly recently...but that of course has nothing to do with the edits in question :) )

You keep saying that I've removed established facts but that isn't the case. Let's look at a few kew parts: 1. What is your concern with adding that the study was reported in the The New England Journal of Medicine? shkirenko - A case study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine suggested HawaiiHangin10 - A case study reported in a recent publication showed a possible association Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No concern with the reference to the new england journal of medicine. But you made that edit along with deleting all of the established, and now re-established facts noted. You certainly could have made that edit without suppressing other information, and it's the suppression of the facts that made your actions suspect. I have added back the reference to the New England Journal of Medicine HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, and not necessarily a recommendation for a wording change, it is not actually correct to say it "showed a possible association," for it did in fact show an association, namely that one of the cases did involve tea tree oil. It is the significance of the association that is in question. As your article says, "Although we found an association between exposure to these essential oils and gynecomastia, further research is needed to determine the prevalence of prepubertal gynecomastia in boys using products containing lavender and tea tree oils." It's much like if you had a friend who robbed a bank, there is an association between you and the bank robbery, an indirect one. - Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your thought process is good, but consider this: Using your example, because someone was in the bank at the time it was robbed, does that mean just because you were at the bank making a withdrawal that there was an association in guilt to you? Based on the facts, association remains in uncertain. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that you were at the bank would be sufficient to state as fact that there's an association (of some kind) between you and the guilty party. As such, it's certain that there's an association, but without additional information, it's UNcertain as to the extent of that association. So in regard to tea tree oil and gynecomastia in boy #2, the association is not simply "possible" but factual as it's certain that an association of *some kind* exists, but it's uncertain as to the full nature of that association, i.e. whether it was causative / "guilty" or merely incidental.

There is some general disagreement here. Had there ever been a case where tea tree oil was present and lavendar oil was absent, I would tend to agree. However, that has never happened. If lavendar is guilty (and a study of only 3 people makes it hard to conclude even that), then it would have had the same effect whether the tea tree oil was there or not.

You say "it would have had the same effect whether the tea tree oil was there or not," but this is not necessarily true. In fact, the effect of an ingredient can sometimes be amplified by the presence of another ingredient, and sometimes beyond the mere quantitive amount added. In a sense, the addition of another ingredient can sometimes act like a match to gasoline. Other times, additional ingredients can do the opposite, and mitigate the effects of an otherwise active ingredient. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, reading the study shows, one of the boys had a brother using the same products, but without effect. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The absence of apparent effects in the brother may be explainable by many factors, including that the brother did not use the same combination of products nor in the same amount or the same manner, or the fact that the brother is both genetically and physically not identical. It's quite possible that some people are hypersensitive for as yet unknown reasons. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, HawaiiHangin10, the NEJM study itself expressly states, and I quote from the study itself, "We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender AND tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys," not just lavender oil as your version of the Wikipedia insinuates. - Litmaerle (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have not had any interest in defending that portion, other than protect from the vandalism and suppression of facts which seemed to be included with sweeping changes and without justification. It's crazy people are editing this without even reading what they are referencing. I've found some people just don't like essential oils - especially some in the medical field. I'm new to wikipedia but am learning a lot, and I see there is a need to protect information from trollers and vandals as it can happen at any time. It's just a matter of finding the time to stay involved. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One final thought on a humorous note. If there truly is a cause and effect with tea tree oil and lavender oil with increasing breast tissue, then those lavender and tea tree oil manufacturing companies are sitting on a gold mine - especially with all of the money that goes into breast enhancement products. Just think, one that finally works?! HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may well be that the effects are greatest in prepubertal children rather than in adults who otherwise have an abundance of sex hormones flowing in their bodies to countereffect the seemingly minor effects of these essential oils. The prepubertal children do not as yet have a well developed hormonal system.

