Talk:Caffeine/Archive 1

message: This is an important dicussion - it applies to a lot of molecular structures. The following are all useful methods for describing compounds:
* a registry number (there are many of these and they have no semantics)
* the molecular connection table (which atoms are connected to which). This is often a structured file but there are two common inline formats, SMILES and InChI. The latter is becoming very widely used and we recommend it for all Wikipedia chemistry where possible
* a 2D diagram. There is considerable flexibility in how this is drawn - are hydrogens to be included? Carbons? Should the molecule have a standard orientation? (For example I normally draw caffeine flipped about a vertical axis from the current picture and I suspect most people would, but it's not wrong.) The 2D diagram can usually be generated by machine from the connection table but it won't always be as aesthetic as the human ones but it will always be correct!
* 3D coordinates. These are obtained experimentally (e.g. by X-ray diffraction, by computation, or by model building. For some molecules (such as caffeine) there is only one possibility (apart from rotations about the N-CH3 bonds) but for many other molecules there are many conformations. 3D diagrams are great fun and if you can get the Jmol software running in some way (http://www.jmol.org) readers will love it.
(Peter Murray-Rust, http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk)
:You could, of course, become a Wikipedia editor and assist in this noble plan. It hope it was not you who left some grafitti on the page 16 minutes prior to your above message. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of structure representation 

message: I think the caffeine content numbers will mislead a lot of lazy readers and will help others a lot less than they easily could. For readers to correctly compare the different caffeine sources, they need to know the content per serving, not content per arbitrary unit. So for regular coffee I think we should state the content "mg per 8-ounce cup" ( or really to use consistent units I think it should be "mg per 250 mL serving" ). Espresso is more potent, but a shot is only 50mL, so the caffeine content should be stated in "mg per 50 mL shot."  Incidentally, even for readers who are inclined to calculate serving content themselves, some of the numbers are perfectly useless, because "ounce" could mean either weight or volume in the context of cofee, and "coffee" could mean either liquid or beans in the context of the unqualified word, "ounce." 168... 17:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Content chart controversy

message: Do you wikipedians mind if I include a link to the
Caffeine Shirt (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/2891/)
and the Caffeine Keychain (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/6a43/)
in the External Links part?
:I don't see how those products give any further encyclopedic information on Caffeine, so I'd advise against it. - Mpnolan 04:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shirt 

message: Are we sure we're not confusing chocolate's caffeine content with its theobromine content?  Theobromine is the primary stimulant, and its caffeine content is much less. - Gilgamesh 23:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some day someone will explain the difference between "could not detect" and "does not contain" to you. Until then, I hope you will enjoy this link. No one disputes that theobromine and tryptophan (I'm not sure whether cocoa contains actual serotonine) are more important constituents of cocoa than caffeine. BTW, the page you have cited also repeats the "Yerba Maté has no caffeine" myth claiming that "mateine" was a stereoisomer of caffeine (see the article for details why this is bunk). Aragorn2 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine and chocolate 

message: <Jun-Dai 21:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine content of Green Tea, etc. 

message: Is the caffeine added to fizzy drinks chemically synthesized?  Extracted from vegetable sources (guarana? coffee? what?)?
: It's 'waste' from coffee decaffeination. Cacycle 23:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of caffeine in soft drinks?

message: "This article states that green tea has less caffeine than does black tea, while black tea is nothing but green tea that has been subjected to a process of oxidization. If someone disagrees, then tell me why I'm wrong and reinsert the material that I'm about to remove."
Reply to Zantastik: The fermenting process (withering, rolling, allowing oxidation) results in the leaves turning darker and more of the juices created by the process ending up on the outside of the leaves. Then, the leaves are blasted. So, black tea, which is fermented, DOES result in higher caffeine levels than green & white tea, which are unfermented. I think what leads to the higher levels is more of the juices dried onto the outside of the leaves.
 -- Zantastik talk 08:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies with Caffeine in Tea 

