Talk:Oil of clove

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Oil of cloves)

Oral usage[edit]

Clove Oil is it ok to take small quantity for health benefit ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.213.199 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I differ about the Marathon Man information. The scene is quite famous, and it is the first association many people have with the phrase "oil of cloves." Suggest reverting.

I think it's kind of useless myself. Considering redoing the article..may remove it. --Dom0803 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itch[edit]

I once used clove oil against an itch cuased by an worm under my skin that would have otherwise kept me awake. It worked like a miracle. But this is sort of medicinal info, so I won't enter it myself. DirkvdM 07:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to this talkpage in the event of other remedies, like yours. --Dom0803 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also used clove oil myself for irritation and, indeed, for pain, and found it quite effective and quite fast. That said, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources as an encyclopedia, and your experience, as well as mine, fall in the category of original research (OR), and as such are not allowed within the atticle. Rags (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Use / NPOV / Unsourced[edit]

I find it troubling that this article is offering medical advice without citing its sources.

Obviously, there's more going on here than just sourcing: the oral use section needs a fair amount of cleanup to bring it to clear English usage. ("It" is sometimes necessary? Who recommends what doesn't touch skin or gums?) But I don't want to clean it up without first having some sources for the statements. "Extremely fast and extremely well" needs to be sourced before it can be considered NPOV, statements about "necessity" similarly need sourcing, and statements about dosages and appropriate uses absolutely need to be sourced. Sanguinity 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to revise to make more consistent with the limited scientific literature. Preczewski 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it terribly difficult to find a source regarding clove oil being unapproved in the United States for oral use. There are references cited in nearby sentences by I do not have access to them. I searched the web for awhile and could only find a story about the FDA barring some products containing 20% Eugenol, but made no reference to it being unapproved for any oral use. Could someone please followup? Verdatum 12:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tested[edit]

I just tested some out less than 0.5ml on a spider I found in my room and it knocked it out clean, I thought it was dead for about 10 mins until I saw some twitching in the legs as it dried off. Also I dscovered it dissolves polystrene. Wolfmankurd 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very exciting, but it's also Original Research and has no place on Wikipedia. Verdatum 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crop & Price Idea !!![edit]

Hi,

In this section we will discuss the Price,Season and markets for Clove Oil.

Please submit the season in which clove oil is ditilled and please let us know the price idea for clove bud Oil , Clove Leaf Oil & clove Stem Oil.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.247.133 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clove oil and toothache: not endorsed by FDA[edit]

Clove oil and eugenol, one of the chemicals it contains, have long been used topically for toothache, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reclassified eugenol, downgrading its effectiveness rating. The FDA now believes there isn’t enough evidence to rate eugenol as effective for toothache pain.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/251.html pgr94 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second time posting this. Whoever removed it also bleached it from the edit history page. He gave no reason nor any reply at all.

The only pages on the FDA website that even contains the words clove oil, and toothache on the same page are pages of warning letters to herbal remedy stores making outrageous, and illegal medical claims for all kinds of herbs they sell including the claims that licorice is a treatment for toothache. Even those don't mention a claim about clove oil for toothache. https://www.fda.gov/search?s=clove%20oil&page=0 All the other pages on the FDA site concern clove oil's use on fish, and its harmful environmental effects when so used, Its toxicity, and genetic effects, and other pages unrelated to its use for toothache.

Otherwise the FDA site says nothing about clove oil as a pain reliever (analgesic) or not for toothache.

The site linked to in the citation for the claim that "In the United States, the FDA considers eugenol ineffective for treating dental pain, and has downgraded clove oil as an analgesic due to insufficient evidence to rate its effectiveness." is MedlinePlus.gov. Not the FDA. It cites no actual FDA document supporting the claim. It is operated by the National Institute of Health (NIH) that has the disclaimer

https://www.nih.gov/disclaimers

"The information provided using this Web site is only intended to be general summary information to the public. It is not intended to take the place of either the written law or regulations.

It is not NIH’s intention to provide specific medical advice to users of the NIH Web site, instead we provide users with information to help them better understand their health, diagnosed conditions, and the current approaches related to treatment, prevention, screening, and supportive care. NIH urges users to consult with a qualified health care professional for diagnosis and answers to their personal medical questions.".

The disclaimer also "mentions" links to drug companies who sell toothache medications while disclaiming any claims they may make. Also warns there "may" be popup ads from the linked sites.