In regard to the article, your work toward a compromise is appreciated. There are some issues that remain however. Your statement as you've written it contrasts "the use of lavender oil" vs "used a product that contained lavender oil as well as tea tree oil, and other ingredients." However, in no case did anyone simply use lavender oil. Rather, all three cases involved the use of PRODUCTS containing lavender oil "and other ingredients." And in the one case, the boy used not "a" product but products (plural) containing both lavender oil and tea tree oil "and other ingredients." It would thus be a distortion to emphasize the lavender over tea tree oil, for the study did not establish that lavender had a greater effect than the tea tree. Likewise, it would be a distortion to emphasize "other ingredients" in the case of tea tree but not in the case of lavender. And it would be a distortion to suggest the one boy used only a single product containing tea tree when in fact he is reported to have used multiple such products.

It was these reasons why I had chosen to write it as, "All three cases involved the use of products containing lavender oil as an ingredient, with the addition of tea tree oil to the products in the case of one of the boys," with the presence of additional ingredients in all three cases further emphasized by the sentence, "Researchers indicated that other components in these products may also have contributed to the gynecomastia, but those components were not yet tested." I am restoring this version for the above reasons. If you have an alternate version, I'd be happy to review it as well. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2. HawaiiHangin10 claims "All three individuals used products containing Lavender Oil" This isn't an article about Lavender Oil, this study contains references to both, but clearly focuses on Tea Tree Oil. After reading the study it even says that Tea Tree Oil is the only component of the two that was tested. I'm sorry if you don't agree with this. I know that one of your articles claims otherwise, but The New England Journal of Medicine is more credible than a trade magazine. Does anyone disagree with thisAlex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A fact check reveals that each of the articles you yourself cited state that BOTH oils were tested, not just tea tree oil, and that both showed estrogenic activity. For example, "The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens," said Korach. And, "Furthermore, studies in human cell lines indicated that the two oils had estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities." - Further, because all three cases involved lavender oil, and only one of those three also involved tea tree oil, it is of significance to note this fact, because it was not established that the tea tree oil alone had any effect. Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

However, as I pointed out above, it would be misleading to imply the NEJM was pointing the finger at the lavender oil and not the tea tree oil, for it expressly points the finger at both, "We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender AND tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys." - Litmaerle (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

3. HawaiiHangin10 claims that "Only one of the boys who used products with lavender oil also used products with tea tree oil." This isn't true. Will a impartial editor or third party please review one of the credible sources referenced to verify this again? Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I find that only one boy of the three used products containing tea tree oil. The three cases were as follows: Case #1) In the first case, "The patient’s mother reported applying a 'healing balm' containing lavender oil to his skin starting shortly before the initial presentation." Case #2) A styling hair gel was applied to the hair and scalp every morning, along with regular use of a shampoo. Both tea tree and lavender oil were cited on the ingredient list of both products. Case #3) The third case involved "lavender-scented soap, and intermittent use of lavender-scented commercial skin lotions." - Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shkirenko, all you would have had to do was read the very article in the journal you are referencing, and you would have known this. How can you say "this isn't true" when you haven't read very references you are sourcing. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

4. "More than just the Tea Tree Oil Association has questioned the study" I'm only aware of one legitimate trade association which outright disputes the findings of the study, but I'm willing to compromise here. It's not really important I suppose, since there will always be some association somewhere disputing a finding from a government agency... Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can easily expand your awareness:

http://www.fmafragrance.org/sub_pages/020107henleyresponse.pdf

http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/Template.cfm?Section=CTFA_News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4843

