|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nootropic article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nootropic.
|Pages moved to a subpage: Talk:Nootropic/Academic doping • Talk:Nootropic/Academic doping talk page|
Does article really cover "nootropics" or rather "Academic/Brain doping"?
as the article states, the word "Nootropic" was coined by Corneliu E. Giurgea. In his article you find certain criteria for nootropics. Most of those criteria are not met for a lot of substances that are presented as "nootropics" in this articls (definitions are for example: almost complete lack of side effects, protection of brain against injury etc.).
In fact, most of the space in the article (especially Paragraphs "Academic doping", "Side effects", Most parts of "Drugs") is consumed by mainly stimulating drugs most of which show a wide range of side effects and are presumed to damage the brain themselves if used over prolonged periods of time. These should perhaps be transferred into an article Brain doping or the like.
I would modify the article myself, but nowadays changes to wiki articles are usually reverted anyway without coercive reason if you are a noname editor and I don't like working for the bin. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- BTW: WP:MEDRS is regarding external sources. Is a Wikipedia article a reliable source, assuming that citations are ok in the article? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think one man's definition of a class of cognitive enhancers is really notable enough to have an entire wikipedia article written on it. Because of that, I went about writing this article using the loosest definition possible of a nootropic (e.g., a cognitive enhancing drug) and sought medical reviews which explicitly classified a drug as a cognitive enhancer or similar. That said, I would be very happy to see those drugs added to this article if there's medical reviews which cover their cognition enhancing properties.
- Wikipedia articles can't cite other wikipedia articles, however, the sources in another wikipedia article can be cited in this article (provided they meet the MEDRS guideline). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Topic "Citing Wikipedia": Sounds strange though: If Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source of information, then what is all the fuss about finding good sources for Wiki articles good for? ;)
- Topic "Defnition of Nootropic": I see your point, it might seem narrow to let one individual define a term. But we shouldn't forget that the term was created by this person, because there was a new concept that needed a new term. And this intention made sense to a lot of people, otherwise the term wouldn't be known and widely used today. The specific thing about nootropics in contrast to other drugs or narcotics altering the state of mind is found in the definition of Mr Giurgea. I suggest to either split the article into two articles ("Nootropics" in contrast "Brain doping/Smart drugs", while "Smart drugs" seems to be a marketing name rather than a neutral term) or this article is sorted into categories "Nootropics in the original sense" and "Later use of the term". If you google "smart drugs" you find much more hits for pages that talk about substances like "modafinil, to amphetamines (often prescribed under the name Adderall) and methylphenidate", if you google "nootropics" you find much more links regarding "classic nootropics", but there is an intersection between the two topics, that's true. You have a pharmacological definition in the german Wiki that says "Anti-Alzheimer medication" for nootropics which might be nice in a purely pharma wiki, but has almost nothing to do with the common use of the term and is rather misleading for someone looking for common knowledge about the term (although this definition should be mentioned in the article to clarify this issue). What do you think? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I read the article again and again and I keep stumbling over the sections. If "Nootropic" is a good master category for all the other related sub types (smart drugs, memory enhancers, neuro enhancers, cognitive enhancers, and intelligence enhancers etc.), perhaps we should sort those into sections and subsections, including one section for "Classic nootropics" (or the like) that fall under the definition by Dr. Giurgea. Methylphenidate for example has in several aspects completely different properties than Piracetam. Give it a try? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please list any concerns with, comments on, or support for the revised/shortened version of the article in this section. I've notified WT:MED and WT:PHARM of this thread for additional feedback. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Academic doping merge
I unfortunately really don't see anything in the academic doping article which isn't already in nootropic that I can merge.
As I noted before, much of the doping article focused on ADHD stims, which creates the scope issue I mentioned in the talkpage discussion (now located in a subpage of this talk page).
Most of the sufficiently general (nootropic-related) material in the doping article made non-evidence based claims, which runs completely counter to what this article is doing (as required by WP:MEDRS, every drug makes an evidence-based claim, often in a clinical context, and is cited by a MEDRS-quality medical review).
There was a lot of literature that made normative statements as well; covering this type of material is very difficult to do in a neutral manner because it asserts a "correct" point of view. I'm not sure the normative medical literature on the use of cognitive enhancers can actually can be covered in an NPOV manner since it appears highly polarized; I'd also really rather not open a can of worms by putting material arguing for or against the use of schedule 2 controlled substances by the general population in this article. Briefly covering these controversies in the first 2 sections as was done acknowledges that "there is a controversy/concern", but we merely provide cursory coverage of the positions and don't discuss the suspicions of potential good or bad effects by all or potential subclasses of users (this type of crap seems so tenuous to me). These medical suspicions and assertions of possibility are speculative proposals and fail WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDASSESS) by default because it's not evidence-based medicine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've requested this due to the persistence and recent uptick of disruptive IP editing: Special:Permalink/650531118#Nootropic_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)