message: Anyone know if caffeine is soluble in ethanol or other solvent and if so how soluble it is? 
The other thing is, I answered about the subliming buisness above, but under what conditions does caffeine melt instead of sublime? I'm assuming it has something to do with pressure, in which case this pressure should be indicated in the article. --2tothe4 23:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, the more the volume changes during a reaction, the more that reaction is affected by pressure (see Phase diagram). So bp is expected to be highly pressure-dependent while melting is reasonably independent of pressure. If P is not known, a reported bp value is pretty useless. However, there are standards that may be implied. DMacks 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility/ boiling and melting points 

message: I believe "the first documented use of caffeine in a beverage for its pharmacological effect" was by Buddhist monks, of the sect best known as Zen (Chan in Mandarin Chinese; Son/Seon in Korean). Zen made it to Japan in the 12th century, meaning it was in Korea and China even earlier. However, I don't know the dates for the history of green tea use within Zen Buddhism. Anybody else know? Squidley 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needs improvement 

message: Inconsistent arithmetic. Please check for correct figures. Jclerman 04:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "4 to 20 mg/floz ... (40 to 170 mg/5 floz)" 

message: About solubility, I'm a college student and I did a lab consisting of the extraction of caffeine from Red Bull. I have my entire protocol I could summarise for this page to point out that though it isn't difficult, it requires some time and a good amount of equipement for it to be done. I posted a sumamry about the extraction on the french page, go see it and tell me if it makes sense (it should, because I did that in my lab and it worked).
We used chloroform to get the caffeine out of the drink so it should be a nice organic solvant, though to what extent...
I was thinking something along these lines:
"It is very difficult to know the exact amount of caffeine in a particular drink that is not automatically prepared. The ammount of caffeine in a single serving of coffee varies considerably due to many variables.  Concentration can vary from bean to bean within a given bush; prepration of the raw bean will affect concentration, as well as multiple variables involved in brewing.
To extract caffeine takes some time (about two hours) and requires chemicals unavailable for everyday use and a nice system of distillation and sublimation. To extract caffeine, one must take the beverage one wants to extract the caffeine from and mix it with a solvent with a finer affiliation to the caffeine and a different density. Chloroform is known to possess both these properties.
Caffeine will go in the solvent it is the most soluble in, and it is more soluble in chloroform than water. Using a separating funnel, one should take about 30 ml of chloroform and 200 ml of the beverage one wants to extract the caffeine from and agitate for about two minutes. The bottom phase will be the chloroform and the caffeine, so one will keep this phase. Repeating this step about five times should ensure extraction of most of the caffeine.
The next step is a distillation using a standard distillation column where one gets rid of most of the chloroform. Finally, one has to sublimate the caffeine under vacuum."
Does that fit with the objective of this article? The PA 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caffeine extraction

message: It would be nice if there was more on the long term effect of regular caffiene use in this article.
*Well there is the part about caffeine addiction on the article which I find interesting and concerns this subject. The PA 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term effects 

message: I was very bold, and went ahead and spent four hours reformatting this entire article. Overall, very little was removed (except a bit on caffeine chirality that I thought was too technical), but a great deal of reorganization and copyediting took place. One major flaw of this article was one that most major articles can claim after a period of time: an accumlation of minor one-line edits that contribute to an overall awkwardness to the article. I hope that I haven't offended anybody with my changes, but please keep in mind that I put a vast amount of thought and effort into it. Ironically, I didn't enjoy any caffeine at all while I did this work. – ClockworkSoul 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite/reformat 

message: Amirhussain30001 (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019 

message: "Health effects of caffeine" currently redirects to a section that only describes adverse effects of caffeine, though the lead section describes "positive and negative" health effects. Should this redirect page be re-targeted to another section? Jarble (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Health effects of caffeine" redirect page 

message: The sentence immediately following "Mild physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms may occur upon abstinence, with greater than 100 mg caffeine per day, although these symptoms last no longer than a day." does not start with a capital letter. Originally Origins (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical error under sub-section "Dependence and withdrawal" of "Adverse effects". 