http://www.naha.org/articles/Tisserand,%20R.%20Gynecomastia2_2007.pdf

- Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I initially began discussion on refining this area, I welcome any further input or advice on how to resolve this dispute. Thanks. Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, as stated previously, there is no concern with referencing the article - I don't think anyone has had a problem with that. Your continuing attempt to remove facts is the problem. All of this information that you were unaware of was clearly available. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shkirenko, I am sure you have good intentions, but the fact is that you are undoing edits and wasting people's time (including those who must read this discussion) based on beliefs that are contrary to facts that no one else disputes. Here is an example of one of your statements above: "After reading the study it even says that Tea Tree Oil is the only component of the two that was tested." This is completely contrary to facts and no one who has read/understands the study would say such a thing. This is the most fundamental aspect to the study so there is no way you could have truly read the study and still believe what you said. So since you asked for advice for how to best resolve this dispute, for the sake of the quality of this article, I respectfully request that you bow out of this discussion, refrain from any more edits/reverts to this article, and refrain from creating additional accounts to edit this article. Based on your past behavior when editing other articles, I know you will not do this voluntarily but I believe you solicited advice in good faith and I give it to you in good faith. Imaginenow (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Returning to this article after quite some time, I find the safety section has been tilted excessively, to the point of reading like a tea tree oil promotional. All reference to the NEJM article has been removed. This is one of the most respected, peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. The reports of gynecomastia in prepubertal children have now been reduced to one instance. The NEJM report involved three children, not one. However strongly one may wish to advocate for a product, this is basic information that any parent looking to a Wikipedia entry on tea tree oil would want to have. It's not here anymore. While it is appropriate to reference others who may question a clinical report, reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal, it is entirely inappropriate to expunge the original reference. The NIEHs followed up Dr. Bloch's report in NEJM, with in vitro lab studies, and determined: "“The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens,” said Korach. “This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors.” "Bloch said the laboratory studies support his hypothesis. “Since there was no identifiable cause for prepubertal gynecomastia in the three patients we reported, we speculated that environmental factors might be contributing to their condition. Together, the case histories and NIEHS in vitro studies provide support for our hypothesis that topical exposure to lavender and tea tree oils likely caused gynecomastia in the three patients.”" Again, if a Wikpedia reader looking to this article were a parent, would he or she be interested in the perhaps not quite impartial assessments of individual editors, or would they want to hear about the research directly? Would they want to know that three boys showed this adverse effect––or just one? And with plenty of products to choose from––with or without these particular essential oils––might they not choose differently were they fully informed? For me, the question of NPOV hinges on these questions, because it appears that the decision to suppress information is an attempt to steer the reader, privileging product promotion over full disclosure and child safety. Badly done. Un Mundo (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Human health information

I have just undone an edit by User:Teapeat that re-inserted a number of biomedical claims into the article based on primary/non-WP:MEDRS sources that contradicted the reliable secondary sources we have: MedlinePlus and the American Cancer Society. It is very important that health information on Wikipedia is reliably sourced according to our guidelines, and that we don't make extravagant claims for Tea tree oil that aren't properly sourced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary you've grossly misrepresented the sources.

You've written the article to state that the sole source says that the evidence is that tea tree oil is no use for several things, whereas the actual source says that they think they don't have enough evidence to rate it. (A position I might add that is contradicted by the primary sources and every other source I've read.)

In other words you've changed a statement of 'absence of evidence' to 'evidence of absence'!!!

That's a terrible mistake to make. And taking all the primary sources, even the 'absence of evidence' idea is very probably wrong. For example, there's a study about using tea tree oil to repel lice, and they conclude that it doesn't work very well. But that's not how tea tree oil is used! Tea tree oil evaporates too quickly to be much good as an insect repellent. Instead it's used as a low toxicity insecticide; and by all accounts it works very well, it kills them dead. And presumably that's what the chemicals in tea tree oil are for, the plant produces it to stop being munched on.Teapeat (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources (especially when they contradict high-quality secondary ones). As to effectiveness the source says "insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness", we say "not found to be effective". These are both "absence of evidence". Either ways it's the same: tea tree oil is outside the set of things that are considered effective. We must be careful not to imply otherwise. We could adopy ACS's wording: available scientific evidence does not support the claims that ... ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

These are NOT high quality secondary sources!!!Teapeat (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Not found to be effective means it has been found to be ineffective; but the source says they hadn't found it to be ineffective, effective or marginally effective; they just hadn't rated it.

