Jump to content

Talk:Adrenaline/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Archive

This talk page was getting quite unruly and lacked structure, so I archived it. --BJ 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the release of adrenaline controlled?

Was hoping to find the answer to the above question. SmithBlue 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit on regulation to the article. It's not complete, but it's a start. --David Iberri (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David. SmithBlue 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Citation required for some statements. --218.186.9.3 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

used with lidocaine

At the dentist's office, I noticed that the lidocaine was labeled as containing epinephrine. I asked the hygeinist what its function was, but she didn't seem to know. Any idea? Does it act as an anaesthetic itself?--207.233.88.250 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The half life on lidocaine is tiny. It is metabolized extremely fast. The epinephrine is added to constrict blood vessels in the area so that the lidocaine stays in one area (the area to be worked on) and so that it is not metabolized extremely quickly. In people who cannot be given epinephrine (usually because they have some heart condition), lidocaine or other anesthetics must be administered repeatedly (IIRC, once every 15 minutes)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.108.54 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Someone told me that it might act to keep the lidocaine in the body for longer, because it constricts blood vessels.--207.233.88.250 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this, the epinephrine is used for its vasoconstrictive effect. This helps to maintain a bloodless field. This has two advantages (this is my analysis not source's) 1-lidocaine often used before minor superficial operations (e.g. stitches, etc.) and it helps to have a clean field 2-if lidocaine is injected shallow in a wound, the cleansing action of the bleeding may flush out some of the lidocaine. Rlax 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline is given with local anesthetics to cause vasoconstriction, as mentioned above. But I haven't heard anyone mention two of probably the most cited reasons for giving the vasoconstrictor adrenaline with local anesthetics. The benefits of vasoconstriction are 1) that the local anesthetic generally stays localized to the area it was administered (ie, vasoconstriction helps minimize systemic actions of the anesthetic) and 2) as a result of not being distributed systemically, the anesthetic stays in higher concentrations in the area administered, so that it has a longer half-life. The only local anesthetic that doesn't need to be administered with adrenaline is cocaine, because it has inherent vasoconstrictor activity. --David Iberri (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline/Epinephrine move

The Right Honourable (talk · contribs) moved this page from "Epinephrine" to "Adrenaline/Epinephrine" in this edit [1]. The move was in line with WP:BOLD, but doesn't help solve the problem I and others have raised on this talk page, namely that we need to decide between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine". As User:Colin mentioned on my talk page, this may also go against the "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" policy of WP:NAME. I've moved the page back to Epinephrine for the time being. Input welcome. --David Iberri (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he also did the same over at what is now called Noradrenaline/Norepinephrine. --Arcadian 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the revertion back to Epinephrine. Whilst the move might be described as WP:Bold, it was not following consensus (the discussion above failed to reach clear consensus to rename). Furthermore, given that discussion was being held, to perform the action outside of consensus was quite frankly disruptive to our group effort. The WHO have carefully considered this and decreed on the INN. It is really not the place of WP to carry out a debate (vs merely reporting on a debate). I really think the article should be as per the INN, but by all means describe in the article the history of the various names, the WHO's INN and how various parts of the world have chosen to follow this or not etc (all with good citations from reliable sources to verify of course) ... David Ruben Talk 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PS I've reverted too the renaming of Norepinephrine David Ruben Talk 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isomers

The isomers section says only "Epinephrine can be found in nature in the R form; however, racemic mixtures of the molecule can be used if its chirality is destroyed." This seems to imply the epinephrine compound is an L form, but that isn't stated (apparently). Also, the R form probably shouldn't be called epinephrine then, since it doesn't have the activity (I presume). Thirdly, what does if its chirality is destroyed mean? Wouldn't one just use the racemic mixture and expect half the level of activity (for a 50-50 mix)? Is some sort of chemical "destruction" or separation step needed? It would be good if someone knowledgeable about this could fix the article. -R. S. Shaw 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in Regulation section

Usually when there is a first, second & third, there are three points to be made. Here there is two points & a repeat of the first. I edited it, but the administer reverted it. If you don't believe that tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine-β-hydroxylase are enzymes for dopa and norepinephrine, please go to http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/get_pathway?org_name=hsa&mapno=00350 & click on the enzymes yourself. If there is another way that the first point under regulation is true, in addition to the well documented way mentioned under number three, please add that. I would be most interested & I would expect lots of others would be too. I've already edited it once & the edit just got trashed, so I'll leave it to someone else to fix it again.

Much of Wiki appears as if it is a few sentences taken from one textbook & a few others taken from another. That's fine. I have no problem with that, as long as everything fits together. Having a correct entry is more than making sure each individual sentence is true. It needs to be true when taken as a whole. Stating the same action as two different actions is just as much of an error as any other error.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregogil (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 March 2007

It wasn't 'the adminster' that reverted, just another editor. His summary suggests he did it because your edit was unexplained - i.e. you left the Edit Summary blank. -R. S. Shaw 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks R. S. Shaw for explaining. I'll go ahead & repost. I hope that if someone sees something that he or she wishes to improve on, they will edit instead of reverting to something that is in error. Gregogil 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Epinephrine as a neurotransmitter

Epinephrine is also a small-molecule neurotransmitter. The article nowhere mentions "neurotransmitter" except for in "Category". Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? But where? I know way too little about neurochemistry to be able to write something about it myself. Lova Falk 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, epinephrine's role as a neurotransmitter should be mentioned. PMID 6805416 would be a good starting point for a reference. --David Iberri (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference "PMID 6805416" is an old article (1982). Medical Physiology by Boron & Boulpaep (updated ed., 2005), states "Epinephrine ... is made only in the adrenal medulla" (emphasis is the author's). Since the adrenal medulla is an endocrine gland, this contradicts the notion that epinephrine is secreted by neurons. Therefore, I don't think it is correct to call it a neurotransmitter.--DrDrCone (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, that it's an old article doesn't make it wrong. Also, while Boron & Boulpaep is a great text, it's not free of errors. Any noradrenergic neuron that synthesizes PNMT is capable of secreting epinephrine as a neurotransmitter. These adrenergic neurons have been described in the rat cerebrum, brain stem, and retina. In addition, adrenergic cells have been observed in both cardiac and skeletal muscle. An excellent reference for this is:
Calling epinephrine a hormone and a neurotransmitter is therefore appropriate. --David Iberri (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Eppy

In the medical dramas and films and so on, when someone asks for two milligrams of "eppy" are they refering to this? SGGH speak! 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see it. SGGH speak! 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Redheads and epinephrine

From the red hair article:

There is some indication that the uncommon pheomelanin/eumelanin ratios found in redheads may be correlated with some corresponding variations in the abundance of other hormones and neuropeptides, including epinephrine (adrenaline), dopamine, and oxytocin. Wolves which are bred to be tame have been found to acquire a progressively paler coat of fur as they become tamer and tamer through successive generations. The speculation is that the cell biology which produces epinephrine (adrenaline) needed for the high-energy fight-or-flight response is linked to the cell biology that governs the relative production of pheomelanin and eumelanin. This finding might explain why redheads are often characterized as having a distinct temperament compared to the rest of the population.

This seems like pseudoscientific babble to me, but I don't know enough to say for sure. Since there are no references, and since Google finds no reference to this theory other than one blog and a few WP mirrors, I'm tempted to delete it altogether. But maybe somebody who edits this page will be able to say if this paragraph makes any sense whatsoever.Fionah 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Primatene Mist

I believe some mention should be made to the inhalation product, sold under the common brand name Primatene, especially since Primatene redirects here. There is actually quite a bit of controversy regarding the use of epinephrine in the treatment of asthma, and it should be noted. User:Mike19772007 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments. Primatene mist, and generic versions of said product, can be purchased without a prescription. Consequently, Primatene mist is used by many people in lieu of albuterol for the treatment of chronic and acute asthma and bronchitis. There are also people who have albuterol prescriptions that choose to use Primatene -- against medical advice -- because Primatene is a much more powerful vasodilator than albuterol. As such, Primatene should have its own Wikipedia article that narrates this controversy; at the very least, the Primatene controversy should be discussed here in the epinephrine article. // Internet Esquire (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Opera rendering issue

They are just trying to solve problem with rendering. In renders incorrectly in both opera and firefox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errorneous (talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific? The page seems to render correctly in Firefox 2.0.0.4 and Opera 9.2 under XP (at least for me). -- MarcoTolo 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This [2] doesn't seem correct for me. (Opera 9.21)Errorneous 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I see what you're talking about - and the screenshot was very helpful: Opera 9.2.1 under Windows 2000 does demonstrate the issue (though why it rendered "properly" for me with 9.2 under XP on my lab machine is baffling). In any case, it looks like the issue may be with the {{Unreferencedsection}} template and its interaction with {{Infobox}}. Since this problem will probably occur with any use of the two tags in close "page-space" to each other, I'll bring up the issue on the respective template page(s). Thanks for pointing the issue out. -- MarcoTolo 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Just what is the issue with that screenshot? The whitespace between the heading and the {ref} box? That doesn't seem too bad to me. But look at this screenshot of a Firefox 1.5 rendering on XP. The "Help, get involved" text gets way too involved with the infobox!. -R. S. Shaw 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fighting

I believe (and I may be wrong) that Epinephrine is used in Boxing and Kickboxing over cuts in order to allow them to heal faster. If I'm right should that be added? Disco (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adrenal Dump

This article should also address the efects of a sudden adrenaline rush for which the individual is not mentaly prepared causing paralisis in stress situations. This is fairly common although the article seems to only refer its stimulating effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.224.2 (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Adrenaline