message: 1, "A It appears that caffeine improves" -  suppose the "A" is a typo. pls an editor with access see to it. thx. 
2, "While this effect is not present during to exhaustion exercise" - suppose "to" is a typo, too. 
3, "Products containing caffeine are coffee, tea, soft drinks ("colas"), energy drinks, other beverages, chocolate,[195] caffeine tablets, other oral products, and inhalation." - correct the end of the sentence to " other oral and inhalation products."89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — Anita5192 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

text: highly appreciated:). 
4, also there is a comparison of chocholate bars (milk and dark) coffeine content, which starts with  "a typical serving of 28-grams milk chocholate bar" and then goes on on dark chocholates consistently using the "x mg coffeine per 100 gram of dark chocholate" formula, which seems to some extent incoherent. i personally would prefer the persistent use of comparable amounts =the x mg/100 g format), but this might be my personal taste. 
5, "Tablets offer several advantages over coffee, tea, and other caffeinated beverages, including convenience, known dosage, and avoidance of concomitant intake of sugar, acids, and fluids." - it sounds like the article stands by the claim that these DIFFERENCES between the consumption of coffeine in tablet form and in beverage form are ADVANTAGES - which is highly debatable imho. better to use a more neutral wording, or just delete the whole sentence, because it is making a batch of statements that are either trivial, or fundamentally not proveable, eg: fluid intake is by no means a disadvantage for enhancing performance and is also not avoidably with tablets; sugar intake might be debated in some extreme cases as a disdvantage, but it is by no means mandatory to prepare your coffee/tea with sugar therefore the tablets would only be different from premixed beverages, like colas and energy drinks; convenience seems to be a marketing weasel word; and it is arguably easier to exceed safe dosage with tablets than with beverages. 
89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos 

message: Change this: "Caffeine dependence can involve withdrawal symptoms such as fatigue, headache, irritability, depressed mood, reduced contentedness, inability to concentrate, sleepiness or drowsiness, stomach pain, and joint pain."
To this: "The diagnostic criteria for caffeine withdrawal require a previous prolonged daily use of caffeineDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. 2013.. Following 24 hours of a marked reduction in consumption, a minimum of 3 of these signs or symptoms is required to meet withdrawal criteria: difficulty concentrating, depressed mood/irritability, flu-like symptoms, headache, and fatigueDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. 2013.. Additionally, the signs and symptoms must disrupt important areas of functioning and are not associated with effects of another conditionDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. 2013. 
Reference: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. 2013.
Randomassortment (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing this .Great work so far. I like how you shared the exact wording of what you propose to change. Would you be able to add your text book using the citation tool as we did together in class last week? Also, please include the page(s) that you found the info if this is a text book. Books can be added by pasting the ISBN into the citation tool and it should auto-populate the citation nicely. You can manually add in the relevant pages. JenOttawa (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Updating citations and recent data on Caffeine Withdrawal and Dependence (re: ICD-11 and DSM-V). 

message: :Thanks for this suggestion. Can you please share your exact wording and your reference here on the talk page? If it is a textbook, please include the page #s. JenOttawa (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  5. Adding two new disorders to "Other Caffeine-induced Disorders" classified under DSM-V. 

message: Cmoonqueens (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , yes sure please do so! I would be very interested to see these improvements  Please just make sure to provide reliable sources with your changes, me and other editors can help you wrap things up neatly to Wikipedia's standards, but we can't invent sources  Signimu (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, we have reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines for sources and will be including secondary sources MEDRS guidelines, in a couple weeks. We look forward to learning from you. Cmoonqueens (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! I know many people who are interested in this (including my own kids as they watch me drink coffee...). Can you please share exactly what you propose to add (along with references). I see that you already mentioned these are coming soon in your reply below! JenOttawa (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  6. Editing the proposed guidelines for children and adolescents regarding caffeine consumption. 

