Talk:Nootropic


After seeing that the "Piracetam low toxity, no side-effects" harangue's also spread on the substance's Wikipedia page, I feel absolutely compelled to somehow publish and share a scary growing body of knowledge on nightmare-like side-effects reported by users on forums. I do feel so because of my hellish experience with a minimal dose of the substance. I wonder how this information may be correctly posted on the article.

This article seems to have been hastily put together by someone with an agenda. The clearest example of this is the incredibly sparse "History" section. One would expect a great deal of information regarding the history of individuals taking cognition-enhancing substances of which people have been documented to have done for millenia. Instead, it is a very short paragraph about the history of "nootropics" with regards to the modern substances referred to under that specific term. I understand that it is marked with "needs expansion" but typically information like its history would be at the forefront of an article, and an article wouldn't even be created if it was missing something like that.

I understand nootropic medications are often experimental, but every single paragraph in the entire article is negative, excluding the history paragraph and opening paragraph. In contrast, the page for Adderall[1], a frequently addictive substance with a multitude of negative short-term and long-term effects, has very little in the way of negatives. I also understand that the idea of wikipedia is that anyone may contribute and add to the article, but I came to the article looking to learn, not expecting that I would have enough knowledge to be contributing.

It was first introduced by Corneliu Giurgea in 1972 to describe a new classification of molecules that acted selectively towards the central nervous system's higher-level integrative activity. In order for a molecule to qualify as a true nootropic, it must fulfill Giurgea's five criteria for the category.

I removed these tags from the article on the basis that the vast majority of the current article revision is well-cited to WP:MEDRS-quality PUBMED-indexed secondary sources and medical textbooks.

While I left the section tag for this in the Nootropic#Cholinergics section, it would be better to use the tag (e.g., npsn-tagged text[non-primary source needed]) or the tag (e.g., medref-inline-tagged text[medical citation needed]) to specify exactly where the problematic statements in the text are, as this helps other editors identify sourcing problems to fix.{{npsn}}{{medref-inline}}