From what I see on this talk page, the consensus appears to be towards the name "Adrenaline". Also, the most common name is by far "adrenaline" rather than "epinephrine" and that's what counts in Wikipedia naming. bogdan (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is expected that if you move a page that you fix the double redirects. Skimming through shows you didn't. Cburnett (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The mover should have fixed them, true. I've fixed the six shown under Epinephrine since it's best not to leave them undone even if a bot may eventually clean them up. (Others have done some earlier). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no clear consensus in the above discussions for a move Epinephrine->Adrenaline. More definitively, the guideline WP:MEDMOS gives clear guidence to follow the INN ("Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought... Drugs — The International Nonproprietary Name (INN)"). I have therefore reverted back to Epinephrine. (PS being British I was rather fond of adrenaline, likewise frusemide over furosemide etc, but follow in my clinical practice the changes to INN as advocated in our BNF, and for the global reach of Wikipedia the INN should definitely normally apply) David Ruben Talk 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all the obvious main-space redirects for adrenalin.David Ruben Talk 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have a policy of using the "official" name, but rather we use the "most common" name for something. And that name is clearly "Adrenaline" on both sides of the Atlantic. The searches on google and google news show that overwhelmingly, even the US media uses "Adrenaline", so it's not the usual British/American dispute:
Google news: Adrenaline: 141,000 (3,963); Epinephrine: 10,200 (55) -- all archive (last month)
Google hits: Adrenaline: 23,200,000; Epinephrine: 2,480,000
bogdan (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bogdan, "adrenaline" is clearly the most frequent, most common, most used term. This is enough for the article to be at that name. The officialness is just an extra argument. Are we going to move it back or should we start up the (unclosed) move request again? - Francis Tyers · 10:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not "officialness", but the consensus of the WP:PHARM and WP:MED projects who helped form the WP:MEDMOS guideline.David Ruben Talk 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Also for medical terms the most "common name" is not generally used but "Article titles use the scientific or medical name". Hence "heart attack" is obviously what any patient & news reports would use, yet WP has quite differently named and indvidual articles for the umbrella term "heart attack" as set out in Heart attack (disambiguation) with the main article being Myocardial infarction. Similarly "heart disease" is the widely used lay-term, yet is not some single condition and our article Heart disease explains and links to 8 separate specifically named articles. "Chest infection" is what my patients would state, yet WP has no such article, but we do have Community-acquired pneumonia, Lower respiratory tract infection, pneumonia and some specific X-pneumonia articles.David Ruben Talk 12:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
if you google the expressions, you get "Epinephrine rush" (358 hits), "Adrenaline rush" (4,150,000 hits) :-) bogdan (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Googling is generally a poor method of choosing names, and wikipedia is not beholden to outside sources to decide its own naming conventions (hence we have WP:MEDMOS), indeed Google reflecting as it does the internet is always going to have US brands in 1st place. Given this is a medical topic, PubMed will be a more authoratively reliable source* and it currently gives Adrenaline 110,761 and Epinephrine 115,071. *Of course PubMed will have a bias of English-speaking journals (but it is not exclusively so) and the more worldwide-authorative WHO selection of the INN should cary yet more notability. I've posted a heads-up at WT:PHARM David Ruben Talk 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Pubmed now shows a tilt towards adrenaline, 122,245 articles and 6042 reviews, to 117,122 articles and 5680 reviews for epinephrine- this doesn't seem like a very valid argument either way. 99.251.195.32 (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bogdan, you should not have done this move without a formal move request and adequate discussion. You could have expected that this was going to be a controversial move. Indeed adrenaline wins a Googlefight by a factor 10. But there is a significant precedent on Wikipedia for using the INN. For several years now we have been using generic names over brand names (who on earth has ever heard of sildenafil?) without controversy, and this is reflected in various guidelines by WikiProjects quoted by David. I don't actually see a problem - I have long held that "being redirected can be educational", and I don't see an exception here. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS also says "Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research" and gives an example of original research being "counting Google results". Now, I might have had a hand in writing that bit of MEDMOS, but it has gone unchallenged for some time now. My desire is that as Wikipedians we should not repeat the discussions that international bodies and bigger brains have already had. They may get it wrong from time to time, but it saves us wasting so much time and falling out over trivial matters. And before anyone says "the name isn't trivial", have a look at this article's Notes and References sections and consider whether you think this article is adequately sourced. This is where we should be spending our time. Colin°Talk 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the article was moved back to "epinephrine" (and not because I'm an American). If paracetamol is the lead name, well surely to be consistent epinephrine would be more consistent given the INN convention. Andrew73 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I personally would prefer adrenaline coming from British/Irish medical education system but the guidelines request that INN is to be used and according to the Martindale (I couldn't navigate WHO's website) that would make it Epinephrine. Why have the guidelines like this if there's going to be exceptions like this? Medos (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The move to adrenaline shouldn't have happened without consensus (which there wasn't). But I am disappointed that the INN convention is trumping WP:COMMONNAMES. My view -- and I suppose this is worth introducing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) -- is that the INN recommendation should only be used in lieu of compelling reasons to choose one term over another. Arguments about Viagra vs. sildenafil, heart attack vs. myocardial infarction, etc. miss the point that the only difference between adrenaline and epinephrine is worldwide usage. That the world calls the substance adrenaline should be reason enough to prefer that term over epinephrine. --David Iberri (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me backpeddle a bit; usage rates aren't the only differences between epinephrine and adrenaline. The INN gives epinephrine a smidgen more "officialness" to some, which I suppose I can't argue with. That still doesn't tip the scales enough in epinephrine's favor for me, though. --David Iberri (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point about the guidelines may need to be ironed out. But as it stands right now it states that they are to follow the INN convention. I fail to see the relevance of your Viagra vs. sildenafil argument. The former is a brand name and the latter is the active drug ingredient so they are different things and debates over them would (hopefully) be quickly put to a close. A more comparable argument would be something like paracetamol vs acetaminophen. They are synonyms but paracetamol is accepted as INN and BAN names but acetaminophen is used for the USAN name.

Unless the guidelines are changed then truthfully this whole argument that is taking plave is irrelevent.Medos (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess. Seems like we have conflicting guidelines on this so Common sense seems to win out. In which case do we go with the most commonly used Adrenaline; international non-medical, & BAN/UK medical or Epinephrine; International official US medical usage?
My view is that more people will look for adrenaline and be puzzled by epinephrine, while anyone looking up epinephrine will understand adrenaline. I am from the UK so not neutral on the subject, but after someone pointed out the medico, guidelines I was going to leave it until I saw the comment on common names (which is a fair point)
I got involved in the last discussion due to counting irregularities (someone was POV pushing or inept). Can we ignore the which is more 'official' and reason which is more useful to readers, that seems like a more productive discussion than wikilawyering.--Nate1481(t/c) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In terms of practicality adrenaline clearly wins out. Of that there is no doubt. My personal view opinion is that it should be adrenaline but it gives conflicting standards. The common sense argument is valid but it's hardly irrelevant to point out that it's not impractical to have the article named epinephrine. It seems a bit patronising that people would not have the ability to cope with a redirect and merely read a few words to discover the synonym.
I realise that my view seems conflicting and that's probably because it is, but the long and the short of it is that I would vote for adrenaline. - Medos (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 February 2008
My intent was not to be patronising, but to be accessible. For someone not familiar with international variation (say a 7 year old doing a school project) they will almost certainly have heard of adrenalin and may well have no idea why they can't find an article on it, only on this other drug; while any English speaking medical professional anywhere should be aware that they are the same thing. This is why I favour the common name interpretation --Nate1481(t/c) 10:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for the sake of the 7 year olds who can understand most of the content of this article and write articles on adrenaline I relinquish. :) - Medos (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to understand most just one or two little bits and not go away as they found nothing --Nate1481(t/c) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is quickly devolving into a pointless argument. We're both on the adrenaline camp. Regardless of my opinions of a 7-year old's comprehension, the point is to do with the title, on which we both agree. So I can't say there's much more to talk about. You made some good points previously though. - Medos (talk • contribs)13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think adrenaline would be ideal because of its widespread use. Let me explain how:
Most people who know enough English to read the Wikipedia will likely be more comfortable with "adrenaline", possibly even Americans because it's a widely used common term. This isn't just a resource for doctors and medicine students. Besides, people with a medical background are generally aware of the dual name. Many people know of "adrenaline" already due to common phrases like "that ride was exciting, my adrenaline was really high all along" or "I had quite an adrenaline surge when we saw that grizzly bear". They might not even learn that the substance related to those effects is also called epinephrine till they go to the doctor or the pharmacy.
Thus at least it should be clear from the very start of the article that we're talking about the substance behind "adrenaline surges", the feeling you get when in a fight or flight situation. For context, if anything. Having chosen epinephrine has possibly narrowed the potential of the article somewhat, as information not strictly of medical relevance became less important. In other words, adrenaline is more NPOV friendly. Style recommendations shouldn't be used blindly; we have to look their weight and at the effect the style choices may have on the article. Who is like God? (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As the subsection immediately below this one--as well as other people on this page--have pointed out, it's called adrenaline because the hormone is secreted from the adrenal (ad + renes, "near" + "kidney") glands. It acts on the adrenoreceptors, its agonists are known as adrenergics. Unlike paracetamol/acetaminophen, where both names arise from the chemical name for the compound, the name adrenaline has its origins in scientific terminology; epinephrine does not. Furthermore, other related terms are built around the "adrenal" construction, not "epinephrinal". Adrenaline is the accepted medical term in Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as being in common usage pretty much everywhere (cf adrenaline rush). How, then, is the continued usage of epinephrine not blatantly Americentric? Why is this argument still unresolved? Can we move the article back to adrenaline yet? EvilStorm (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor "adrenaline" over "epinephrine" and I've been rather vocal on the issue as you may have noticed. The reason we're presently compelled to leave the article at "Epinephrine" is that WP:MEDMOS defers to the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) when there is dispute over article titles. As it stands, INN supports "epinephrine", which means Wikipedia must as well. My approach would be to revise MEDMOS to state that in these circumstances, WP:COMMONNAMES should be invoked first, followed by INN. This would end the argument, and the article would appropriately be retitled "Adrenaline". --David Iberri (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
As EvilStorm has said common sense clearly places the name as adrenaline. The majority of the English speaking world uses this and it is even more common on the web (as shown by various google and pubmed search battles above). WP:MEDMOS only applies where there is a dispute over the title- as far as I can see there is no dispute here merely a group of americans being too stubborn to admit that the rest of the world is right (in fact many americans seem to accept the use of adrenaline). WP aims to be scientifically and historically accurate; as explained in the BMJ article linked in the first discussion on this issue- what was originally discovered as "epinephrine" was in fact a benzoylated derivative and physiologically inactive. Thus what we use today was only ever discovered as Adrenaline. So can we just finally accept that the consensus by all independent (ie not INN) sources sways to adrenaline and edit the article accordingly (with the insertion of a section on the naming issue).--Andrew Munro —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
Your claim that all non-INN sources exclusively use "adrenaline" (and not "epinephrine") is false. For example, the BMJ article cited above reports that the national pharmacopoeia equivalents in Japan, Canada, and Spain also prefer "epinephrine". However you choose to characterize it, the fact remains that a debate exists, and consequently the rules of WP:MEDMOS still apply. Incidentally, and as I've said before, I agree with you that WP:COMMONNAMES should take precedence over WP:MEDMOS's insistence upon INN conventions. But this cannot be determined by us in isolation. This discussion should really be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). For this issue to be settled, we'll have to achieve consensus there and amend the WP:MEDMOS accordingly. --David Iberri (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
After some more thought, an amendment to WP:MEDMOS is unnecessary. It is only a guideline, one to be applied with common sense. --David Iberri (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not say they were exclusively users of adrenaline but that the more common usage was of adrenaline (which is after all the test which is applied under WP:COMMONNAMES). Moreover only Canada of those countries you reference is English-speaking thus is relevant to the debate. Furthermore as you say WP:MEDMOS "proposes style guidelines for editing medical articles. Of course, the general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles." and WP:MOS defers to WP:NAMCON where the very first point is "use the most easily recognised name". It strikes me that adrenaline achieves that on three counts it is "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", it is logically related to its organ of production and its target receptors, and finally "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." the general audience here is the layman (who is likely to know only one term) not the Doctor (who will undoubtedly understand and recognise both). So as before i am at a loss as to why a change cannot go ahead.--Andrew Munro (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right; my apologies for misrepresenting your argument, which I admittedly didn't read closely enough. In any case, you and I are of the same mind in the we both agree "adrenaline" should be favored here. I have posted a new section on this talk page under the heading Invoking the common names argument, which will hopefully advance this argument further. --David Iberri (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of benzene ring

I've seen on many wikipedia articles, that the images always have the double bonds in place for benzene, and not the circular icon in the centre. I know these mean both same thing, however I've always seen the structures with the circle to illustrate the delocalised electron system. It is also worthy to note, that as Kekule demonstrated it cannot physically exist with the double-single-double bond. It has a different bond length on benzene than if it were in the benzene ring. I will also add that having the double bonds in place could mean there is another isomer (not optical/D-L) because of the placement of the groups along/across the double bonds, however this is not true.

