Talk:Dextromethorphan

Regarding the Recreational Section

Dosage of DXM for recreational purposes is fairly inaccurate when measured purely by mg of DXM, and is most often noted by mg/kg. For someone weighing 113 kg, for example, 600mg is unlikely to cause profound dissociation, while 600mg would be very intense for someone weighing 68 kg.AudhumlaX (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work! .. needs a WP:LEDE

This is an informative article; some good work has been put into it! :-)

Just a note: a WP:LEDE should be placed before the TOC, and should summarize the article. Please see WP:LEDE for its appropriate nature and location.

Ling.Nut 13:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There were many others involved of course, but speaking for everyone, thanks for the compliment :)

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's lotsa stuff in the article that needs to have a summary sentence or two in the lede, esp. its abuse for narcotic purposes... the lede is too much about the chemical properties, at present... Cheers! Ling.Nut 15:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Threw something together, very short for now but I'll be working on it more. Thanks for the advice :)
  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
  07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article is a bit more than a start, but falls well short of the GA criteria on several points, primarily points 1 (well written), 2 (factually accurate), and 3 (broad in coverage). I would also argue that it fails criterion 4 (neutrality) as well, because it seems a little too heavy on the recreational use aspects and less on the medical and scientific. There's quite a bit of work left to be done here.

• The lead section does not accurately summarize the article.

Done

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 12/22/2007

• The 'Chemistry' section primarily contains relatively trivial (yet important) information. It contains no information whatsoever on the synthesis of the drug. Perhaps a chemical sketch would help here.

Graphic of the molecule is there, synthesis info still needed.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 12/22/2007

• The 'indications' section looks like several sentences may have been copied from various other sources. There are also several single-sentence paragraphs. Consider rewriting, adding more details, and combining paragraphs.

Done, I think. Additional indications are now in a list format.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 12/22/2007

• The article as a whole tends to overuse the abbreviation 'DXM', which makes for some awkward prose. A good, thorough copyedit would help here, as well as with other issues. Things like, "20 degrees Celcius" should be written as "20°C". Check the manual of style for more information on formatting.

Done.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 12/22/2007

• The pharmacokinetics section contains no reference citations whatsoever, and is very short.
• The 'side effects' section is very awkwardly organized with its short subsection on Olney's lesions, which primarily links to a separate article. Consider removing the subsection and incorporating some general info on olney's lesions into the main section itself, and link to the article as a 'see also' link, instead of a 'main article' link.

Done.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 12/22/2007

• The 'drug interactions' and 'contraindications' sections are entirely dependent on a single reference, and many of the bullet points were probably copied verbatim. The reference is to a "fact sheet" hosted on the National Highway and Traffic Safety Information website (nhtsa.gov). While the site technically meets the standards per WP:RS, it is probably providing relatively minimal information, pertinent to the enforcement of laws that they are concerned with. A more scientific or medically related reference would be far more important here.
• The first and only mention of "Robitussin" is way down in the third & final paragraph of the history section?!?! Who makes Robitussin? This should be mentioned.
• Consider drastically reducing the 'recreational use' section, and combining it with the 'history' section. The subsections on 'duration' and 'psychopharmacology' can be reduced & paraphrased into the pharmacology main section. Consider rewriting and reresearching generalized statements like, "In other words, taking a recreational dose of an eight-hour DXM-containing cough suppressant will generally produce recreational effects lasting eight hours." and "The time until wear-off depends on the tolerance of the individual user ..." ("wear-off"? gimme a break!)

Actually considering a split. Agree the recreational stuff should be reduced in this article but expanded info has merit for a separate article.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:45, 12/22/2007

• The 'classification' subsection under 'recreational use' contains two sentences, and is cited by www.erowid.org (several other sources site this website as well). I don't think I'd completely trust a site that claims to work with, "experiential experts to develop and publish new resources." Looking further, it looks like this site is probably more connected to the recreational use of various psychoactive substances, as opposed to legitimate medical or academic sites.
• Additionally, consider looking closer at several of the sites listed under the 'external links' section (erowid.org, dextroverse.org, third-plateau.org, fourth-plateau.org). Most look like recreational use fansites and/or forums. Not a single official manufacturer or other scientific site is included here.

There's probably more to talk about, but hopefully this will help guide editors towards GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is some very comprehensive input, thank you so much. I hope to take care of these items soon, and also hope others read your notes and help out. Thanks again, this is very helpful.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope to start working on these. I'm gonna cross off items as they get completed. I invite anyone else to work on items and cross them off when finished. Thanks.