message: Maryambzzz (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the comments above about sharing the wording of your improvement and also your citation. Note the comment above re text book and page #s if relevant to your source. Thank so much! Great work so far, all these ideas are great and will help improve this article that is read over 3000 times a day in english alone. See page view statistics here (if you are interested). JenOttawa (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  7. Adding two other caffeine-induced disorders classified under DSM-V but not under any categories of "common" disorders induced by caffeine intake. 

message: I've checked the reference:
[168] Susan Budavari, ed. (1996). The Merck Index (12th ed.). Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc. p. 1674.
Well, actually I checked the thirteenth edition but the sources are from 1905 so I'd wager the caffeine entry has not been updated.
This is from The Merck Index 13th edition:
"Properties:  Hexagonal prisms by sublimation, mp 238°.  Odorless with bitter taste.  Sublimes 178°.  Fast sublimation is obtained at 160-165° under 1 mm press. at 5 mm distance.  d418 1.23.  pH of 1% soln 6.9.  Absorption spectrum:  Hartley, J. Chem. Soc. 87, 1802 (1905).  One gram dissolves in 46 ml water, 5.5 ml water at 80°, 1.5 ml boiling water, 66 ml alcohol, 22 ml alcohol at 60°, 50 ml acetone, 5.5 ml chloroform, 530 ml ether, 100 ml benzene, 22 ml boiling benzene."
Monograph Number: 1636
Title: Caffeine
CAS Registry Number: 58-08-2
Published originally as The Merck Index, Thirteenth Edition.
Copyright © 2001 by Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station,
New Jersey, USA. All Rights Reserved. Zeyus (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect figures for caffeine solubility in water 

message: In this page's info box (on the top right of the article on desktop view) the article says "Adults: 3–7 hours[6]" Looking at the citation, it does not actually say 3-7 hrs. It says about 5 hrs. Shouldn't the wiki article be changed to say "~5 hours" or "about 5 hours" rather than assuming it's 3-7?
The citation says: "    In an average-sized adult or child above the age of 9, the half-life of caffeine is approximately 5 hours. Various characteristics and conditions can alter caffeine half-life. It can be reduced by up to 50% in smokers. Pregnant women show an increased half-life of 15 hours or higher, especially in the third trimester. The half-life in newborns is prolonged to about 8 hours at full-term and 100 hours in premature infants, likely due to reduced ability to metabolize it. Liver disease or drugs that inhibit CYP1A2 can increase caffeine half-life.12,14
"
Further more, i looked for "Infants: 65–130 hours" on the citation by using ctrl-f "130" and the citation did not say that about infants. Infants should say "~8 hours" instead of 65 - 100, which is what the citation says.
I also lack the established user/Autoconfirmed status i believe.
Disoff (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant citation? 