And I take extreme exception, you've deleted primary sources, which virtually all found a fairly strong insecticidal property and replaced it with throwaway lines in GP magazines that said it didn't work and another source that just didn't rate it, and then spun it to make it sound like it didn't work. And you've done this systematically throughout Wikipedia.

This is the kind of bullshit that Ben Goldacre goes on about; by selectively quoting from low-quality information sources you can make anything look golden or terrible.

And it's funny how you left out the bit about the sources stating that tea tree oil is thought to be pretty safe for topical use, but put two separate bits in about it being highly toxic by mouth. (In fact it's about as toxic as ethanol, which is not very toxic at all.)Teapeat (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• In fact I included this text on topical use (sourced of course):

  Studies have found some promise of a role for the topical application of tea tree oil as an antiseptic,^[7] and possibly for use treating athlete's foot or acne when it is not severe.^[8]

• GP magazine is in line with the secondary, so fine to use.
• The American Cancer Society and MedlinePlus are not "low-quality information sources"
• "Not found to be effective" does not mean "found to be ineffective". Since this is elementary logic and English I can't really say much more on this.
• We don't use primary sources for human health information, and certainly not to "debunk" secondary sources. That is WP:MEDRS 101.
• If you want more eyes on this, I suggest raising it at WT:MED or WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The GP reference is simply the opinion of a single GP, it quotes no reliable primary sources and it's a single throwaway sentence. A reliable secondary source would appropriately quote multiple primary sources. It's not a reliable secondary source.Teapeat (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Point of fact, all the primary sources I can find state that TTO kills lice just fine, and one of the primary chemical components of it kill them even better in pure form.Teapeat (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The NIH source is no evidence of anything, not even of there being no evidence; it just didn't give it a rating it at all.Teapeat (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm continuing to be appalled by your editing; and terrible use of sources.Teapeat (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GP Magazine is a long-established independent publication, and a useful secondary source that can act as an adjunct to MedlinePlus. We learn from the American Cancer Society that "some claim" TTO can treat head lice; we learn from MedlinePlus that whatever evidence there is does not affirm these claims. So that is what Wikipedia will say. I don't care precisely what wording is used, but it seems that here and elsewhere Wikipedia formerly contained[2] the misleading statement that TTO was a "proven" treatment for head lice. The verifiable truth is the opposite, it is an unproven remedy, and we are bound to say that. I have raised a query about this at WP:FT/N. (BTW you have just removed a bunch of well-sourced health information). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) and I have just added some material from a 2012 review article strongly recommending against the use of TTO for treating head lice in children. This is a perfect example of why we can't afford a cavalier attitude to sourcing when it comes to human health material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Perfect? No, you're still spinning wild tales based on nothing.

And if you trace that back, there's that single non replicated primary source, with n=2(!), in a correlational-only study that showed that tea tree oil was being used when two child got temporary gynemastitis. That's the only evidence of paediatric harm there's ever been, and no causation was ever show, nor was there any long-term harm.

And why would you go to a cancer site to ask about whether TTO kills lice?

This is just chinese whispers none of the secondary sources have quoted any primary sources; and you've personally gone from 'NIH has not rated this treatment' to 'there is no evidence that this treatment works' when the primary sources specifically are pretty strong evidence that it does. And the NIH does not make the claim that there is no evidence that it works; so you have misquoted them.Teapeat (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Teapeat, instead of having a back and forth, can you propose, on the talk page, a specific edit that you would like to make, with the sources here, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead currently says: "Although tea tree oil has been claimed to be useful for treating a number of medical conditions, there is little evidence supporting these uses."

But the cancer research site reference that supposedly supports this says: "Tea tree oil has been used in Australia for many years to treat skin infections. It holds some potential as a treatment for bacterial and fungal infections of the skin and nails."

In effect Wikipedia is now claiming the exact opposite, that there is little evidence for bacterial and fungal infections, whereas the reference says there's evidence it's good for that. The term 'little evidence supporting' are weasel words. To see this, consider that if there's little evidence in total (a small number of studies), but 100% of the studies say it's good you could still write that. It gives the impression that it's not a good thing to use, whereas the evidence is that it's a good thing to use.