Reminds me a lot of "The Tobacco Institute, Inc." funded by tobacco companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute

I don't find the citation that the FDA considers eugenol ineffective for treating dental pain at all reliable nor supported by anything I could find on the actual FDA site..

I suspect people most likely to visit this page are looking for information on its use for toothache. That information is here.

From a handout given to patients of the Louisiana State University School of Dentistry that was given to me 35 years ago.

Use of clove oil can help manage pain until you can see your dentist.

Pain relief of toothache from cavity inflammation can occur in seconds to minutes. The mechanism of pain relief is anti inflammatory reducing pressure on the tooth nerve, and antiseptic reducing the bacterial cause of the inflammation. Repeated application for several days can prevent re inflammation for months to years. Care to avoid contact of clove oil on gums, lips, mouth tissues, and swallowing. It can damage the soft tissues of the mouth, and throat. Excess oil on the tissues should be immediately, and thoroughly washed, and rinsed out not swallowed.

Without professional dental care the nerve can die, and the decay will continue to tooth loss. With the nerve dead inflammation won't cause that pain but the decay can cause damage, pain, and inflammation to surrounding gum tissues, and the root of the tooth both from bacterial infection to those tissues, and from abrasion of those tissues from the edges of the cavity as they come into contact with the soft tissues of the gums, cheeks, and tongue.

The rest of the handout was application "how to" information not allowed on Wikipedia. Basically you can apply it with a finger or "Q-tip".

Given that information clove oil isn't anesthetic in the sense that the tooth can be assaulted without pain.

Other use in dentistry is as temporary fillings mixed with zinc oxide as zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) to a clay like consistency. Often placed into cavities, and chipped, and cracked teeth for at least a week before permanent fillings are installed for deep disinfection of the cavity by the eugenol. 2600:8807:5400:600:29A2:A29F:7D86:DF67 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article / blog post[edit]

Whether a NYT blog post or an article, a newspaper citing a primary medical source does not meet WP:MEDRS. There are strict guidelines for making medical claims and the NYT doesn't count as a reliable source. pgr94 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and the NYT doesn't count as a reliable source" - I strongly believe that the WP:RS noticeboard would reject the claim that the NYT would not count as a reliable source. It is considered to be among the most prestigious of English language newspapers. Even though medical articles do have special considerations, in the RS hierarchy among popular journalism sources, the NYT is close to the top. I do not regularly edit medical articles, but nonetheless I am certain the RS noticeboard would be understanding of someone citing the NYT in a medical article WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And taking a look at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular_press says (I added the bolding) "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}."
In this case the NYT article clearly cites the medical journal it is referring to, so in fact all we need to do is also cite the journal article along with the popular journalism story.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By all means if you can find a source that meets WP:MEDRS go for it. But NYT + a primary source isn't adequate by my understanding. pgr94 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation the guideline is saying that if you find the primary source that the news article is citing, then it's acceptable and you can use the primary source as the main source, with the news source as a supplement. If the journalism article doesn't cite anything, then it's not acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT itself links to the study...
Al-Melh, Manal Abu and Lars Andersson. "Comparison of topical anesthetics (EMLA/Oraqix vs. benzocaine) on pain experienced during palatal needle injection." Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. Elsevier BV. Volume 103, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages e16–e20.
PMID: 17331753 PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE at the NIH website
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of the primary source on a database. As per WP:MEDLINE I will download the article and cite the abstract and the NYT article together. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote the relevant parts of WP:MEDRS:

All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources

  • A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.

I believe neither the NYT article nor the study in the journal of Dentistry are secondary sources. There may be medical review articles that cite the journal of dentistry study, that would be way to go. pgr94 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would I find these medical review articles? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a detailed explanation here. In Pubmed there is an option to show only review articles. WP:MEDRS guidelines are pretty stringent and I have run up against them a few times. If you don't find a source, I'll have a look when I have a moment. pgr94 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! So, to find an article that cites the primary source, do you type in the primary source's name, or the primary source's PMID number? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of searching I found these two review articles that might cite the Journal of Dentistry article. I have not heard of the second journal so I can't vouch for its reliability; but Cochrane reviews are well-respected. Hope that helps. pgr94 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miyashita, H.; Worthington, H. V.; Qualtrough, A.; Plasschaert, A. (2007). Qualtrough, Alison (ed.). "Pulp management for caries in adults: maintaining pulp vitality". The Cochrane Library (2): CD004484. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004484.pub2. PMID 17443547.
  • Pramod, K.; Ansari, S. H.; Ali, J. (2010). "Eugenol: A natural compound with versatile pharmacological actions". Natural product communications. 5 (12): 1999–2006. PMID 21299140.
    • Thanks! In the first link, I searched for the Melh article in the "References" section - no matches WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the second, how do I view the full article? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous percent[edit]