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:43, 12/22/2007

Dextroverse

I have taken Dextroverse off the external links, it is a website glorifying drug abuse and doesn't contain accurate or useful information about dextromethorphan. If this website should be linked anywhere it would be in an article about the phenomenon of IRC servers and forums used by teenagers to brag about their dangerous abuse of over-the-counter drugs, especially the deadly coricidin which has been linked to most dxm-related deaths. It was either put on here by someone who didn't know what it was about or by a member of the place itself looking to advertise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.76.8 (talk) 22:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I think it should probably stay in the article. External links aren't references, they're just portals to further information. They don't need to be 100% neutral referenceable material. Dextroverse is a prominent site and it's important to understanding recreational DXM use as a cultural phenomenon.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I second it staying in the article. I used to post on the forums there and a lot of intelligent discussion does occur. In the future, please have some tolerance for lifestyle choices that differ from your own.68.211.162.60 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)D

I also support it staying, it's a comprehensive DXM website, and also is on the first page of a Google search of 'DXM'. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just cause you disagree with some peoples lifestyles does not mean in should be taken off, it has further information for dextromethorphan.71.126.103.8 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

William White

What, no mention of William White's comprehensive DXM FAQ? Captain Zyrain 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References to that FAQ have been inserted and removed many times in the past. Having not been an officially published/accepted medical study, I don't think it would be appropriate to reference it -- at least not in this article. If the recreational use portion were split off into its own article, as has been suggested more than a few times, then I think that article would warrant mention of the FAQ.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:03, 09/26/2007

ketamine is not neurotoxic

i deleted the ketamine because it is not neurotoxic like its sister chemical pcp. id like to see a reference that ketamine is neurotoxic. ~matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.229.183 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ketamine most certainly is neurotoxic: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/364. Most narcotic drugs are neurotoxic -- that's how they produce their effects, by damaging the brain a little each time you use them. Even alcohol is neurotoxic.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:48, 10/12/2007

Why have you blasted out a blanket statement like "they produce their effects, by damaging the brain". There are drugs which can produce psychoactive effects that are actually neuroprotective, i.e nootropics such as racetams and GHB. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have any more problems regarding this issue please continue the discussion here rather than "edit warring" over it. I'm glad to address your concerns and improve the article if need be, but it's frustrating to carry on the exchange through edit summaries. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:10, 10/13/2007

ok lets clarify slightly. to compare neurotoxicity of ketamine to PCP is just plain incorrect. They use ketamine safely on infants and the elderly. And to reply to your comment about alchohol of course its neurotoxic, and no where near the level of ketamine. PCP activly kills your brain, ketamine does not. and it is again untrue to say that ketamine works because its damaging your brain is so oversimple and incorrect it bothers me. it works because of a chemical reaction in your brain. next you will tell me LSD is neurotoxic. if you do not want to revert it thats fine, but i would advise finding something closer to pcp to label neurotoxic, because with ketamine its negligible. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.237.229 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the statement was really to compare the visible hallucinogenic effects to those of PCP and Ketamine, and not the actual neurotoxicity. I just realized someone added neurotoxicity in at some point, even though we have no ref that explicitly compares that aspect of all three drugs. I've tweaked the statement to reflect this, removing the neurotoxicity claim altogether. Hope it looks okay to you now :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:56, 10/17/2007

wow thats awesome thanks for changing it. i had a rude tone, sorry about that but it looks fine now. thankyou 72.66.250.72 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:17, 10/24/2007

Extra Sources

Hey, I think this is a really solid article, and I'd like to contribute what I can to help improve it, but since I'm relatively new to wikipedia, I wanted to ask before I go tinkering with someone's hard work. I noticed one of the major points Dr. Cash made in his comments above was the use of a single reference or no references (in the case of the pharmacokinetics section). If you'd like, I'd be happy to research and provide additional sources to support the parts of the article that require it, as well as editing the text as needed. I'm currently in pharmacy school working on my doctor of pharmacy degree, and one of the benefits of my school robbing me of all my money is that I receive access to an enormous amount of medical/pharmacy information through online journals and databases. Gimme a shout if that would be helpful, preferably through email (higginsr@acp.edu if for some reason it doesn't show up elsewhere on this site). Be well. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That would of course be very helpful, and don't be hesitant to tinker with the material. On Wikipedia you have the right to tinker as much as you like without regard for anyone's feelings. The only downside is that you likewise can't be offended when others tinker with your work. My only words of caution are that online databases make poor article sources if the average person doesn't have access to them for free. Journals are fine, as long as print versions exist that people can look up (just include issue and page numbers). Thanks!

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:04, 12/19/2007

Proposed split of Recreational use section to new article

I think the "Recreational use" section has grown too large for, and beyond the relevance of, this article. It should be its own article.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:56, 12/22/2007

I agree, dextromethorphan has a great deal of recreational effects and should have is its own article. 71.126.103.8 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no doubt - it's rising in popularity and it's worth having an entire article. --Soonlaypale (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)