From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Adrenaline Junkie section deleted? Now it makes no sense.[edit]

The "Sensation Seeking" page links here to a section called "adrenaline junkie" that appears to not exist or have been deleted. If you search wikipedia for "adrenaline junkie" it also links to the page, and there is actually no mention of the concept of "adrenaline junkies" or being addicted to adrenaline at all. The page on Extreme Sports makes an offhand mention that the medical community generally believes that thrillseekers like the dopamine/serotonin from the increased physical activity, but not the adrenaline, however anyone who has ever sat in a roller coaster or gone down a slide knows that you get a pleasurable rush without having to exert yourself at all. Wikipedia actually now has a dead link here, since this page contains no information about this phenomenon that I can find, and no acknowledgement that it exists, including no claim or explanation of why it might be false. Please undelete or return the proper section that was clearly here before. (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking the edit history, I see that that section was edited out on 01:41, 12 February 2015, by Seppi333 using the arguments "ridiculous WP:OR". However, I don't think that it was own research, and regardless of how ridiculous it might be, it is a phrase used fairly widely, as the incoming links and the links in the deleted section show. A web search also shows the term widely used. So, I agree with, arguing more specifically that it could work under the "Society and Culture" heading and be improved with better referencing. So, I think its work reinstating and improving.Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added a section with this title back, but the contents are quite different now, in particularly linking to the closely-related psychological concept of novelty seeking.Klbrain (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There are exactly 2 sentences in that section cited by WP:MEDRS quality reviews. The remaining statements in that paragraph need to have their citations improved if that material is going to be retained since they are medical statements; otherwise, it needs to be deleted again. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that "Adrenaline Junkie" is in the "Society and Culture" section, and the topic relates to use of the phrase in popular culture, I think that therefore WP:RS is a more appropriate standard.Klbrain (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
MEDRS isn't a policy with an application that is dependent on the section or even the article topic; it depends on the statement. Every one of the following sentences makes a medical claim and none of them are cited by a medical review: The terms related to the correlation between psychological stress and adrenaline release,[99][100] secondary to activation of the sympathetic nervous system, although such stress is also trigger many other responses within the central nervous system reward system that drives behavioral responses. Through this system, it is believed that signalling with the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain is likely to be more important.[101] Nevertheless, adrenaline infusion alone does increase alertness.[102] Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've killed some of the 'comtemporary culture' references and added in citations of the relevant sections from an Autonomic Physiology textbook (by W. Jänig), and a scientific review.Klbrain (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparent error in the "Epinephrine" article[edit]

The chemical diagram for this compound appears to have an extra item showing on it:

At the right end of the diagram, the compound ends with an NH group. Clearly, the nitrogen has three bonds: one to the rest of the compound (to the left), one to the hydrogen above it, and the third hydrogen below.

But there appears to be another (heavy) line extending beyond the nitrogen toward the lower right, though it has nowhere to go, nothing to connect to, and no apparent purpose.

I therefore suggest that this additional line be deleted from the diagram so that the right end simply ends with a nitrogen and the two hydrogens.

I'm posting this here so that someone with more expertise than me on this sort of thing can review the situation and determine whether a fix is indeed needed.

Thank you. (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of that line is a carbon with three hydrogens (a methyl group), as you can see in model just below it. A line with nothing at the end is the standard way to show a methyl group. With regard to the nitrogen atom, I don't know what you mean about "the hydrogen below"; the third bond is to the methyl group. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Current price in major EN speaking countries IMO is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

that is the price for the whole autoinjector + drug, not just for the drug. the price is discussed extensively in epineprine autoinjector. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes agree. But that is the common form it is sold for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess for consumers, yes. volume-wise i have no idea if more epinephrine is used for anaphylaxis readiness vs the other uses. about this, the generic product is not a generic of epipen, but of a different device. fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is a generic version of an autoinjector correct? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
yes it is. the issues are: a) Mylan announced it intended to bring a generic version of their own device (!) as one of their strategies to address the pricing outrage. They haven't yet. (discussed a bit here) Just saying "generic" might mislead people to think there is a generic EpiPen available now. b) changing from one device to another is non-trivial - the user has to be trained in whatever device they are using and outcomes are way better when people get good training (per this).
So the two devices for which we are offering prices are different in a way that matters, and there is the larger society&culture issue of the actual generic of EpiPen.
Please note I am not demanding that we restore the words to make it clear that the prices apply to two different devices; am just explaining why I added it in the first place. We can let this go. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Undefined reference errors[edit]

There's 2 undefined ref errors (see Epinephrine#References) that cite content in the Epinephrine#Society and culture section. I don't feel like going through the article history to find the right revisions to fix this at the moment, so I'm posting this thread in the event anyone is interested in doing so to replace the undefined named references. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Split drug from hormone (December 2016)[edit]

Have split into Epinephrine and Epinephrine (medication). There is also a suggestion to have the physiological info at Adrenaline and the medication related content at Epinephrine. Not sure if the literature support the latter suggestion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

agree with split. I've put a matching hatnote in Epinephrine (medication).
Naming this one adrenalin might help avoid people putting content into the wrong article. (but that might just be a UK POV) - Rod57 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not just a UK POV. Apart from the Malay, Tagalog, Scots and simple English one, every other Latin-/Cyrillic-script Wikipedia uses "adrenaline" or equivalent spellings as the main name, hinting at how near-universal the term is at least in the non-medical sense. As a non-native speaker, I had never heard of epinephrine until I read this article. The argument to name the article based on the INN has been weak in the past, as the primary meaning is adrenaline/epinephrine as a neurotransmitter rather than a drug. This gets even weaker after the split. I favor moving this article to adrenaline. The drug-related article can then be moved to this title. Don Cuan (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Most of the archives of this talk page and some of the comments above (eg price) relate to the medication rather than the hormone. Can we somehow transfer or copy the related talk page content to Talk:Epinephrine (medication) ? or at least note there that the talk is here ? I'll leave a brief comment there but I expect there is a proper/better way to do it. - Rod57 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure transfer away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)