message: The introductory section says,
> Tolerance to the autonomic effects of increased blood pressure and heart rate, and increased urine output, develops with chronic use (i.e., these symptoms become less pronounced or do not occur following consistent use)
And cites the paper at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC370671/.
I appreciate that the main point being made here is that acute effects are tempered with chronic use, and I don't see any issues with that claim in either the cited paper or the wider literature.
The abstract of the cited paper takes as given that acute caffeine use increases heart rate; the paper itself is investigating chronic use. To justify the acute effects it assumes, it cites one paper by the same authors, that I think inspired this follow-up study. I don't have access to this previous acute-effects paper right now, but its abstract says something more nuanced than is stated in the later chronic-effects paper: "There was a slight fall and then a rise in heart rate".
This all might sound pedantic, but I've done a reasonably detailed review of studies that monitor heart rate alongside caffeine use, and I don't think there's a strong consensus that caffeine increases heart rate (intuitively surprising as this might sound). There are multiple studies showing a decreasing effect, multiple showing an increasing effect, and many showing no large effect.
Further, the later 'Pharmacology' section of the current version of this article states:
> Caffeine is an antagonist of adenosine A2A receptors, [...]
[...]
> Antagonism of adenosine receptors by caffeine also stimulates the medullary vagal, vasomotor, and respiratory centers, which increases respiratory rate, reduces heart rate, and constricts blood vessels.
Which suggests that caffeine has the opposite effect to that implied in the introduction.
To clarify, I'm certainly not claiming that caffeine has no cardiovascular effects, for example on blood pressure; I'm only claiming that the sign of the effect of caffeine on heart rate seems unclear enough that it is misleading to make a conclusion in passing, on the way to a later (seemingly justified) point about tolerance.
Concretely, I'd like to remove the reference to heart rate in the introductory statement about tolerance. I don't have enough edits to my account to make this change. I'm not picky about the exact wording, but if it were my choice, I'd replace the sentence with:
> Tolerance to the autonomic effects of increased blood pressure and urine output develops with chronic use (i.e., these symptoms become less pronounced or do not occur following consistent use).
I'm happy to keep the current reference, because it seems sturdy enough to my eyes in terms of the body of the work itself; it's only some assumptions it makes along its way that I'm wary of.
If it would help, I'm happy to link to the relevant studies I alluded to. I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, so let me know if I can do something more to clarify things! I just noticed this claim in the introduction and thought I should try to improve it.
Elliot marsden (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove under-supported claim that caffeine increases heart rate 

message: Could someone do this edit? I can't edit this article since its protected, but  is cited twice within the article and the duplicate ought to be removed. There is also a new caffeine related meta-analysis (coffee is discussed specifically) about Alzheimer's available, which might be worth citing:  ("These results do not support an association between coffee consumption and an increased risk of overall dementia or Alzheimer’s disease..." and another interesting bit within 30322179 is "There is also no support from Mendelian randomization studies that a genetic predisposition to consume more coffee is associated with a decreased risk of AD..."). 5-HT2AR (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - duplicate ref removed. The new source is in a MDPI journal, which are generally undesirable, but the point it makes is not exceptional so might be usable. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation error & new meta-analysis 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Coffee shakes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Coffee shakes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coffee shakes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Shampoos add caffeine to overcome genetic male pattern baldness. There is a research article that finds out it helps. Kindly add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:3F1A:420:BC79:54A9:6F6F:FC99 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are adverts on TV for shampoos and hair treatements with caffeine, but no explanations for why. There doesn't seem to be anything on this page about hair, shampoo or scalp treatment. Does anyone have any sources?
213.31.95.80 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair/baldness 

message: Hello, 
I was interested in temperate climate plants that contain caffeine, and this article states in it's Section "Natural occurence":
"Temperate climates around the world have produced unrelated caffeine-containing plants."
However, no listing of such plants or a citation showing one. Other citations provided in the same section may list different plants containing caffeine, but none of them are from temperate areas but rather sub-tropical zones at best. I think since this is the "Natural Occurence" section, it should provide this information more in detail or be removed or changed if it can't be verified or proven.
Cheers
BusterTheBusta (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Occurences: unsupported claim 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Caffeine (data page) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
 DePiep (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Caffeine (data page)]] for deletion 

message: The link to the data page was removed in this edit with the justification .  It is only redundant if the result of the AFD is to delete.  If the result is to keep, then Caffeine#Chemical_data section will be deleted, and the data page will no longer be redundant.  Please leave the data page link in place while the AFD discussion is proceeding so editors can compare the two solutions side by side. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The data is redundant. No harm is done when this links is not present, the article is OK. Obviously, you are editing an article to make a point in an AfD ie, off-mainspace. Quite a bad base for a mainspace edit. Anyway, you are editwarring. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree. We are having a AFD and you delete the data page is under discussion before that discussion has completed which is completely unacceptable.  You have also deleted a link to that data page.  It is essential that link remain in place for the AFD discussion. How can we possibly have a discussion about material that you have deleted?  Boghog (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to data page 