What are others thoughts on this? BalazsH (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem using either the circle or the double-single-double bond representation for the catechol moiety for the reason you state: they're the same thing. Maybe it's because my o-chem is too rusty, but I don't see how the double bond representation could mean there's another isomer... Even with the double bond representation, it's understood that each carbon is sp2 hybridized, which makes the entire structure (including bonded groups) planar. What room is there for another isomer to be contemplated? --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd better get a picture to illustrate my idea. It's not the shape that is my problem, but the location of the -OH groups around the benzene ring. I made a molecular model illustrating what I'm trying to explain.
Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that whilst it is understood that the double and single bonds are the same in the benzene ring, the model of the double and single atoms would suggest otherwise. Here a second isomer is theoretically possible, because the two OH groups are located around the single bond instead of the double bond. The two models are non-superimposable on each other with real life models.
The carbons (or any atoms in a conjugated pi system) are PLANAR. The figures are incorrect, as clearly the carbons are not planar. If you fix this, there is no discrepancy. They all lie on one plane with the p orbitals above and below the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.108.54 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can also see that the angle C=C-O is also different to the C-C-O. I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, I'd just thought I'd mention it. As Kekule's model of the benzene ring (with the double and single bonds) doesn't exist (due to the bond lengths being different of the C=C and C-C, why are they still being used? It may just be me, but the kekule model doesn't show the delocalised system, even if it is known that it's there. BalazsH (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Resonance!
I understand your point completely, although again I think the issue boils down to convention. The alternating double bond representation (which you've called the "Kekule model" -- I trust you, but I've never heard that term) is understood to be equivalent to the circle representation: both represent delocalized electrons shared between sp2-hybridized carbon atoms. I think the only trouble with the ball-and-stick model you provided is that it has both sp2- and sp3-hybridized carbon atoms, while the Kekule representation implies only sp2-hybridized ones. Again, this is outside my expertise, but I still don't see the possibility of another isomer. More input would be appreciated because I certainly don't pretend to speak for chemists. :-) PS: Now with all that said, I actually am beginning to favor the circle representation. Otherwise, I'm feeling like we need to show resonance structures for the benzene ring as in the image to the right. --David Iberri (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think convention does play a very large part. I saw a similar discussion on the Benzene Talk page and that had quite a bit of conflict. I have always learned to draw it with a circle in the centre, and I believe and exam question even asked me why the Kekule structure (with the double bonds) didn't accurately represent benzene. The talk page explains that "the aromaticity in explained in-depth in the article (including equivalent bonds". I feel that although this is explained, those with little understanding of the subject may interpret it incorrectly, even if this is only a small chance.
The resonance model certainly illustrates the bond arrangement better, although it isn't always practical to draw it this way (hence the circular ring). I don't see how the molecular model would imply that some carbons have sp3 hybridisation whilst the Kekule model wouldn't. Maybe it just depends on how the person inteprets it, because if you know that the Kekule model shows benzene and you've been taught it has only sp2 hybridisation then that's the way you'll see it. However, at least in my mind, the molecular model shows the same thing as the Kekule model with the alternating double-single bonds, so you'd have to imply the same thing from both of them.
It seems to be that, correct me if I'm wrong, the Kekule version is used more in the US, whilst here in England nearly all textbooks I've seen have it with the circular ring on the inside. Even though convention plays a part, I think wikipedia should show it the way in which it best represents the structure of benzene. This problem can be seen throughout the whole of wikipedia, in nearly all articles of a chemical substance that contain a benzene ring.
I appreciate your feedback, and it certainly would be nice to get someone with more understanding of the area. It seems nothing was really resolved on the benzene talk page. BalazsH (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Addition: I have looked in a more advanced textbook, which says the following:
    "Benzene is symmetrical and the circle in the middle best represents this. However, it is impossible to draw mechanisms on that representation so we shall usually use the Kekule form with three double bonds. This does not mean that we think the double bonds are localized but just that we needs to draw curly arrows [for mechanism]. It makes no difference which Kekule structure you draw - the mechanism can be equally well drawn on either.
    When we move away from benzene itself to discuss molecules such as phenol, the bond lengths are no longer exactly the same. However, it is still alright to use either representation depending on the purpose of the drawing.    "
    Clayden, Jonathan et al (2004). Organic Chemistry. Oxford University Press.
    I guess it seems that whilst the ring is preferred for benzene on its own, compounds containing the benzene ring can be drawn both ways. The book also mentioned the usage of the word resonance, and that it preffered to use the delocalised system instead, as resonance would imply that the bond(s) are vibrating when this does not actually happen. BalazsH (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
While the "circle notation" for benzene is popular in high school teaching, I have never seen a higher-level organic chemistry textbook that uses it, or met a practicing chemist who uses it. The "Kekule notation" seems to be much more popular among chemists. It is overwhelmingly used in all the major chemistry journals I know, whether published by the ACS, the RSC, Elsevier, or Wiley. In my opinion, the reason is that once you go beyond benzene and start to look at heterocycles, polycyclic aromatic molecules, reactive intermediates, and reaction mechanisms, the Kekule notation makes electron counting and "electron pushing" much more straightforward. The circle notation only seems to be common for some organometallic compounds such as ferrocene and some aromatic ions such as the cyclopentadienyl anion and the tropylium cation. --Itub (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. I just thought that unless you are actually trying to demonstrate a reaction mechanism, the circular notation would better illustrate the electron distribution. BalazsH (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Epinephrine use in resuscitation

Just to put it out there, shouldn't all of the statements relating to the use of Epinephrine in resuscitation of someone in cardiac arrest be put in to one section such as in the Atrophine article under "Resuscitation?" Just was wondering if anybody else is up for the project or if it should or should not be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledoc12 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Therapeutic uses" (or just "Uses") section would be nice, absolutely. If you're up to the task, I'd be happy to help. --David Iberri (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in the History Part

W H Bates published the article "The Use of Extract of Suprarenal Capsule in the Eye" in May 1896, not 1886. The origin of the wrong date is probably Better Eyesight by Tom Quackenbush.¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syd75 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated the article after confirming the May 1896 date at [3] and [4]. Oddly [5] mentions the presentation was given on April 20th. --David Iberri (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddity in CPK model

Aren't the -OH groups on the ring drawn funny? Shouldn't one be pointing up and the other down? I realize this is just a free rotation around a single bond, but wouldn't they tend to orient themselves that way to get the H charges as far away from each other as possible? It's been many years since I studied this stuff, so I may be all wet here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Like you say, they are free to rotate. Perhaps the conformation where they point in different directions is more likely, or at least looks prettier, but it's hard to say conclusively. It would also depend on the environment. I just looked for the crystal structure of epinephrine and found that actually it is a zwitterion with one of the phenol groups deprotonated! The other OH group is pointing in the direction of the O−, trying to form an intramolecular hydrogen bond. I also found a crystal structure for the tartrate salt, in which the phenols are not deprotonated. One is more or less perpendicular to the aromatic ring, and the other is more or less coplanar with the ring, pointing out towards the tartrate anion. --Itub (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Epinprine OTC is common and should be at least mentioned

Adrenaline inhalers are sold as Primatene Mist over the counter at least in the US. This use is very common - a standard drug store item. Is this left out intentially because of potential abuse issues, or is the article missing one of the most common uses of this drug?

[1]

Ouch—I didn't think Primatene Mist was available anymore after the CFC issue. Is epinephrine really still used by people with asthma in the U.S.? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Primatene mist and generic alternatives are sold over the counter in the United States. -- See http://www.primatene-mist.us.com/ -- Because of environmental concerns, a ban of CFC-propelled Primatene mist and generic alternatives was scheduled to go into effect in 2009, but the date was pushed out to 2012. -- See http://www.aarc.org/headlines/08/11/epinephrine/ -- // Internet Esquire (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Invoking the common names argument

The gist of the "epinephrine" vs. "adrenaline" discussion above is that both terms are equally scientific and neither is proprietary. There are differences in regional use (eg, Spain favors "epinephrine" while the British favor "adrenaline") and there are interesting differences in usage between the lay and scientific communities within a given region (eg, lay Americans favor "adrenaline" while American scientists favor "epinephrine").

Worldwide, however, "adrenaline" is by far the most commonly used term. Using the principles of WP:COMMONNAMES, "adrenaline" is favored hands-down. But because there is controversy surrounding the terms, WP:MEDMOS gets invoked. And because MEDMOS defers to an international authority when there is disagreement, the article remains entitled "epinephrine" since that is the preferred INN term.

With respect to naming conventions of drugs, the function of MEDMOS is to ensure that:

  1. generic names are used instead of proprietary ones,
  2. scientific terms are used instead of lay terms, and that
  3. an international body (eg, INN) should be consulted when there are regional differences between terms.

These rules are perfectly appropriate, but inadequate. They nicely handled the situation of generic "sildenafil" vs. proprietary "Viagra". They were also used to support the scientific "myocardial infarction" over the lay "heart attack". And they dealt swiftly with the "paracetamol" vs. "acetaminophen" controversy because the INN prefers the former over the latter.

The "epinephrine" vs. "adrenaline" debate is quite different from each of these examples. Both terms are generic. They are equally scientific. But there are considerable differences in regional usage between the terms. Yet I'm against reflexively deferring to the INN in this situation because it goes against one of Wikipedia's most basic naming conventions: WP:COMMONNAMES. I am proposing that we employ common sense when applying the MEDMOS guideline. In doing so, we can clear up this disagreement without throwing up our arms and deferring elsewhere. We can simply use the common name, "adrenaline", and be done.

As precedent, consider last year's discussion regarding Tourette syndrome over at MEDMOS talk page. The debate was between "Tourette's syndrome" and "Tourette's disorder", two well recognized and equally scientific terms. However, "Tourette's syndrome" was vastly more commonly used, and "Tourette's disorder" was viewed as a pejorative by the TS community. However, rather than blindly deferring to the recommended international term, the editors used common sense and reached a consensus upon the common name. It was agreed that the term favored by the international body (ICD-10), "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder (de la Tourette)", was inappropriate, and the more common term "Tourette's syndrome" was ultimately used instead.

I encourage us to employ the same common sense and apply WP:COMMONNAMES here as well. --David Iberri (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Nicely put David; you've summarised the points very neatly. Has anyone got a good reason why this should not be the case?Munro90 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ok its over a month since David and I last broached this topic, seeing as no further input has been made (and i have finished my exams) I aim to go ahead with the edit to adrenaline in the next few days. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Andrew Munro (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the common adrenaline and noting the alternate in the lead makes sense to me, but on the relatesd "nor-epinephrine" vs. "nor-adrenaline" debate "nor-epinephrine" should win out as there isn't a parallel--Nate1481 08:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely there is little comment as if you read the talk history, this has been debated to death, no one cares the resurrect the dead horse, there was no consensus, and the result was that the name stay as it is. Similar issue over at the article for acetaminophen. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Epinephurine

Not sure how that happened. --David Iberri (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I guess I just liked the vandalized version better that day. :-) --David Iberri (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol. No worries mateFuzbaby (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Overdosage

Why is there nothing about what happens when overdosed? And is it possible that the human body overdoses himself under extreme stress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.229.20 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus — ækTalk 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Epinephrine → Adrenaline — In the discussions over the name there is far more support for adrenaline for international and common name reasons, and since there's been little activity for months I think we need to decide whether to move it or not. —78.151.177.91 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The USAN and INN name for this compound is epinephrine and most scientific publications refer to it as such, being so I think it should continue to be titled epinephrine with adrenaline redirecting here. C6541 (T↔C) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adrenal (Suprarenal) Glands

I know that adrenaline is secreted from the adrenal glands, but is there really such a thing as 'epinephral glands'? Of which epinephrine is secreted?

That is another chip in from me to say that we should change this article to have it focussed on adrenaline. We can add "they refer to it as epinephrine in the States" in an opening paragraph to sort that bit out. JoeNorris3K

Good point, ironically if you look at the endocrine page it has been called the adrenal glands.

