Talk:Nootropic/Academic doping talk page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nootropic/Academic doping talk page article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is unbiased, notable, and is referenced, fulfilling the wikipedia basic requirements. Additionally, the article benefits from having a lot of links throughout the article, allowing a reader to learn more about the linked terms and also link directly to the original sources for the article. While the article is well written and concise, it could probably benefit from a little more information, such as the prevalence of usage (i.e., percentage of students, perhaps broken down by age group) and more information on risks/side effects.Nsoltanzadeh (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ideas. Go for it! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Nsoltanzadeh is correct about this page benefiting from more information. I think that there is more to this topic then the broad overview that is given here. Eswiz (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in full agreement that this article lacks information. Although it may be a good starting point, every section can be improved and more sections should be created in order to really understand what this concept of "academic doping" really is. Bmurph331 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unbiased and benefits from a variety of reliable references. The article presents notable and relevant information. The writing is clear, thorough, and concise. The contents break the article into easy-to-follow sections. There are also linked terms and categories listed in conjunction with the subject. Erinfreier (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it morally incorrect to do academic doping? Why is the prevalence of Adderall misuse so high? Is this a result of feeling pressured to excel or wanting more time to do other things? Srm16 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, how much trouble can an individual get in with the law when taking these drugs if they are not prescribed?Bmurph331 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branching off of Bmurph's question, how do college administrations view/address students who misuse Adderall and other stimulants would add to the depth of the article? I believe the addition of a "Response" section to the article may be worthwhile. Writerinprogress (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the suggestions Srm16 and Bmurph331 made will make this article stronger. Eswiz (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution some of the users/editors in this talk section to remember Wikipedia's commitment to Neutral Point of View (NPOV). You could, however, have a strictly factual and neutral discussion of any legal consequences and/or academic sanctions that have actually arisen from illicit use of these drugs, which would address Bmurph331's suggestion. DinzdalePR (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article be stronger if there was more detail regarding the history of these drugs? Bmurph331 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be more information about the increase of academic doping in school? Also, should there be more current statistics added to the article to emphasize the increase in academic doping? Bern123456 (Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, are instances of academic doping higher among undergraduates or graduates? Is there a higher usage among students in particular majors or academic programs? Although this article focuses on stimulant abuse as it pertains to a college level, how common is academic doping among high school students? Writerinprogress (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How has the prevalence of academic doping changed over time? How has it changed with the change in how often it is prescribed? Theblum (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.drugfree.org/newsroom/pats-2012 This acticle could help add some more info to the article Theblum (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://psychcentral.com/lib/side-effects-of-adhd-medications/0003782 Theblum (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article, while it addresses the safety considerations associated with taking unprescribed nootropics, could benefit from additional detail concerning the risk of taking such drugs. For example, do individuals often require of higher dosages to get the same effect? What percentage of students who abuse these drugs develop an addiction?). Writerinprogress (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a section explaining the science of cognitive enhancing drugs stimulate mental acuity could add to the quality of the article. I would like to learn more about how drugs like Adderall interact with neurotransmitters in the brain, and if the effects are different for someone who requires cognitive enhancement drugs in order to concentrate and focus versus someone who does not. Writerinprogress (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References: most of the references appear with square brackets around them. Someone should figure out how to remove them (or get them not to show up on the article page). Don't forget to italicize titles of journals and other publications. If possible, resources that are available online should be hyperlinked. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History: not everything in this section has to do with the history of academic doping; discussions of why students use the drugs should be moved to the "Purpose" section. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at other Wikipedia articles about drugs would suggest that "Uses" would be a more common heading. Here, I might suggest "Uses (non-medical)" DinzdalePR (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution: The dramatic increase in ADHD/ADD diagnosis and use of prescription drugs to treat these conditions is really part of the discussion started earlier in the "history" section. It doesn't really deal with distribution and should probably be moved.

The second paragraph in this section references an article by Mehlman and "data of Cephalon." This is entirely unclear.

Who did this paragraph in that section? We need a better reference. (Bmurph331 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The third paragraph in this section is the only one that truly seems to discuss the distribution of the drugs (without a prescription).DinzdalePR (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects: this section is well written. Contributors might consider adding subheadings to divide this section into "Cognitive-enhancing effects" (or simply "Cognitive enhancement") and "Adverse effects." Most drug articles on Wikipedia seem to have an adverse effects section. Admittedly, this article is more about the use of an entire category of drugs (nootropics) for an off-label purpose, so it wouldn't be appropriate to get into side effects of specific drugs. The current revision is sufficiently broad. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics: Titling this section "Criticism and controversy" might put it more in line with other similar Wikipedia articles. What *are* the criticisms and controversies (ethical considerations)? The section as written is doing a very good job maintaining NPOV and discussing the controversies as reported in published sources. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student Use, Effectiveness, and Safety considerations: These sections all address topics that are already being discussed in other sections of the article. If there is material here that is simply repetitive, it should be deleted. All other material should be incorporated into existing sections. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing/Proofreading: There are frequent capitalization errors throughout; one in particular: the term academic doping is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. To be clear, this is just one example. There are other capitalization errors and a few minor mechanical errors (spelling, punctuation, etc.) throughout. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions: Are there any other commonly used terms for academic doping? A Lexis-Nexis search might reveal when the term "academic doping" first appeared in print. DinzdalePR (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased[edit]

This article is very negatively biased. It often speaks of "misuse" and "unfairness" - in what way is using substances to clearly *improve* functioning misuse? Wikipedia articles should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.113.198 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through it, I agree, this article isn't written from a neutral POV or even in an encyclopedic manner (e.g., rhetorical questions, use of the second person, etc). "Distribution" needs to be redone entirely due to a scope issue; the section should ideally refer to international illicit distribution, or at least have national coverage. Instead, it generalizes statements made from an unreliable website source and a single university in Florida. Only the last sentence has national coverage and a reliable citation. With regards to medical content, most medical claims in the article also don't have a suitable WP:MEDRS-quality citation (e.g., aren't cited at all, fail WP:MEDDATE, or aren't medical reviews), so all of those would need to be deleted or replaced with content that's cited by current MEDRS-quality sources. Probably the biggest problem of all is that this article defines "Academic doping" as the use of nootropics for perforance-enhancement, and then focuses entirely on two ADHD drugs. Even if this was unintended, this is a massive NPOV issue due to the enormous WP:WEIGHT placed on the misuse of two particular nootropics.

So, in a nutshell, most of this article (save for ~1-2 paragraphs of cited text) is going to be deleted when I merge these later this week, since placing this much content on ADHD pharmaceuticals in Nootropic would also constitute an undue weight issue in that article as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead with with merge now. I'll see what I can move into the article's prevalence/availability section, though due to the fact that the term "academic doping" is pejorative and has no pubmed coverage, the nootropic article's section name will need to be changed to an equivalent term/phrase used in medical literature. The "Academic doping" article name shouldn't exist for that reason and the fact that it's simply pejorative. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]