message: Please revert this edit. It introduced a typo ("promiment") and removed the connection the previous sentence ("several known mechanisms") had to the rest of the paragraph, making the paragraph no longer make as much sense. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . It also didn't even form a complete sentence itself. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022 

message: 3rd sentence: 
"Unlike many other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all parts of the world."
Is there a source? Why "nearly"? Only because the author was not 100% sure. I vote to delete this sentence. 
Alternatively we add the countries that regulate caffeine but again, I couldn´t find any.
178.13.24.90 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Caffeine regulated in any parts of the world 

message: In section "Chemistry", there is the following sentence: "The pyrimidinedione in turn contains two amide functional groups that exist predominantly in a zwitterionic resonance the location from which the nitrogen atoms are double bonded to their adjacent amide carbons atoms". In my opinion, it is not clear. Perhaps, it should be rewritten.Ekisbares (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unclear sentence? 

message: ICDM is mentioned three times: twice as ICDM-9 and once as ICDM 9. The first mention of ICDM links to [], which has no ctrl-f instances of ICDM. A quick google search also redirects to ICD. Would like a second opinion on if this should be ICD in all cases.
rex (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICDM should be ICD 

message: A quick search shows otherwise:
A dark-roasted bean contains more caffeine than a light-roasted bean due to its stronger flavor. Not true. – Et0zl  Talk☻ 13:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Darker roasts have more caffeine” 

message: Mis-spellings in the text.  "Judgement" should be "Judgment". Peterdkukla (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: RudolfRed (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022 

message: This revert was justified because the source did not evaluate caffeine effects on narcolepsy specifically, but rather only included it in the discussion. The one source used here is primary research, too preliminary to justify including it in the article. Best to wait for a WP:MEDRS review on possible use of caffeine for treating narcolepsy, which a PubMed search shows is not available as of 2015, here. Zefr (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all, so I am trying to add the following sentence : "Caffeine has shown tentative evidence for narcolepsy" in the "Research" category of the article providing the following secondary and reliable reference: https://doi.org/10.2147%2Ftcrm.s244714 . User  does not agree citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and the fact the evidence is weak and that a wikipedia article is not a news article. I would like to add that we can usually find the same type of claims being made in high ranked wikipedia bio-medical articles (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=tentative+evidence&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) What are your toughts on this disagreement ? Thanks to you all! Medhekp (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zefr; this research, based on a pilot study with only sixteen participants, is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. That other such stuff may be included in other articles is not a relevant argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narcolepsy treatment 

message: In the Adverse Effects - Psychological section, the quote is "Increased consumption of coffee and caffeine is associated with a decreased risk of depression" In the Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases section, the quote is "Caffeine consumption may be associated with reduced risk of depression, although conflicting results have been reported." Both quotes cite references 99 and 100. I myself have not looked into the sources. These two sentences are contradictory. Migy007 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the comment on depression from the "Risk of other diseases" section, as the topic is adequately covered under the Psychology section with this edit. Hope that helps. Zefr (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction (of sorts): Under Adverse Effects - Psychological and Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases 

message: It actually stunts there growth. 72.201.35.99 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a verifiably false statement, as discussed with references in our article. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why its so detrimental to kids.  

message: The article referenced, in the first paragraph,  says that it is “unclear” whether error or injury is effected by caffeine intake for those with jet lag or work shift disorder (or whatever it was called) whereas the Wiki article states that error is lessened by use of a caffeine. The facts between the two pages are not in agreement. 
Thank you Wikipedia 2601:98A:4200:5BED:4135:2C64:ABAC:A208 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine in jet lag etc. reference point 55