The article states: "Bud oil is derived form the flower-buds of S. aromaticum. It consists of 60–90% eugenol, eugenyl acetate, caryophyllene and other minor constituents." To what does the 60-90 percent refer? just the eugenol? or all the things in the list? If "all the things in the list," then including "other minor constituents" in that percent seems odd. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

My reading is 60-90% eugenol. This seems consistent with the rest of the content. As you have said, any other enterpretation would indeed be odd, given the purpose of the breakdown. I may be wrong. That happens occasionally. Rags (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

Is it worth including an 'in popular culture' section (as is seen in many other articles) with a mention of the famous scene from the Dustin Hoffman film Marathon Man? 122.150.178.86 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the mention of the 'Marathon Man' scene in the very first comment, above, unsigned but probably posted in 2006. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, and I agree that for many folks, esp. among Western hemisphere moviegoers, this is the first awareness they have of the essential oil and its properties. However, when the specific scene has been a part of the article, and has been removed, it would behoove you to find good, solid secondary sources in support, if you wish to champion its use. Rags (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I propose to move (rename) to Oil of clove, which would be more consistent with correct usage and product marketing, as well as tech literature. Any comments? Rags (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion. Moving. Rags (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

@Stewart Cowan and Alexbrn: might be better to discuss here instead of warring over the content. Stewart Cowan, you've been warned previously regarding this article. Could you please explain the addition you would like to make, and supply two supporting references to back it up? -- samtar whisper 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

colgate.com is not a WP:MEDRS reliable source, especially when used to "however" the NIH. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samtar, thank you for the invitation for a discussion.

Let me make one thing clear. This listing is incomplete and full of mistakes. I consider my efforts to correct it as a service and these attacks by persons who clearly have no experience of clove oil is disturbing.

I used the word, "However", Alexbrn, as I regard the FDA announcement as wrong, not because I think my argument is a footnote. I was going to change the article to have the FDA change as the footnote.

This FDA position is bizarre, considering that clove oil is famous for relieving toothache. I could probably cite thousands of cases, including my own, but the FDA, a corrupt government department, says something, then it must be true?

So Colgate's opinion does not count because obviously, they don't know much about teeth, right?

As for the "Regulation" portion, clove cigarettes are made from clove buds. Why is this not made clear in the "Oil of Cloves" page? In fact, why is it even mentioned?

Also, clove cigarettes are legal in almost every country to my knowledge. This page is totally US-biased.

As for clove oil having no "sound medical evidence", this is based on the opinion of the American Cancer Society!

No wonder many people shy away from using Wikipedia as a reliable source of information when this one short page is full of errors, omissions, bias and dubious citations and an honest attempt to correct the page is met with one's efforts being discarded by people who don't have experience with the substance. I wonder why you have an interest in it at all if you do not understand its effects.

I have a very wide experience of oil of cloves to relieve toothache, so I know what I am talking about. The oil and preparations containing it are sold worldwide. The oil is an anaesthetic, so obviously, by definition, it will numb areas of the mouth to which it is exposed, which will, by definition, relieve toothache in the places it can reach.

I suggest those who are obsessed with changing my additions and keeping the truth from people take time out to actually research it and not rely on one FDA amendment as the foundation for fact. The curious decision by the FDA should be questioned, not blindly accepted. Stewart Cowan (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you think Wikipedia should reflect your view of The Truth™ rather than what is reported in of established WP:RS's. Well, sorry, it won't. To understand why, start at WP:5P. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"So basically you think Wikipedia should reflect your view of The Truth™ rather than what is reported in of established WP:RS's." (Quote: Alexbrn)

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? The whole page is a joke, like your snide response. I can see that it is your version of lies that you want to promote, I assume, because you feel offended at something.

I will change that page, even if I have to use a quote from the Daily Mail, which I am avoiding.

You do not own Wikipedia and you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you. Tell us about your experiences with oil of cloves and cite from a source other than the corrupt US Administration or a 'charity' with a specific agenda.