Insulin comes from the insulinal glands? :p - Medos (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, haha, but no - 'insulin' (the hormone) is not under question. As far as I know, Americans refer to insulin as 'insulin' just as we (the rest of the globe) do; and so we don't really need to come up with reasons to justify the title for its page! Hope you can see my point... JoeNorris3K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.45 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Don't worry man. I'm only joking. I see your point. Just making a bad joke -Medos (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Insula is the Latin word for island, and that is indeed where insulin is produced: the insulae Langerhansii, or the islands of Langerhans in the pancreas. I think insulin is a good name for the chemical.--174.95.51.214 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus over name

There seems to be a consensus that the page name should read adrenaline although the WHO directory lists it as epinephrine or Epinephrinum [6] ; Adrenaline is more common andis listed as the name by other pharmacopoeias including the EU and UK . 安東尼 TALK 圣诞快乐 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey so what's the deal? I'm from Jamaica, but i go to school in the U.S., and while I knew that adrenaline stopped allergic reactions, and that the U.S. used epi pens to stop allergic reactions, I never knew epinephrine was adrenaline... I think (and so do many people around here) that the proper name for this article should be Adrenaline, with epinephrine being a redirect. Madking (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

American name

As it seems to be difficult to get the name changed, so is there any way we could have a us localised version of this article, like we have foreign language versions? One using epinephrine for American readers, and another with adrenaline for the rest of the world? I know that American users make up a large amount of wikipedia's users, but it can get really difficult, and even more annoying, having to remember the English equivalents for words used almost solely by Americans.89.240.10.175 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is more to the world than America. C6541 (T↔C) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting statement considering you are replying to someone complaining about how the article uses the American name. 86.170.243.242 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, I must have misread what you said. But either way, we don't create two different articles with one for America and another for the rest of the world. I don't understand the trouble you are having, epinephrine and adrenaline are interchangeable, just use the one you prefer using. C6541 (T↔C) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem with anonymous IP adresses. You can't tell who's who. First anon is my, second isn't. Anyway, like many others (according to the discussion), had never heard the term epinephrine before the article, and it seems to be highly confusing for non-americans who have little background in chemistry, although I'll admit that for scientists the name is probably fine, as most are likely to have consulted wikipedia on the topic at some time or other. I think the main problem is that adrenaline is the real name of the chemical (we can see this from derived words and other naming systems), but has been displaced in america due to problems in their naming system, and americans have come to use this name just as often. For this reason, and its supposed 'scientific' value over adrenaline, americans are resisting the change to the more common, and really more scientific name. --84.13.234.206 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know I am not the anon who made the first "post" in his section. I also the person who did, problem is that they keep forgetting Epinephrine is the American term for adrenalin so thinks something along the line of "I searched Adrenalin not Epinephrine what is Epinephrine" which is something I thought the first time I searched Adrenalin. 86.170.243.242 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mechanism of action

See also: adrenergic receptor

Adrenaline's actions are mediated through adrenergic receptors. Adrenaline is a non-selective agonist of all adrenergic receptors. It activates α1, α2, β1, and β2 receptors to different extents.[2] Specific functions include:

  • It binds to α1 receptors of liver cells, which activate inositol-phospholipid signaling pathway, signaling the phosphorylation of glycogen synthase and phosphorylase kinase (inactivating and activating them, respectively), leading to the latter activating another enzyme, glycogen phosphorylase, which catalyzes breakdown of glycogen (glycogenolysis) so as to release glucose to the bloodstream. Simultaneously protein phosphatase-1 (PP1) is inactivated, as in the active state PP1 would reverse all the previous phosphorylations.
  • It whips up metabolism in emergency by increasing heart beat, blood pressure, respiratory rate, etc.
Effects Biological advantage Sensation
High heart beat Sends more glucose & oxygen to the muscles Thumping heart
High respiratory rate Increased oxygenation of the blood; rapid removal of carbon dioxide Panting
Arteriole constriction Blood diverted from skin & digestive system to muscles Person turns pale
Muscle tension Ready for immediate action Tense feeling; Shivering; Erect body hair
Glycogen is converted to glucose Glucose available for energy production -
Fats are converted to fatty acids Muscles contraction -

this was replaced by a much more concise and less informative table... why did they remove the above part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.160.9 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect because it uses the name adrenaline... --92.25.64.104 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Denial of Adrenaline Name Change Consensus

Why hasn't this article been renamed to adrenaline yet? I've looked through all the arguments on this page, and it shows a clear consensus towards adrenaline. The only problem I've seen is that people are saying that there is no consensus when there is. Someone tried moving the page, but then someone else reverted it due to lack of consensus. Not only was there consensus, but that is never supposed to be used as the only reason for a revert. Everything that has was going to be said has been said by those who were involved in the discussion, which I missed out on, and have some other points on this matter. Adrenaline already has policy, widespread use, and consensus on its side, so the argument has finished in adrenaline's favor. With that can someone just change the name already? I would do it myself, but I've never moved a page before and would not like my first to be a controversial move, so when there is a double redirect which I don't quite know how to spot or fix it, somebody doesn't jump on me and revert it. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Can we post a message on an administrators page or something, asking them to do it properly? --78.151.214.6 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to move a page unless it's move locked. You just need to be an autoconfirmed user. I just want to find someone who knows more about what they're doing because this is an important article,and is likely to get reverted if there is any minor screw up. Maybe I'm being afraid of failure, but I'd like someone to help. A move request would be a waste of time because nobody wants to argue anymore. We've made a decision, so I just want to put the renaming into action. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note page move/rename would be against guideline of WP:MEDMOS to rely on INN naming. Whilst consensus previously possibly that the INN is silly on this (for a US-specific brand naming issue), it is our collective decision to follow the INN (per WP:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions). Likewise the consensus (by number of editors/readers or even googling) for the commonest used painkiller might be acetaminophen, yet we go with paracetamol - redirects cost nothing. David Ruben Talk 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why any of this supports keeping the current name. If you go toWP:WikiProject_Drugs/General/Naming_of_drug_pages#Naming_conventions it explains what we use INN only to adhere to the wikipedia naming policy of
"naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
Adrenaline is therefore the more appropriate name, because it is the one most english speakers would recognise. You might say that this would apply to all drugs with common names, however adrenaline is a special case. For most drugs using the common name would increase ambiguity (the second part of this policy), but with adrenaline, this is the opposite due to the presence of adrenal receptors and similarly named body parts.
Your second point, of the most common painkiller actually supports the change to adrenaline. Like epinephrine, acetaminophen is only normally used in the united states, and not in the rest of the world. If we have paracetamol (the common name outside of America, and technical name everywhere), why not adrenaline (the common name everywhere and technical name outside of America). Does wikipedia really need to target a single country so heavily to decide what to name it's articles?
Please read the arguments in the first part of the talk page, as all of these points have already been made, I am simply restating them for your benefit, and to fit your comments. --92.25.68.199 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
and the next sentance of the WP:WikiProject_Drugs/General/Naming_of_drug_pages#Naming_conventions you started to quote states "To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy." so we defer to this international body on this. So just as Google "paracetamol" 3,200,000 vs "acetaminophen" 4,700,000 - which is why of course we don't make our decisions on google or on usage, for of course "tylenol" beats all of these at 5,130,000 :-) So any assertion as to what is the most used name is just our original research... which is why we use the WHO as a reliable independant source to clarify. David Ruben Talk 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I really didn't want to start an arguement again. As I stated before, I have gone through every name change debate on this page, and I have seen consensus in favor of adrenaline. Everything you guys said has been said before and I suggest that everyone else read through the arguements as well. We've already made a decision, and I posted here asking for help putting it into effect. I don't like to see consensus go unanswered. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
With respect I do not see consensus to uniquely here find an exception to WP:MEDMOS, albeit a general consensus that WHO/INN has had to work around an anomalous American situation... :-) Whilst my personal English baseline is that I very much like my BrE, I really don't see that this is such a heinous problem, that the overall benefits of having a clear overarching principle (that we won't argue amongst ourselves, but simply defer to the global body, in this a global reaching encyclopaedia) just seems a lot less hassle for the future. It also helps strength case for WP:MEDMOS in naming diseases per ICD10 rather than local preferences (and English journal citations predominate with AmE vs BrE and with disease name preferences that are often slightly at odds with wider English-speaking areas). So if BNF comments that Europe signed up to use the INN on this, although with dispensation to continue co-naming with the older BAN term, then I can live with INN. Similar decisions taken to follow international chemistry organisation in calling sulphur as sulfur, and no amount of arguing that that was just a sop for AmE has help sway, indeed I read now part of UK schools curriculum (see Sulfur#Spelling and etymology).David Ruben Talk 00:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I really didn't want to go there, but here you go. You want an exception to MEDMOS? WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, WP:COMMONNAMES is a policy. Policy overrides guideline, hands down. End of discussion. If you can find a rational non-policy related reason why it should stay epinephrine, then we can still discuss it. Otherwise, your only point of argument has been defeated, and I will move to finally change it to adrenaline, as it should have been, for a very long time. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are being churlish - I know well difference guideline/policy, perhaps you should read the policy more completely - specifically WP:COMMONNAMES#Explicit conventions "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page)... as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine". The policy specificaly links to MEDMOS in text, and is but one of many specific naming guidelines listed in the top-left navbox. So if it is generally agreed to adopt more specific guidence, as the policy states may be undertaken, then in general the guidence may be followed. There of course are no absolutes to any of these points, but that includes policies (the first constructed policy being WP:IAR) :-) Again I think that the degree of naming problem with this one chemical is not so terible as to need unravelling a generally good naming guideline. David Ruben Talk 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I never said that you were acting in bad faith. Based on your arguments above (and by above, I mean the ones way at the top), it appeared to me that you were unaware that MEDMOS is just a guideline, which is merely a suggestion rather than a general rule. Second, from your quote from the explicit conventions, all I can say is wow. I was actually going to use that section against you, but you managed to quote the one line that losely speaks in your favor. Now that we're on that section let me deconstruct every other sentence in it and explain why it doesn't apply to this situation. "Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine)." Yes, but adrenaline is not strictly the common name, it is equally scientific, and more widely used in the scientific community around the world. It just happens to be the common name as well. (Which is somehow a bad thing?) "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names...." There aren't any benefits. It says that if there are benefits, then go with the MEDMOS guideline. Having the article be epinephrine is not less confusing, not more specific, not more precise, and definitely not more official."...when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." Having it be epinephrine follows neither because it is more of a US specific term, as opposed to adrenaline, which is used worldwide. So in conclusion, maybe you were right about WP:Article titles mentioning MEDMOS as a naming guideline, but WP:AT specifically states that MEDMOS should only be used when it fits certain criteria, and epinephrine fits none of them. Adrenaline fits them all. It is equally scientific, more widely used in the worldwide medical field, more widely used by regular people in all countries, and it is not a mostly US specific title. Even if epi did fit the required criteria, MEDMOS is to be applied with common sense, and mainly serves to end disputes in patented vs non-patented titles. --WikiDonn (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't double redirects be left to the bots? Theres no way so many can be reasonably be fixed by a human. I'm not sure how ofte n they work, but if they work off the special page, we could do it just before it changes. --22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrtL (talk • contribs)
Woah, to many pronouns. You say "it" and "they" so many times I have no idea what you are talking about after the first sentence. Could you explain what you mean? Other than that, I agree with your first sentence if bots do automatically fix double redirects. --WikiDonn (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Haha, sorry. I'm not sure how the bots which fix double redirects work. I think that there is a page all listing double redirects that they work from, that's only updated once a day or so, but I'm not really certain if that's still what happens. As far as I know, double redirects are supposed to be fixed by hand before then, and only the few that are missed are left to the bots, but that doesn't really seem practical to me for such a major article. --22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrtL (talk • contribs)


Ok, I am getting rather sick and tired of this discussion. MEDMOS says we use the INN name, MEDMOS overrules COMMONNAMES here, since this is a drug. In addition, IUPAC uses epinephrine (the last itme a checked at least) besides, there is a large bold "also known as" at the beginning of the article, no chance for confusion. Ronk01 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