That's what's known as 'marginal precis' it's where you write a summary that gives a false impression, and say 'that could be the same thing, right?'. Well, yeah, it could, but why are you writing it in such a strange way? The reason that people usually do that kind of thing is because you're deliberately trying to give a false impression, for whatever reason. In this case perhaps you think it could be dangerous if people used tea tree oil for treating skin complaints? It seems very unlikely, and tea tree oil is permitted virtually everywhere, and its safety was been reviewed in Europe in 2007.

Can I ask why the lead is suddenly now not even accurately reflecting the sources it references? And why is the article not reflecting the weight of the research that has been done on this; in fact so far as I can tell people are going out of there way to imply the opposite of the facts.Teapeat (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The other thing is that Medline, GP magazine and the Cancer Society are not secondary sources at all, they're tertiary sources. A secondary source for TTO is a review article like: [3] so you're even misrepresenting what type of sources they are. According to WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia is supposed to be based mostly on secondary sources.Teapeat (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia should not be primarily based on tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are useful for notability, but not for fundamental questions about what something is, how it works, whether it works, or doesn't work or even whether it's safe or not.Teapeat (talk)

Teapeat Ben Goldacre would be very disappointed at your lack of understanding of his book "Bad Science". --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn on this content. It is frustrating that Gsonnenf repeatedly reverts to their preferred version even though there's no consensus for it - whilst demanding that other people do the talking. Gsonnenf, can you explain how you're allowed to revert but nobody else is? bobrayner (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bobrayner, I expect people who do a revert to participate in the talk page discussion which was present at your second revert. The section immediately below this one is that discussion. As I understand your revert was your very first contribution to the Tea Tree Oil article, which you also did without engaging in the below discussion, which I found unusual. I welcome further discussion from you in regards to your revert. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of content by Alexbrn

I don't really want to get in to a revert war, but i am concerned about the mass removal of text such as the history of tea tree oil by Alexbrn. It seems the article is being changed from a information rich article to a stub status. Gsonnenf (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the summary, this was in large part a mass copy and paste from a journal article ([4] this one): a serious no-no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case it is best to summarize rather than perform wholesale deletion. If you do plan on deleting it at least post notice that it needs to be summarized rather than having it just disappear without discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately. I put something in as a holding operation (as noted in the edit summary), but of course more would be welcome. And we need some content on other industrial applications too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

MSRA biocide and other uses

I was doing some research and found a great secondary source in the academic journal "Microbiology Australia" under the title "Tea-tree oil – a naturally occurring biocide".

http://asm.asnevents.com.au/assets/Uploads/November3.pdf#page=28

We should certainly include these findings in this article. I am opening this section for people to read and discuss the findings found in this quality source. The review on its MSRA applications is definitely worth including. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the short report RS? It doesn't seem to be registered with CrossRef/PUBMED and according to Google Scholar no other article has cited it. Nevertheless, the same material is covered by a 2006 review article which certainly is RS. I've added that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the following?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998411

It is a 2013 secondary source on pubmed, though it is behind a pay wall and I am no longer at university. Gsonnenf (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's by a group of Iranian dermatology researchers and makes a lot of exceptional claims for TTO (including that it exhibits anti skin cancer activity) that run counter to our other strong sources; the journal has a low impact factor (1.34) and the article has been apparently cited only once (in an article originating from another Iranian dermatological department), so should be approached with caution. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've found another review article that talks about the application of TTO for MRSA, definately worthy of a read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+battle+against+multi-resistant+strains%3A+Renaissance+of+antimicrobial+essential+oils+as+a+promising+force+to+fight+hospital-acquired+infections

This article seems to be lacking research into secondary sources, there is a wealth of them. We should find and use these instead of relying on outdated tertiary sources.Gsonnenf (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)