I suggest that you grow up if you want to play with intellectual people, because there is obviously no point in appealing to any sort of community spirit in you or expecting a compromise, therefore you must forfeit your supposed interest in this matter. Stewart Cowan (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The arguments Stewart Cowan makes are incompatible with basic Wikipedia policies and should largely be ignored. However I don't think the alternate text quite hits the mark either. It is not really true that "At one time clove oil was thought be useful for relieving tooth ache, but recent research has not supported this." A perusal of PubMed shows that there actually is no recent research, and no recent MEDRS-compatible reviews. It is true that the FDA states that "there isn't enough evidence to rate eugenol as effective for toothache pain", but probably this is because hardly any proper scientific studies have been done. Unfortunately this situation arises quite frequently for natural remedies. In my view the correct way for the article to handle this is to state that there is a widespread belief that oil of cloves is effective for treating tooth pain, but few scientific studies have been done and in the FDA's view the evidence is not sufficient to prove its effectiveness. Looie496 (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alex Brown, per policy and guideline, Which the rather rude Stewart will do well to begin to read. If he continues in this manner, I suggest that he will find that Admins here will not stand that sort of rudeness to a fellow editor. Oh, btw, it does work, but unless we can find reliable sources, we cant' put it in the article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the movie "Marathon Man" where Larry offers a bottle to Dustin to help his toothache, count as a reliable source? It's waaaay better than the Daily Hail. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 I feel it is inaccurate to describe eugenol as a natural remedy. It is the active ingredient in a few dental materials (particularly with regards zinc oxide eugenol) that are used in mainstream practice all over the world. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring more to oil of cloves than to eugenol. I would describe chewing willow bark as a natural remedy too, even though it contains salicylic acid (or rather, salicin). Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, they are chemically very closely related, or rather, clove oil is mostly eugenol. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've run a very quick pubmed search and there are a lot of primary sources investigating clove oil's analgesic action. I will need a proper look to search for suitable sources, however I suspect it may well be inappropriate to list only the FDA source in this particular instance. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a useful source for this article [1]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"however I suspect it may well be inappropriate to list only the FDA source in this particular instance. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)"

Stewart Cowan here. Naturally! It is the FDA's strange change of heart which is suspect. What is also suspect is that this "source" is not actually cited, but mentioned. I searched the FDA's website, but could not find it. (Your link doesn't seem to mention analgesic qualities, which is the most important aspect, although, of course, the 'antifungal'/antiseptic aspect is helpful).

I am disgusted by those removing my help re. toothache. Oil of cloves has helped me and millions of others, yet the Wikipedia page does not say this now (but soon will again).

And re. the FDA. Is Wikipedia an unbiased source of information or a US Government disinformation project? I am beginning to wonder.

I will ask the latest dissenters what experience they have had with clove oil and toothache.

Also, clove oil is recommended on the Colgate website, but AlexBrn does not find this source acceptable either. It is also mentioned on various newspaper websites as being a remedy.

There are dentist websites recommending clove oil. It is sold the world over as a remedy for toothache. Are people suggesting that they are all snake-oil salesmen?

Questioning clove oil and toothache is like doubting gravity. We all have experience of the latter. I have wide experience of the former, so I will thank those who only know the FDA's version of events to educate themselves or get toothache and check it out for themselves!

"The arguments Stewart Cowan makes are incompatible with basic Wikipedia policies and should largely be ignored."

Well, you will have to set out changing the whole of Wikipedia, as I took the information, the link about the clove gel needle test and even some wording from other Wikipedia pages on cloves/toothache to see what the reaction would be.

So, it looks like some people's motives are suspect, doesn't it? Big Pharma trolls combing the internet to make more money by discrediting natural remedies? It really wouldn't surprise me, not that I am pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

Why don't people leave this to someone who knows about it?

Roxy the dog (how ironic that you resist 'the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans' - I suggest you have an OCD)- I might seem 'rather rude' because I don't like my time being wasted by people who don't know what they're talking about. As for being kicked off Wikipedia - bring it on. Let the world live in ignorance and led by government lies with no back up. If that's the Wikipedia you want, go for it.

And if we're talking manners, anyone who has them would talk to me before removing my work.

The FDA alleged 'downgrading' (where is the evidence, please?) of clove oil/eugenol has been downgraded to what from what?

Who cares about the truth? Or is Wikipedia just 'The Government says something so we'll believe it' like WMDs in Iraq? Stewart Cowan (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart, there is no conspiracy on Wikipedia. We just need high quality sources. The FDA is usually considered a reliable source. Yes this article needs attention, and it wouldn't hurt to add more reliable sources instead of using just the FDA source. I will try and have a look at this article soon, but others please feel free to edit in the mean time. Please see WP:MEDRS for detailed guidance about what is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, whoever added the new content re. toothache has a more balanced content than the biased view that I was changing. As someone else mentioned, there doesn't seem to be many 'high quality' sources to support either position, but the positive views about clove oil and toothache sure outnumber the objections many, many times over. It is a pity that so many people have interfered in a matter they know nothing about.