When did you last check? I can't remember IUPAC name being changed from (R)-4-(1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl)benzene-1,2-diol. If you can find a source for the change, could you please alter the info-box? On your other point please see the arguments above, and why there is consensus for the move. I don't think the point of less confusion specifically has been raised however, but since the common name and most frequently used scientific name are both adrenaline, it would be less confusing the other way round: Using adrenaline as the title and name throughout the article, and a notice that it may also be known as epinephrine by medical practitioners in the united states.--CrtL (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific, epinephrine is the IUPAC alternate name. And in regards to the argument above, consensus does not overrule the Manual of style. If this debate continues, I may suggest arbitration. (Ronk01 from an IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.60.2 (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people are using MEDMOS to argue that we should use INN for drugs, and in turn Epinephrine for this page, but it says "Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought" and gives INN as an example but would the European Pharmacopoeia not be and International standard, in which case that would mean MEDMOS would be in favour of neither Adrenaline nor Epinephrine. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I still believe that MEDMOS would indicate the use of the INN name, I have another artilce to put forward, according to the Maunal of Style, an article on something that has more than one spelling or name should be named either in the manner of the variation on English that it is most closely associated with (but that doesn't apply here) or in the variation of English that the original editor used, which in this case would be epinephrine, so if we say that MEDMOS cannot apply, or nulifies itself, epinephrine is still the name, due to the above policy. Also, I am a physician here in the US, and all of my patients know that epinephrine and adrenaline are the same thing, so that really takes the question down to a dilectical conflict, which the manual of style solves, as I mentioned above. Ronk01 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

However Adrenaline is also an American term so I don't think National varieties of English apply here, here in the UK alot of people don't realise Adrenalin has a different name in America, while most Americans (from my limited experience) at least understand Epinephrine is called Adrenalin even if not officially. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ronk01, did you read my above comments on explicit conventions from April 28? They basically show how WP:AT states that the MEDMOS name should only be used over the common name if it fits certain criteria, of which Epinephrine fits none. Not only that, but Adrenaline fits all of them, which is another reason it should be used. In other words, the common name is used by default until it can be reasoned that using the MEDMOS name has clear benefits. I have not heard one non-policy/common sense reason why Epinephrine should be used over Adrenaline to this day. So that "MEDMOS overrules COMMONNAMES here, since this is a drug" argument does not apply (and I have no idea where you got the idea that a manual of style can override a policy). Once again, for all those who have not been informed, COMMONNAMES is a policy, MEDMOS is a guideline. The fact that MEDMOS says so is not a good enough reason on its own, especially when a policy contradicts it. So policy wise, Adrenaline clearly wins. If there are any good reasons why Epinephrine should be used over Adrenaline other than "MEDMOS says so", I would like to hear them. I have already stated the reasons it should be Adrenaline in my explicit conventions comment a few days ago. Oh, and the argument to keep the title as the one it was created with only stands when there is no reason to change the name, which is obviously untrue as I have explained the reasons. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While Adrenaline is indeed an American term, the term epinephrine is totally accepted, the vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) know epinephrine, so that leaves the other commonwealth countries as the ONLY nations in which the general public does not recognize epinephrne, and since their combined population is lower than the US and Canade, they get lower priority. (and this is not a policy, or MOS rule, this is just common sense)Besides, Adreneline is generally regarded as an unscientific term in the US and Canada (though it is technically scientific.) And in responding, please leave out any reffrences to non-elglish speaking nations, since they do not use the ENGLISH Wikipedia. So please take that into account when using COMMONNAMES against me. Ronk01 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I love that argument you just made up. There's a reason it's not a policy. If we include learners, there are 300 million+ people in china who speak english and could therefore be using the english wikipedia, which is more than in any other country. Most people in china call adrenaline "腎上腺素", and clearly they have higher priority (It's only common sense). Oh, and the other one that it isn't regarded as scientific despite it being so, that's the whole point. Common names are used if they are equally scientific, and that is policy.--92.25.75.91 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying "stuff the commonwealth as their scientific name is different to ours even though it is our common name"? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that Wikipedia needs to use the scientific name used and recognized by the vast majority of it's audience, which is epinephrine. (Ronk01 from an IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.146.82 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Again Adrenaline might not be the scientific name used by most of it's audience but it is a perfectly scientific name and also the common name used by the majority (if not all) of it's audience. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The name issue

Is it just me or does this seem overwhelmingly in favour of adrenaline, and yet we still have epinephrine as the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.213.59 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Epinephrine or adrenaline: what do people think about a poll? --David Iberri (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, in the U.S. Epinephrine is the medical name and adrenaline is the common name, I would think the medical name would be the articles names as well. BJTalk 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue was brought up here some time ago (see archives). You're right that epinephrine is favored in US medical literature. But abroad, adrenaline predominates in scientific literature as well as among laypeople. --David Iberri (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a more scientific name for epinephrine/adrenaline? If so we move the page to that name and redirect all other names to it, else I would support a poll. BJTalk 05:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Also I thought we prefer INN naming if possible. BJTalk 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no more scientific name that I'm aware of. IMO, if there's a term that's universally understood and accepted by a large majority of scientists and medical practitioners, then it should be preferred. In this case, I believe the MoS's use common names for things policy should take precedence over its recommendation to use the INN name. --David Iberri (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with your stance now, so I think a poll would be a good idea. BJTalk 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an extra perspective: I teach science in an Australian high school, and am also the son of a surgeon, so I have a pretty good handle on scientific language. The use of the word "epinephrine" is very uncommon here. It is generally only KNOWN by the medical/scientific community, and even there it is often regarded as a rather quaint Americanism. The name for the hormone is generally considered adrenaline. In fact, when the staff at my school were trained to use an epipen, only I knew where its name came from. . .Johno 14:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As a UK medical student, I can also confirm that Epinephrine is indeed an americanism. Here the accepted clinical term is also adrenaline, and all British medical texts will ONLY call it adrenaline, including the gods of pharmacology; Rang, Dale, Ritter, and Moore. Afterall, the correct term for an adrenaline receptor is an adrenoceptor/adrenergic receptor and the gland it is produced from is the adrenal gland. It then seems a little confusing to call the neurotransmitter 'epinephrine' or 'norepinephrine'.Swarvellous dude 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The BMJ in 2000 had an interesting article rooting for "adrenaline" [7]. --David Iberri (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not an Americanism: I'm a medical student at the Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon and I can say that the term "epinefrina" in portuguese is preferred to "adrenalina" the common everyday name. In European scientific articles, the word epinephrin is becoming more and more common as time passes and sometimes it is preferred as a more scientific term.
Yes, there are some medical communities outside the US that prefer "epinephrine" over "adrenaline". Regardless, "adrenaline" is no less "scientific" than "epinephrine" and is therefore no less acceptable in theory. Keep in mind that we aren't writing an encyclopedia for scientists, and even if we were, those in favor of "epinephrine" are clearly in the minority as far as I can tell. Perhaps the strongest case for using "adrenaline" on WP is that it's almost universally understood by laypeople and scientists alike. --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that point is really that relevant, whatever the Portugese preferred term is has no bearing on the English article, I'm a Canadian biochem student, I only knew epinephrine existed as a name because of Epipens. Adrenaline is used here both commonly and in the scientific commmunity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.195.32 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you check the most important Biochemistry books (Harper's and Devlin, for instance), you'll see they write epinephrin and not adrenalin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.169.114.249 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure who edited Harper's biochem, but as far as I know, Devlin is an American (I think he's at Drexel), so it's no wonder he prefers "epinephrine". --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote's for "epinephrine," following the INN convention. If, according to INN convention, the main entry for acetaminophen is paracetamol (this despite the fact that I bet more people have heard of acetaminophen than paracetamol!), then likewise the same should apply to epinephrine. Andrew73 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why using the INN should be considered a guideline, not an absolute. There are always exceptions to even very well intentioned rules. I can't argue the point for "adrenaline" any better than the BMJ article. --David Iberri (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The BMJ article is inherently biased towards the British convention (not saying that I'm absolutely free of American biases either). A better exception to the rule would be using "acetaminophen" instead of "paracetamol." Andrew73 12:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that acetaminophen/paracetamol should be another exception to the rule, but that's beside the point, isn't it? Maybe the BMJ article isn't the best way to argue the case for "adrenaline" (after all, some of the article's stronger arguments -- eg, the risk argument -- don't directly apply to Wikipedia). So I'm back to square one: is there a good reason why we can't sidestep the INN convention, acknowledging it as a guideline rather than the sole determining factor of page titles? When a suitable term is nearly universally recognized by the scientific community and general public alike, then it should be favored over a synonym that is considerably less familiar to both pools of people. I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, but I don't feel this point is being adequately addressed by folks who oppose the use of "adrenaline". --David Iberri (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought the underlying principle for naming drugs in wikipedia is to use the generic name, even if the lay (or proprietary) name is more commonly known. Otherwise, we'd have articles named after more commonly known names like Viagra or Prilosec as opposed to sildenafil or omeprazole. "Epinephrine" then is most consistent with this logic since it's the accepted medical term (at least in the U.S.) as well as INN term. Andrew73 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Our point precisely. In the US it is the accepted medical term. Here the accepted medical term is Adrenaline. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that in the majority of the world, Adrenaline is the accepted medical term. Your point? :-) Johno 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the majority of the world v. the U.S...in these situations, the U.S. generally wins, at least for medical things or spellings of medical things :). Furthermore, the INN guidelines (which aren't always in favor of American spellings (e.g. paracetamol)) favor epinephrine. Andrew73 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said above, I agree with your paracetamol vs. acetaminophen argument, but IMO it only underscores the fact that Wikipedia's INN convention should be treated as a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule. --David Iberri (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The INN convention is useful as a guideline for selecting non-proprietary names for drugs, but it's not so good for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names. So the Viagra vs. sildenafil argument doesn't really relate to the epinephrine vs. adrenaline debate. --David Iberri (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My point with "Viagra" v. "sildenafil" was that the medical terms are preferred over lay terms (it also happens to fall in line with non-propietary being favored over propietary). Furthermore, if you do a Google scholar search, there are more listings for "epinephrine" compared to "adrenaline." Andrew73 15:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see; my apologies for misreading. Still, I think my point is valid that INN shouldn't be the only thing consulted for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names. Google Scholar's results are helpful, but not terribly so. The argument is whether we should use a term that's known almost exclusively by the scientific community or one that's known almost universally by scientists and the general public alike. --David Iberri (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
everyone has heard of adrenaline but not epinephrine, but when it comes to acetaminophen/paracetamol most people have heard one but never the other, i'm english and i live in australia and here its always called paracetamol (same with adrenaline) but i have never heard of acetaminophen (or epinephrine) until a month ago

Responses to RfC

  • Adrenaline - understood also by lay-people.  Andreas  (T) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Epinephrine - other than in the intro and the terminology section, epinephrine is used in the entire article. If it is renamed to adrenaline then the article should be rewritten to use adrenaline instead of epinephrine. I don't see much gained in doing this. Cburnett 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please refer to the discussion above. The issue is that "adrenaline" is almost universally recognized, while familiarity with "epinephrine" is localized to the US scientific community. --David Iberri (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I read it. I say stick with epinephrine, but if I "lose" then I'm warning that this is not a simple page rename as "epinephrine" is used throughout the article. Cburnett 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay; apparently I (mis)read the comment you left as a rationale for your vote. The effort required to change "epinephrine" to "adrenaline" is trivial and isn't valid as an argument to retain "epinephrine" as the page title. --David Iberri (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as epinephrine. To paraphrase what I've argued previously, this article is mainly discussing epinephrine in the scientific/medical sense, not the cultural sense. And since it's mainly known as "epinephrine" in the medical community (e.g. a search on Google scholar shows more hits for "epinephrine" than "adrenaline"), the name of the article should stay consistent. Andrew73 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline. As previously stated, it is mainly known as Adrenaline in the SCIENTIFIC and MEDICAL communities in the English speaking countries outside the USA. Which, to all Americans, really do exist! :-)
  • Adrenaline per WP:COMMONNAME, with epinephrine redirecting here. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In medical circles usage seems to be fairly evenly split, apparently mostly following the American/Commonwealth division (although knowledge of both synonyms is widespread). Among the general audience, adrenaline is substantially more well known. I think in this situation the preferred title for the article, following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), would be Adrenaline. -R. S. Shaw 08:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as Epinephrine. The Adrenaline article already is required to list half-a-dozen disambiguation links. So moving this article to Adrenaline really means moving it to Adrenaline_(Biology), which is lame. Heathhunnicutt 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), the scientific or medical name is preferred, not the lay term. Andrew73 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Adrenaline" is not the standard medical term in the U.S. Maybe in lay discussion, but not in the medical community. Andrew73 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. is not the only English-speaking country; in many others the standard medical term is adrenaline. -R. S. Shaw 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep going back to this point. This article is intended for global consumption by medical practitioners and the general public alike. "Adrenaline" being widely known in both circles, it should be our preferred term as well. --David Iberri (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as Epinephrine - but note that the official position in Europe is to use "Adrenaline", whilst the British Pharmacopoeia uses BOTH European Pharmacopoeia names and the rINN. As the British National Formulary states:

