Talk:4-Hydroxyamphetamine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4-Hydroxyamphetamine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about 4-Hydroxyamphetamine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Rename?

There are a few compounds that could be called hydroxyamphetamine. How about moving to

p-Hydroxyamphetamine?--Eloil 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

secondary sources

I reverted some content in this dif b/c it is from a primary source and Seppi333 just reverted in this this dif with edit note, "bindingdb isn't a primary source; it's a Ki database".

All of WP's policies and guidelines point us to using secondary sources for WP content - the reasons for this are many. A big one, in my view, is that our goal here is to provide meaningful information to readers. We are

indiscriminate collection of factoids

. Secondary sources provide context and weight.

I've been removing contribs from Nuklear which has led me into a lot of chemistry-based articles, and I keep finding random collections of facts, without context. I don't understand the ethos/culture of the editing community on these articles. So this seems a good time to ask - why does it matter that this drug is "an agonist of human TAAR1"? (real question - and please don't answer with a general hand-wavy thing like "knowing activities of drugs is a good thing! I know that) Really importantly, it is not like the article is currently attempting to give a complete binding profile for this drug. The implication here is that that TAAR1 is the only protein affected by this drug, which is not true ( as far as I know). This is one random association.

So, per

indiscriminate collection of factoids and the sourcing (and I hold that a database is a primary source!) this content shouldn't be in WP. Interested to hear responses! Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

TAAR1 agonist. That receptor's activation completely changes the dynamics of neurotransmitter release in the axon terminal of monoamine neurons. TAAR1 activation is the defining feature of trace amines and most substituted amphetamines. The significance of that sentence is self-apparent to those who know about the receptor's function in the CNS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks for talking. your answer shows part of the problem. we don't include content based on "the significance is apparent to those who know" right? again this is the problem with using

WP:PRIMARY sources. i'll look for sources to improve this article - i'm just bitching. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the removal of material added on Dec 9 2014

@

WP:MEDRS." You are correct: I am a student. I was assigned to add information to the 4-Hydroxyamphetamine page in order to (hopefully) help it be promoted from a stub. I see now why primary references are typically not used on wikipedia (and indeed, most of my sources were primary), but I am certain there must be similar information somewhere. I looked at the FDA Orangebook and the manufacturer's website (Akorn "paremyd" Paremyd) for some basic information about Paremyd, but I noticed that there seemed to be another page available for that particular combination of hydroxyamphetamine and tropicamide. So, I tried to focus my searches more on drugs that contained only hydroxyamphetamine. One of the articles that I read stated that for their research (an animal trial), they purchased hydroxyamphetamine as a drug called Paredrine from a company called Pharmics, who later sold the drug to Akorn. I have no idea where else to go to find information regarding Paredrine because it seems like it is no longer on the market. You seem like someone who has made many adjustments to wikipedia. Are there databases or websites where you've come across information of a similar nature (basic drug activity, who manufactures it, etc) in a format that is acceptable to publish on wikipedia? I only wish to be helpful in my contribution, not a hindrance. --I appreciate your help and patience. Alar222 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for talking. secondary and tertiary sources are indeed what are needed.. for secondary sources (reviews) go to Pubmed and search, and use the "review" filter on the left side of the page, or just add "review" as a search term. Good tertiary sources are things like the Merck Manual, PDR, things like that. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also i am not picky about how refs are formatted (some people go kind of crazy) but please at least include the pubmed ID (you find it at the bottom of every pubmed abstract. If you include in the ref "

PMID 21147046" then the wiki software automatically formats it to a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract where someone like me can go see very quickly if it is a review or not. You see that by clicking on the Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances link at the bottom of the abstract - that section will open and you can see if it says "review" or not Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Jytdog: Thank you for your help! I was having trouble figuring out how to link my sources to PubMed. For articles that I do find on PubMed but then access using the "Find Full Text" function, should I use the web address as the reference? Or is it more acceptable to provide the link to the PubMed entry? Also, out of curiosity: are there any instances in which primary sources are acceptable references on wikipedia? Alar222 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am watching the article so no need to ping - i'll see when you post here. :) it is hard to find recent secondary sources on this compound as it is so old - I did a clean up a while back, and took a brief look and came up empty. i think the best information is going to come from tertiary sources - merck manual, PDR, things like that. i can access many of those through a local library - i don't know if you can or not. With regard to primary sources -- they often have introduction sections that provide nice reviews and those sections can be useful, but you really want to stay away from conclusions of any primary source (although the beginning of conclusion sections sometimes has review information as well). hope that is helpful. this will be a tough article to flesh out with good sourcing. On citation formatting... i really don't care, but you should:

a) try to do something that another person can use to actually find the source (bareURLs are really bad b/c if the link dies, we have nothing)

b) do something that looks professional (we do aspire to be a scholarly encylopedia!)

c) here are examples: Citing sources/Example style I do it simply with "author name, title, journal Vol#(issue):pages PMID XXXX" but there are fancy templates and stuff that some people are very obsessed with.

good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]