It has certainly opened up my eyes to the workings of Wikipedia, which is possibly very unreliable on medical matters and therefore a potential danger to the world's health.

As for the FDA source - where is it? What was said? It was quoted on a separate US Government site. Does it deserve a mention at all without the original FDA declaration for all to read?

Conspiracies are everywhere. Here in the UK, hundreds of over-the-counter herbal remedies have been banned. Amazon, eBay, etc. have banned Confederate and other merchandise, hoping to erase history.

Here are some references to the benefits of clove oil:

http://www.drugs.com/uk/clove-oil-bp-spc-11545.html

http://www.britannica.com/topic/clove#ref240476

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/357952/Miracle-spices-that-cure-everyday-ailments

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/wellbeing/5-surprising-ways-to-tackle-the-agony-of-toothache-11363960678494

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/host-of-therapies-in-our-homes-are-more-effective-than-we-think/articleshow/46878325.cms

http://www.rsc.org/news-events/rsc-news/features/2015/oct/a-summer-of-chemistry/

These are just a few I found. Stewart Cowan (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are particularly reliable. We need high quality sources as defined by WP:MEDRS ... mainstream medical textbooks (google books) or review papers (e.g. [2]). I will try and have a look for some more reliable sources tonight. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Stewart. Thank you for your diagnosis. My OCD obliges me to tell you that your sources are crap, and you are behaving like a wp:dick. Happy New Year. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zefr has done a cracking job; it's all much improved. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew - yes, I admitted that the problem is lack of evidence, as in peer-reviewed, etc., but if clove oil has been a toothache remedy for centuries and there is no real evidence to the contrary then the traditional view should dominate, should it not? Or does Wikipedia exist to expunge knowledge which is not government-sanctioned? That alleged FDA source tells us nothing. Why was the decision to 'downgrade' made? What tests were carried out? What doctors/scientists were involved?

Here's a link to the British Dental Journal - http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v216/n11/full/sj.bdj.2014.461.html

Cloves have traditionally been thought to cure toothache and this old wives' tale has scientific merit.

Roxy the dog - I don't celebrate you Pagan rituals and you are clearly not suitable for Wikipedia editing and may be reported. This page has been saved. I don't call people rude words - you have crossed the line.

Alex - Yes, it's much better than before I got involved and not too different from what I was trying to say, although the oil is widely used in the West as well. It actually has many uses which are not mentioned.

While the BDJ is a reliable, mainstream journal, this particular article ("Myth-busting: Donkey dentistry and other stories") is unreferenced. It appears to be marked "news". A review article would be preferable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please![edit]

Just please all stop expecting government agencies and fake charities to be a reliable source of such matters (previously there had been more than one link to the American Cancer Society or some such, leading to a blank page). More and more products are being banned using fake 'science' via taxpayer-funded 'charities'. Wikipedia should be promoting truth, but I fully expect there is a platoon of paid government editors changing 'inconvenient' information, just like the government plants stories in the 'news' media and the EU openly admits to spending millions by employing people to pose as ordinary people on social media to put forth the case for continued EU membership.

How many people don't believe the latter? Well, they announced it first.

I believe we live in truly ignorant times where most people only hear what they want to hear and only 'think' with their emotions. That so many were willing to have me punished in your little Inquisition here says a lot about how much vanity is valued over knowledge. Stewart Cowan (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward[edit]

I think the way to improve the article is to draft separate sections on each action, with reliable sources.

  • analgesic
  • antiseptic etc.

Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be reliable sources:

Would comment at this stage that I agree with Stewart when he says that many uses of clove oil are not mentioned in the article currently. We should discuss all the major uses of clove oil in the encyclopedia article. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Clove oil"[edit]

"Clove oil" appears to be in more common usage than "oil of cloves" or "oil of clove". Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just over a year ago it was changed, but "clove oil" seems to be more prevalent - not that popularity means correctness - where can we find peer-reviewed studies about its correct name?!!
Certainly, its current title, "Oil of clove (singular)" would seem to be the least attractive option.

This is what was said, above, under "Move" on which there was no debate and the change was made. No inquisition. No name-calling. No warring between the big-enders and little-enders. Nothing! I do seem to attract controversy, though.