    "Adrenaline and noradrenaline Adrenaline and noradrenaline are the terms used in the titles of monographs in the European Pharmacopoeia and are thus the official names in the member states. For these substances, BP 2005 shows the European Pharmacopoeia names and the rINNs at the head of the monographs"

    So whilst I might hold a cheerful grudge against the US (re branding of a universal term, so resulting in the INN, ?uniquely?, deciding on an alternative name) I accept that the INN should be the name used for the article. As the INN is "official" from the WHO, this encompasses more than just Europe vs. US debating - wikipedia is afterall worldwide and so "English-speaking" needs to include also Canada, Carribean, South Africa, New Zealand & Australia usage - I guess most of these follow INN ? David Ruben Talk 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia officially uses the INN, I believe, but that's only relevant to government - some document as such was probably signed by some Canberra flunky who didn't really know what he was signing. In keeping with our grand traditions, scientists and doctors ignore the INN and work with British names. As said before, you'll never hear the word "Epinephrene" here.Johno 13:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This may help. --David Iberri (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline. Axl 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline, as that is what seems to be more common. Strad 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline (despite my being an American) because it's universally recognized, the most common term, and no less scientifically valid than "epinephrine". --David Iberri (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as Epinephrine Per David Ruben. (I speak British English). The common-name guideline is surely intended to chose the most sensible name used within one community of speakers. It is not a useful tool when two communities disagree. I disagree that the INN guideline isn't useful here. It is precisely useful here since we have a stalemate. A whole bunch of big brains in Geneva or wherever have already had this discussion and no doubt one side came away feeling bad. The point of the INN guideline is that often there are good arguments for both sides and rather than fall out with each other, we defer to an international authority. Win some, lose some. Colin°Talk 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Point taken, but I respectfully disagree. I'd like to think that the INN used solid reasoning to avoid "adrenaline", but my best guess is that it was to avoid a conflict with the proprietary name "Adrenalin". And that's just silly, especially considering the pro-"adrenaline" arguments that have been cited here, along with the convincing arguments in the BMJ article. I doubt it, but does the INN publish rationales for their selection of names? That'd be an interesting read. --David Iberri (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your guess is reasonable. I did read the BMJ article and it makes a good case. The world of science and medicine is littered with words that were misguided: artery for example. We're not going to change that any time soon. Colin°Talk 09:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the link -- I'd never realized the origin of the term. Very interesting history. But the "artery" story is quite a bit different than the "adrenaline"/"epinephrine" debate, IMO. On the one hand, you've got a term that's been deeply ingrained in the whole of the scientific community for centuries. On the other, you've got a comparatively new pair of terms, one of which is universally understood, the other only meagerly so. While I agree that it would be nice to defer to an international authority, I wouldn't recommend doing so without considering whether their decision was sound. And in this case, it seems that their decision-making process was either poorly informed, or I'm missing the piece of the puzzle that rationally explains why "epinephrine" is a more internationally acceptable term than "adrenaline". This brings me to one of my initial suggestions, namely that we use the INN convention as a guideline and not an absolute. When there are reasonable and compelling arguments to use an alternative non-proprietary term (ie, not the INN recommendation), there should be room for discussion and the establishment of community consensus. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for epinephrine for the above reason and because epinephrine is functionally and chemically closely related to norepinephrine, both of which are catecholamines. So do you australian/british people use norepinephrine or do you have another name for that too?

yes, noradrenaline  Andreas  (T)
  • Adrenaline, just as scientifically valid as 'epinephrine' but understood by more speakers of english worldwide (including the US). Almost every article in the "In other languages" box uses an equivalent term, so it would be also understood also by speakers of those languages who are learning english. It's also the most intuitive name for a chemical produced in the adrenal gland.--Eloil 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline. Why use a term which is used by a minority and will be misunderstood by the majority, when you can use a term which is used by the majority and understood by everyone? SheffieldSteel 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline - admittedly, I personally refer to it as epinephrine, but given that there is no single accepted worldwide standard, it does make more sense to use the term that is more universally recognized. Dyanega 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Both with a redirect of one term to the other - both terms are widely used. Some people will search only one term and not the other. I like one term better but would prefer not to answer the RfC with my personal opinion but rather what is better for wikipedia.VK35 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think this misses the point of the discussion. Both terms have entries, and will have entries, and one will redirect to the other. The question is: "which term shows as the title when the article is displayed (and is then used throughout the body of the article)?" Of course, it should be what is best for Wikipedia, not personal preference. Which term is best for Wikipedia? -R. S. Shaw 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everybody, not just for experts, and many more people will search adrenaline than epinephrine. In addition, those who know the name "epinephrine" also know that it is the same as adrenaline, but only a few of those who know the name "adrenaline" know that it is the same as epinephrine. Lova Falk 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as Epinephrine and have Adrenaline be a redirect with a link to the disambiguation page on this page (viewable to only users who were redirected if possible). Urdna 03:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If I might chime in here...this is a stupid thing to argue over. They're the same thing & this is exactly what redirects & clarifying opening sentences are for. That said, let's take an unscientific look at scientific work: PubMed lists (as of today) 114,117 articles for "epinephrine" and 109,870 for "adrenaline" so epinephrine gets a slight edge there (incidentally, it's 90,775 to 86,731 for the respective nor-'s). The article's creation was under Epinephrine so there's another point (per WP:MOS's "first major contributor"). Finally, I reiterate that it just doesn't matter. Redirects are cheap. Moving the article won't help anything, especially since epinephrine has a trivially slight advantage in scientific use and gets the "first major contributor" footprint. — Scientizzle 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrenaline. The overwhelming preference for this almost everywhere outside of the United States, in medical and colloquial contexts is the point. This has been detailed elsewhere on the page. And don't give me "in USA vs. World, USA wins". WP:CSB and Aluminium. America does not always win, and it is a minority in this too. --Talionis (Shout me · Stalk me) 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

Partly for my own benefit, I've attempted to summarize the main arguments for "adrenaline" and for "epinephrine" below. Perhaps it'll be useful for others trying to follow the conversation. --David Iberri (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-"epinephrine"

  • Medical terms are preferred over lay terms
  • "Epinephrine" is more scientifically or medically accepted
  • "Adrenaline" is a lay term
  • The INN term is "epinephrine"
  • There are more Google Scholar results for "epinephrine"
  • The US often wins out over the rest of the world w.r.t. spelling of drug names
  • The "most important" biochemistry texts use "epinephrine"
  • Wikipedia convention is to prefer the scientific over the lay (or proprietary) name

Pro-"adrenaline"

  • "Adrenaline" and "epinephrine" are equally "scientific", so the most common term should be used per WP:COMMONNAME
  • "Adrenaline" is almost universally recognized among both scientists and the general public worldwide
  • "Epinephrine" familiarity is localized mostly to the US scientific/medical community
  • Wikipedia's INN convention is useful for choosing a non-proprietary name for a drug, but not useful for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names; it shouldn't be consulted for choosing between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine"


Thats 7 to 5 should I edit the article? Wolfmankurd 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously why was it EVER epinephrine? Is it produced in the medulla of the supraepinephral gland? No! Does 'epinephrine' bind to alpha or beta epinephric receptors? No! Do we learn in medical school how to distinguish the various 'epinephral receptor' differences with epinephrine and norepinephrine? No! Seeing epinephrine as the title for the adrenaline article is like a fat american sitting on your chest each time you view the page. Also i've heard that epinephrine is gay and im homophobic so i say we switch it back to the straight (with a steady girlfriend) adrenaline.

You have a valid point but your method of conveying it is disappointing. Please refrain from such inflammatory remarks in the future. --David Iberri (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i was being sarcastic... im not actually homophobic. I personally find my 'fat american' comment offensive so if you could please censor that as well. I mean come on! really? you think it's possible for adrenaline to be straight? or epinephrine to be gay? REALLY?! I'm no biochemist but i dont think stereoisomers acount for molecule sexuality. While you're at it why not head over to pages linked to comedy and have a crack at disabling those? No? Any takers? Ok. So will the page be changed to adrenaline?

Okay, fine; I uncommented it. I had supposed you were making an attempt at humor, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for remarks like that. Plus it's difficult to take your comments seriously when they're in the context of such sophomoric humor. Having said that, I agree with you that this page should be at "adrenaline". Whether it will be moved is not up to me, but is a matter of consensus. Unfortunately we're not there yet and comments from those previously interested in this discussion seem to have petered out. --David Iberri (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

well i think thats because all thaat has needed to be discussed has been discussed and yet it is still epinephrine but why is it? Whoever has the power to change it change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.101.177 (talk • contribs)

Any editor has the power to change the title, but it won't be (or at least shouldn't be) changed because we haven't reached consensus. That was the point of my comments above. --David Iberri (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Seriously - you have epinephrine (=US scientific) vs. adrenaline (=lay worldwide, aust, english and european scientific). Does anyone dispute this? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: FWIW my vote is for adrenaline when I think of it like that. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I am glad you all got that off your chests.

RE:Summary of arguments

Since this was never resolved & seems to have died out I have to question the 7-5 comment

Pro-"epinephrine"

  • Medical terms are preferred over lay terms countered bellow
  • "Epinephrine" is more scientifically or medically accepted same point twice
  • "Adrenaline" is a lay term thats 3 times
  • The INN term is "epinephrine"
  • There are more Google Scholar results for "epinephrine"
  • The US often wins out over the rest of the world w.r.t. spelling of drug names examples? personally i think this argument is imperialist.
  • The "most important" biochemistry texts use "epinephrine" POV is there list of important texts? and each with its UK or US bias

* Wikipedia convention is to prefer the scientific over the lay (or proprietary) name same point again'

Pro-"adrenaline"

  • "Adrenaline" and "epinephrine" are equally "scientific", <- counter
  • The most common term should be used per WP:COMMONNAME seperate points
  • "Adrenaline" is almost universally recognized among both scientists and the general public worldwide needs sourcing
  • "Epinephrine" familiarity is localized mostly to the US scientific/medical community hard to tell other than officially which may not be common usage (see above)
  • Wikipedia's INN convention is useful for choosing a non-proprietary name for a drug, but not useful for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names; it shouldn't be consulted for choosing between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine"

I would like to add that WP has a habit of drifting into being US centric and so the fourth point for epinephrine is actually a reason to use adrenaline.