"I propose to move (rename) to Oil of clove, which would be more consistent with correct usage and product marketing, as well as tech literature. Any comments? Rags (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No discussion. Moving. Rags (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)"

I would second Matthew as to a change of name. Stewart Cowan (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reliability of current sources[edit]

1. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Essential Oils: The Complete Guide to the Use of Oils in Aromatherapy and Herbalism. Julia Lawless, 1995

  • Slightly old, but this source is not used to make any health claims and therefore arguably MEDRS is not relevant for the content it supports ("Madagascar and Indonesia are the main producers of clove oil" & "There are three types of clove oil:")

2. Medline Plus

  • Whether or not medline plus meets MEDRS I am not sure. It is referenced, and recently reviewed. Generally I think this source would be considered mainstream. Has the question of medlineplus been discussed before with regards MEDRS?
  • Since this is the main disputed source, I feel it would be beneficial to find the original FDA source this article is citing, and furthermore to consider other sources alongside.

3. Eugenol as Local Anesthetic ,Gehoon Chung, Seog Bae Oh. Chapter in "Natural Products: Phytochemistry, Botany and Metabolism of Alkaloids, Phenolics and Terpenes" 2013.

  • Appears to meet MEDRS, but I'm paywalled out right now. Can anyone else access this source?

4. The effect of clove and benzocaine versus placebo as topical anesthetics

  • Primary source. Suggest remove this source since we have other sources to support the sentence it is accompanying already.

5. Effectiveness of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel and a eugenol-based paste on postoperative alveolar osteitis in patients having third molars extracted: a randomised controlled clinical trial

  • Again a primary source, used to support the same sentence as above. Suggest remove.

6. Effects of Eugenol on T-type Ca2+ Channel Isoforms

  • Another primary source, used to support "The potential mechanisms for how eugenol may inhibit dental pain are under active research". This "further research is needed" type of statement should not be included in the encyclopedia article. Suggest remove.

7. Therapeutic Guide to Herbal Medicines 1998

  • I can't access this source since no google preview. A bit old, a more modern source would be preferable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think we should deliberately avoid the old sources of information. If clove oil acted as an antiseptic, analgesic, etc., thousands of years ago, it still does today, if the plant is genetically the same.
  • It would also be of interest to some, including myself, to learn more about the history of its use.
  • Unless the original FDA statement on clove oil/eugenol can be found then I suggest it has to be treated as a P.S.
"Molecular mechanism for local anesthetic action of eugenol in the rat trigeminal system" - http://journals.lww.com/pain/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=07000&article=00018&type=abstract Stewart Cowan (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Molecular mechanism for local anesthetic action of eugenol in the rat trigeminal system" is a primary source and should be avoided. We should be using review papers or reliable textbooks (WP:MEDRS). Regarding your comment about the age of souces please see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence. Finally I am not sure what others think but I feel we should limit this article to references which discuss clove oil rather than eugenol specifically, since we have a dedicated article to eugenol already.
As for the the FDA, I can't seem to find any such guidance. There is this:
I too found a few articles on the FDA website about fish, but nothing about the alleged downgrading of clove oil for human use. So much for secondary sources!

Agreed, being up-to-date is important, but Wikipedia actually says:

"Keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important."

Traditional medicines often have a long history. To suggest ignoring this is not an option.

Agreed about eugenol (mention it as the active ingredient and at other relevant places) as it has its own page as do clove cigarettes (kreteks).

Anyway, make sure you have clove oil in your medicine cabinet in case of toothache. Stewart Cowan (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify - not effective as antifungal?[edit]

Can someone clarify - is clove oil ineffective as an antifungal? Thank you 71.139.160.208 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary] of clinical conditions where clove oil was tested and mostly found to be ineffective. There have been no well-designed human studies showing clearly that clove oil has antifungal properties, a conclusion leading to why it is not discussed in the encyclopedia article on clove oil. Here is a reliable web resource discussing one of the most common fungal infections, candidiasis. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used for treating acne[edit]

@ Zefr, I think this source is good enough for mentioning anti-acne use of Clove Oil? What do you say? Dympies (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that source is not a clinical journal and would not meet WP:MEDRS. Further, there is no reputable evidence that clove oil or any essential oil is a clinically- or government-approved antimicrobial agent. Zefr (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking to make exaggerating claims of its effectiveness in treating acne. A mere mention of its usage should not big a big deal. We should not contest the fact that it is used by some people to treat acne. Dympies (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic with no scientific WP:WEIGHT and no MEDRS source. Zefr (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oil_of_clove&oldid=1221592499"