I assume it has been edited in between as I count 8-4 in the initial and 2-2 after I edited it here, or accepting all arguments that weren't repeats it is 5-5 with at least 3 needing sourcing to be valid. The most compelling argument is that it's the INN the google scholar result is supporting of this but possibly influenced by it. The counter is that the INN is not preferred in the MOS or naming policy and adrenaline has a broader recognition (care to look for results on normal google 440,000 adrenalin plays 125,000 epinephrine...) I am biased as I'm British but that vote count was either incompetent or a blatant attempt to POV push and I could not let it lie. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. On a pure vote from above; it is adrenaline 11, epinephrine 6. Not binding but something to think about (not including a vote from me) --Nate1481( t/c) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. "Separate" has two A's. Such elementary [sic] spelling errors undermine your authority/argument relating to elements' names.58.171.144.192 (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing someone's reasoning on the basis of their spelling/or typos is a logical fallacy, as adrenaline is not an element but a compound, dose that discredit your argument on the grounds that you cannot correctly classify the material what is being discussed? --Nate1481 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


8-4? 7-5? There seems a small logic flaw here. Argument premises are not votes. You can't just tally them up to see who is more correct. Consider: Should the puppy be killed?
Puppy Dies
The puppy chewed my shoes
The puppy peed on my carpet
The puppy barks at night
Puppy Lives
Killing puppies for being inconvenient is wrong
3-1 for killing the puppy. Sorry, Bingo.
With regards to the adrenaline/epinephrine question I'm not trying to sway anyone either way, but you see the reasoning flaw here... 207.6.27.49 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that's why is should not be a a vote I simply felt that the summery was inaccurate, and tried to consolodate the views.--Nate1481 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, over at the Œstrogen/Estrogen page they are currently discussing a similar debate. Just as there are adrenal glands that secrete adrenaline which act on adrenergic receptors and there is the adrenal medulla which secretes noradrenaline and is ubiquitously known as noradrenergic, there are estrogen receptors such as ESR1 and the principle steroid is called Estradiol-17α. It will be interesting to see how important such concordance is to that word's representation on Wiki.203.202.95.141 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


That wouldn't work because most Americans know and prefer adrenaline. However I was going to suggest a tool (at WP:TOOLS) that renders the name of the article as whichever name as the reader types in, as well as other selected text within the article.--WikiDonn (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, if you could get that to work, I would be all for it. I would also counter your use of "prefer" as many many Americans know and regularly use epinephrine (perhaps too many medical dramas)Ronk01 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there may be some, but that is the minority of Americans. Anyways, I didn't think of this idea specifically for this article. I actually came up with it while on the WP:Lamest edit wars#Names. The arguments on Aluminum and Gasoline were particularly heated. I was thinking it could be used to solve every move war. But that seems just too good to be true. I mean, it's so simple, I can't help but think someone else thought of it before, and it got rejected for some stupid reason. Oh well, I will suggest it tomorrow. --WikiDonn (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, did I say WP:TOOLS? Well that page isn't frequented very much, so I took it to the village pump proposals. And what did I tell ya? I posted it at WP:Village pump (proposals)#A New Feature to Solve Page Move Wars and nobody likes the idea. Please feel free to say something there, Ronk01 because I just don't know what to tell them. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ending the names debate

Why don't we use the IUPAC name in the title, with redirects, obviously, and epinephrine and adrenaline as parenthased subtitles, that solves the debate, and retains the scientific validity of the article. If there are any questions or objections, I would be glad to discuss them, and I will not change the article title until there is consensus. Ronk01 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The "names debate" was ended before Wikipedia restarted it. The reason we follow the INN for drugs is because other brighter people have spent time arguing and ultimately (for good or bad) deciding on an international name for the drug, and their opinion has authority. The reason MEDMOS advocates INN is to stop Wikipedians wasting their time on this. Let's move on. Colin°Talk 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what does their brightness have to do with their points? Speaking of points what was the reason for setting the INN as Epinephrine? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of the name is explained in the article, as is the reason for the decision by the US and INN not to use adrenaline. Colin°Talk 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I never asked for the meaning og the name, sorry but I assumed that the explantion for Adrenaline being called Epinephrine was just in for the US but I was mistaken. You haven't however addressed my main point, which is why should intelligence effect their points? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
And I completely agree with all of you, but there are some people who will not be convinced by common sense and have become fanatics (clearly they need to read WP:FANATIC) and I am trying to propose a solution acceptable to all parties invloved. (Ronk01 from an IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.146.82 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I keep telling you, adrenaline and epinephrine are equally scientific. We are not arguing on which name is the "true" name, we are talking about which name is better for Wikipedia. Saying that we will always use the MEDMOS guidelines to prevent arguments as an argument is a waste of time. Guidelines are to be applied with common sense which you are not using because adrenaline is as scientific as epinephrine, but more widely used. You're right, the debate was ended long ago, but it was in adrenaline's favor because COMMONNAMES was put in place before MEDMOS, and COMMONNAMES is a policy, not to mention the previous debate which was in favor of adrenaline. Your arguments are based on some notion that we should use MEDMOS on every possible article to protect the creditability of MEDMOS. Your arguments are for the sake of the guideline, not the article. Having the name be adrenaline would be better for the article, and Wikipedia, for reasons I have explained not long ago. You talk about being a fanatic, but you comment without even reading what I wrote. Let me tell you once again, MEDMOS (the guideline) doesn't apply here because basically, WP:AT (the policy) states not to use it under these conditions, according to the paragraph about explicit conventions. Adrenaline is scientific, but more widely used, and the majority of Wikipedia's audience will be more familiar with it. I have not heard one logical reason the title should be epinephrine from anyone yet (other than for the sake of the guideline itself, but that kind of argument is unheard of on Wikipedia). --WikiDonn (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the last time I checked, we had a common language Wikipedia, it is called Wikipedia simple english. Almost every American patient I have knows what epinephrine is. Also, I do read your arguments, and comment on them as appropriate, but I feel that you have become unwilling to hear both sides of the argument, and I will proceed to request mediation if we cannot discuss this in a compromising, civil manner, Wikipeida is not the United States Senate or the British House of Commons! And yes, Wikidonn, you are a fanatic, your userpage states that your only objective is to change the name of this article. (Ronk01 from an IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.146.82 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, you have it backwards. Usually, people know of epinephrine and adrenaline, or just adrenaline. Very few people know of epinephrine only. Second, I have heard all sides of the argument, as I have red the entire name change debate. You are not reading all the comments (or are just ignoring them), and are bringing up old arguments that most people who side with epinephrine have conceded are not valid (for example, epinephrine is more scientific, and epinephrine is more widely used). I have addressed pretty much everything you have said, but you repeat the same thing over again without any good explanation. Third, you are being uncivil. Calling someone a fanatic, and using somebody's user page as leverage are not how to discuss an article. It basically means that it is on my to-do list (it's just the only long term thing I am doing right now). If you look at my contributions page, it shows that I have participated in other move request discussions. When I put changing the name on my page, I didn't realize that there was still an argument, and that we have already decided, but just haven't done anything about it. If you look carefully, the it is under the sub category: "to enforce policy and reason". I am not trying to win, I am just trying to improve the article. I agree that we might need mediation, but first, yes, I do have a compromise. This article can be named adrenaline, but norepinephrine can stay as norepinephrine because it is more widely used. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd understand an editor prolonging a passionate argument about an article name if that editor had invested considerable time writing the article. This is not the case here. None of the participants in this debate has actually edited the article at all. This argument is not improving Wikipedia. We're all aware there are good arguments for either name. Mediation is not required as there is no "right" answer. Let it go and accept the choice of a third-party whose job it is to come up with internationally agreed names for drugs: INN. Colin°Talk 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Would the European pharmacopoeia not be a 3rd party international name? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant to saying naming organisation not name. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Really the fact that none of us have edited it has little to do with it. If anything it works in our favour, as how badly named the article is led us to try to change it, and it clearly isn't a minor problem or something that we're simply being possessive about after making alot of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.14.142 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
My point is that WP:OWN would be understandable. As it is, this is simply lame. Colin°Talk 22:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You could apply that to editing any article "why bother improving article X, you haven't edited it before" why does it just effect adrenaline. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Exchanging one person's naming preference for another's is not "improving". Just different. Colin°Talk 10:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, it is not one's naming preference that matters, it is the one that is most widely used. So using the more widely used one would benefit everyone; that's how it would improve Wikipedia. Since adrenaline is equally scientific, there is nothing wrong with using it. That you disagree with changing it to adrenaline without offering any sort of logical argument shows that you simply don't like it. Most of what I've heard from the epinephrine side is opinion such as "accept the choice of a third-party whose job it is to come up with internationally agreed names for drugs: INN". Why not just let it go and accept the policy that applies to all of Wikipedia: COMMONNAMES? If ending arguments is your only concern, then policy wins by default. Instead of stalling by using personal attacks, and claiming ownership of an article, why don't you come up with a good reason that the article should be named epinephrine other than that it is already the current name? As I have explained, according to policy, you must come up with a justification to use MEDMOS over COMMONNAMES. Your justification for using MEDMOS over COMMONNAMES is? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Giving an article a name recognised by most non-Americans isn't an improvement over a name few non-Americans recognise? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but adrenaline is used primarily by everyone, everywhere except doctors in America. Most people in America and everywhere else are familiar with adrenaline. There are very few people who are familiar with epinephrine only. People are most likely to know of both, or adrenaline only. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys are just repeating yourselves and/or misunderstanding each other. For the record: I made no "personal attack", merely an observation that is true and a valid reason to end this silly argument. Nobody is "claiming ownership". There is no overriding reason to choose name X over name Y in this case. That is my point. That is why this discussion is silly. My participation in it ends now. Colin°Talk 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am repeating myself because nobody has addressed my reasons without simply stating their argument (most of which I have refuted) over again. Whether someone has edited an article before is completely irrelevant to whether they are right or not, and when I was talking about a personal attack, I was partially talking to Ronk01. The overriding reason is that policy, consensus and reason are in favor of adrenaline. If it is a silly argument to you, and you have nothing to contribute then, well goodbye. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would a name being more widely known while scitific would be an overriding reason to use it. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is a common sense reason why epinephrine should be the article title: here in the US Adrenilin (without the "e") is a trade name, and since trade names cannot be used on Wikipedia for drugs, we have to use either epinephrine or IUPAC nomenclature, wich is rather long and unwieldly. Ronk01 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
... Microsoft Apple ... --78.151.248.67 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
As the above IP mentioned we have articles titled with trade names so why can't this article use an article title similar to a trade name? 86.170.246.77 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
People are extremely unlikely to confuse adrenaline with adrenalin. It is probably the least known of the 3 names. Since it is not notable enough to get it's own article, that is not a major concern here on Wikipedia. Ronk01, that is an old argument that has been dropped even by most who are on the epinephrine side. Besides, adrenaline is not itself a trade name. So neither of those ideas constitute the use of MEDMOS. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I would counter that with the fact that Wikipedia must avoid all possible associations (however reomte) with commercial intrests (and that is a policy) and having a page name closely resemble a trade name crosses the line. Besides, there appears to be a new consensus faovring epinephrine. (Check the last 5 days of edits, there are only 2 pro adrnaline posters (excluding yours) Ronk01 from an IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.146.82 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I would counter that with the fact that Wikipedia must avoid all possible associations (however reomte) with commercial intrests (and that is a policy)"

Could you link this policy please.

"and having a page name closely resemble a trade name crosses the line."

I disagree though of course we only have opinion here and nothing more.

"Besides, there appears to be a new consensus faovring epinephrine. (Check the last 5 days of edits, there are only 2 pro adrnaline posters (excluding yours) Ronk01 from an IP"

By my calender the last five days would lead to 12th of May, from then onward the following people seem to be clearly pro-adrenaline: 86.170.246.77 (myself), CrtL, WikiDonn, 92.25.75.91 with 78.151.248.67 possibly being pro-Adrenaline, the following are clearly pro-Epinephrine: Ronk01 (you) and Colin, if that is a consensus either way it would be toward Adrenaline. 86.170.246.77 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about Ronk01? Are you ignoring all the above comments on this talk page? I would like to hear a better argument for new consensus other than that there are different people talking about the issue than there were before. You need to give some reason why consensus would have changed, (for example: "epinephrine is now the common name") before discrediting the above discussions for being too old. But why am I even stating this? Your counting skills need improvement, and in this discussion there is still a majority in favor of adrenaline (maybe you are confusing all of the ip addresses). And as far as that policy goes about associations with commercial interests, well first I would like to see it, but I doubt it applies to this case because adrenaline is far more well known than epinephrine or adrenalin. It is not a commercial association just because the names are similar. Adrenaline is older than adrenalin, and the fact that they are similar is negated by the fact that adrenaline is far more well known. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikidonn, Perhaps I did get the IP's mixed up (they should really join). But still, Adrenaline is actually not older than Adrenalin, as Adrenaline was the patented name when it was first discovered (why the 100 year old patent is still in effect, I have no idea) And since the two are only one letter away, they are far too close for comfort. I will provide a link to the policy when I get the chance (I think it is a Wikimedia policy) I've been so busy with new patients lately. Also, COMMONNAMES only provides for the use of the common name if there is no other substantial reason it should not be used, I think INN is pretty substantial. Besides, paracetamol had the same argument, and the BAN beat the USAN for the INN, and Wikipedia uses the INN, even though the USAN is more commonly used. In other matters, I would like to look into other names for the page besides adrenaline or epinephrine, so that the title will be less disputed, any ideas? If you would still like to perisist in this argument, I would like to request mediation, with your approval, of course, since neither side seems willing to back down. Best Regards! Ronk01 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I knew you were posting without reading my comments Ronk01. If you had read my comment from only 3 days ago, you would know that I had already agreed to mediation. Your argument about adrenalin being older than adrenaline is a new one, and it says nowhere in the article that adrenaline is patented, and that adrenalin is older, nor have I heard it anywhere else, so you can understand why I would like to see some proof of that. When it comes to your argument that "INN is pretty substantial" is a reason for using the MEDMOS guideline, that is something called circular logic. Let me once again copy and paste from the article titles policy:

"Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names..."

Since a clear benefit is required to use the MEDMOS guideline over COMMONNAMES, and MEDMOS says to use the INN name, if the benefit you are offering for using the specialized name is that it is the INN name, then your argument boils down to saying: "The title of the article should be the INN name, and the reason is because it is the INN name". Do you understand now? Once again, that's circular logic. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I am reading your comments, I just forgot that you had mentioned it. But there is a British Medical Association article on the JBMA website the talks about the history of the debate, you should really read it, it was quite interesting. And "The title of the article should be the INN name, and the reason is because it is the INN name" is exactly why the article title should be epipephrine, the INN is an international, unbiased system run by the WHO, and the name used by the INN is universally prefferable to any other name, regardless of how common the name is. Like I mentioned earlier, even though teh USAN name for paracetamol is more commonly used, paracetamol (the BAN name) is the article title we use here, because it is INN. In addition, I've said this before, here in the U.S. adrenaline is considered a layman's term. Do you want to request mediation, or should I? Regards Ronk01 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose "The title of the article should be the INN name, and the reason is because it is the INN name" counts as "a reason", but it is not a policy based one, and that is just an opinion. That the INN is international is completely irrelevant to this article since the term adrenaline is used internationally, but epinephrine is used only by medical organizations in the United States. The fact that one international organization uses it does not make it international nor more scientific. They really didn't need a good reason to pick one over the other because both are non-proprietary. They could have just flipped a coin. So your statement "...the name used by the INN is universally prefferable to any other name, regardless of how common the name is..." is not only contradictory, but an outright lie. What part of adrenaline being the most commonly used name by normal people around the world and all medical organizations around the world except medical organizations in the United States don't you understand? Let me give it to you as clear as possible: The INN is not an absolute authority on Wikipedia. Since it is neither supported by policy, nor consensus, using the name epinephrine is unfounded.

You are bringing up the long abandoned argument that adrenaline is less scientific than epinephrine, when the article itself explains that the only difference between them in structure than one being Latin, and the other being Greek. Just because the INN uses the name epinephrine does not make it more scientific. That is your misconception, and most people who side with epinephrine have acknowledged this. The fact that you continue to say things like "adrenaline is considered a layman's term" which is also a misrepresentation of facts, makes your participation in this discussion seem disruptive, combined with that. It now seems that your argument is that we should not use adrenaline simply because it is the common name. That argument alone is just a waste of time. --WikiDonn (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you seem to have some misconceptions. Canada, Japan, and I believe Australia use epinephrine as well. But I don't care about non anglophone countries, as this is the 'English' Wikipedia. and if you look to EU policy, they prefer INN (but epi is the notable exception, a few nations held out) the AMA prefers INN, as does the BMA (except, once again for epi) As a matter of fact, epinephrine almost became the BAN, but a few hardliners with political connections prevented that. So I would say that INN is a pretty substantial naming system, and one that we need to consider before we throw it out in favor of our favorite name. And my statement regarding adrenaline being the layman's term here in the U.S. is a fact, we here in the US medical community consider adrenaline a layman's term (I am not using that as an argument, just stating fact)And we must also consider the fact that Wikipedia policy is 'open for interpretation', that is, it must be applied with common sense, in relation to the appropriate guidelines, not followed dogmatically, there are a few arbitration cases regarding this. I will be requesting mediation within a week, providing that this is not escalated to a level that might require arbitration. Ronk01 (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just reinterpret policy to suit your tastes. You seem to have some misconceptions about what a benefit is. A benefit to using epinephrine, if it were true, would be something like these examples:

  • Adrenaline is less scientific than epinephrine (not true)
  • Epinephrine is more precise (not true)
  • Adrenaline is a patented term (not true)
  • Adrenaline is just a street name (although you seem to act like it, not true)
  • People will confuse adrenaline with adrenalin (you'd like that wouldn't you, but it isn't true)

Anyone with common sense could tell that the policy means using a specialized name would require reasonable arguments like these (if they were true). These arguments are either false, or trivial reasons that people on all sides have decided are not issues. You're the one who is being dogmatic. The benefits of using COMMONNAMES have been explained time and again on this talk page, and on WP:AT (which is why I haven't bothered to explain them again), and all your arguments consist of things like: "it's the INN name","MEDMOS says to use it" and "these countries use it" with out justifying it with a reasonable explanation. That you like to follow outside naming organizations is an opinion (that means that it would require consensus) and not a reason. No matter how many more organizations you cite, that doesn't refute the scientific validity of the name adrenaline, because its common knowledge that most organizations in the world support adrenaline (and I've never heard of INN coming out and saying that the name adrenaline is not scientific). And whether the organizations speak English or not does not refute the scientific validity of the organization. What language people speak only applies to the common usage. If you want to argue science, then do so, and if you want to argue language, do so, but don't mix them up. "We here in the US medical community consider adrenaline a layman's term" so basically you are refuting the scientific validity of adrenaline based on the fact that it is more commonly used? First of all that is your opinion, and you need to stop stating your opinions as fact. Here are some facts: "adrenaline is as scientifically valid as epinephrine", "adrenaline is more commonly used, everywhere". Repeatedly stating that epinephrine is more scientifically valid than adrenaline despite the evidence to the contrary, and the fact that that argument has been dropped before is clearly POV pushing, and you really need to stop. I am arguing from the position that they are both scientifically valid, so the more commonly used one should be the title. --WikiDonn (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to the above, instead, I will withold comment until such a time when mediation becomes available, I find it arguments between strongly polarized parties useless and ineffective. In the meantime, a move to adrenaline will be met with a move for arbitration, which as you know, is a final, uncontestable decision. Ronk01 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely you're not being serious?--92.27.195.212 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes I am all parties (including myself) have become too polarized and opiniated to come to a reasonable consensus that would benifit Wikipedia, and I could easily see this situation getting out of hand quickly, so I am stopping this before it starts. Ronk01 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that you couldn't seriously think that this case is likely be accepted for arbitration. Don't forget that you need 4 votes, and you can't request people to do it as a favour WP:SOCK. Arbitration isn't a threat! Arbitration is a way of determining a fair resolution to a dispute, and you shouldn't be using it as a threat to stop a discussion or a change. Besides from that, administration is a last resort, you certainly won't have it heard before mediation, especially not to block a change in content; as finally, and probably most importantly, arbitration is for interpersonal disputes. It absolutely cannot be used to determine content disputes, which is what this it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.69.141 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I am not using it as a threat. Second, policy does provide for immediate deferral to arbitration when the mediation process is deliberately ignored. Also, I believe that I would have no trouble getting four votes, considering the traffic this pages gets. But my concern now is meidation, which I am working on. I would like to avoid arbitration at all costs. Ronk01 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Been a a few days since I last edited but if acetaminophen is more commonly used around the would by English speakers then the paracetamol page should be titled acetaminophen but I don't think I have heard either of them mentioned in fiction from anywhere or outside the EU, though that is just because I haven't needed it outside the EU. 86.156.228.191 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem with everyone who wants epinephrine to be the name and cites paracetamol as if it's the exact same situation. From what I have read on this talk page and the one from paracetamol, acetaminophen is only the common name in the United States, while paracetamol is the common name everywhere else. Since adrenaline is as scientific as epinephrine, but the common name everywhere, this situation is really quite ridiculous. --WikiDonn (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Coming late to this... Epinephrine is the INN, the MeSH term, and increasingly it is the term used in the medical literature. It is therefore clearly the correct term to use as the title of this article. And surely, given that the function of WP is educational, we should be positively encouraging readers to learn that adrenaline is also known as epinephrine. So I see the fact that "most people call it adrenaline" as an argument in favour of epinephrine! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why should the INN be the main medical organization to decide the name of this article? Is it because adrenaline is proprietary? I think not. Since it isn't, we should go with what the majority of medical organizations in the world (or also just the English speaking ones) go with, which is adrenaline. As I said before, there is no "true" name for this chemical. If anyone wishes to be told what (for the most part) some people in some medical organizations in one country in the world call it, the words: "sometimes called epinephrine" in the first sentence of the article will suffice. Sorry, but the purpose of an article title is not to educate the majority of what the minority's opinion of what the article's name should be is. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been having trouble getting mediation (apparently they've tried that here before) but I will keep trying. In the meantime, it is nice to see some new posters besides myself and Wikidonn. Ronk01 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a request for formal mediation, at hte following: [8] (sorry about the URL, I tried to link, but it kept going red) Anyone wishing to add themselves to this debate may do so. (WikiDonn, you need to sign the request within seven days for them to accept it)Ronk01 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Has it been renamed the epinephral gland? What happened to adrenaline rushes, high adrenaline situations and the like? Does some decision by a bunch of scientists/politicians actually change that adrenaline is by far the more commonly used word, and is likely to remain so? This isn't a drug industry handbook, it's an encyclopedia, and for an encyclopedia not to have an article on adrenaline is ridiculous. Weakopedia (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an article on adrenaline - and it is found under the most unambiguous name, the one that is most widely used in the world scientific community. Furthermore, if you enter "adrenaline" you'll end up in the right place. What's the problem? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you been editing this encyclopedia thinking it was for the scientific community? It isn't. Wikipedia is not a textbook. If it could be shown that ep. and ad. were in equal common use amongst regular people then you would have a case for defaulting to the 'scientific' name. But they aren't. Adrenaline is the commonest name, worldwide. The world didn't stop using adrenaline because some group of scientists changed the name when they weren't looking, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Weakopedia (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.drugs.com/ppa/epinephrine.html
  2. ^ Shen, Howard (2008). Illustrated Pharmacology Memory Cards: PharMnemonics. Minireview. p. 4. ISBN 1-59541-101-1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adrenaline/Archive_2&oldid=1136497927"