Talk:Caffeine

message: Caffeine isn't a "mild cognitive nootropic" the wikipedia nootropic page classifieds it as a nootropic wrong information saying that it's a "mild one" James.Pater (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (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. HouseBlastertalk 01:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023 

message: Hello Wikipedia Community,
I am writing to propose an update to the "Caffeine" article. Specifically, the current citation number 243 ("Some Common Questions". Eagle Energy. Retrieved 22 May 2017), which is permanently dead and no longer provides valuable information to the article's readers, with my own recently published article titled "Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation," which can be found at the following URL: https://thegoldenlamb.com/coffee-science/caffeine-inhalers/.
This report not only provides a high level of detail on caffeine inhalers but also has been structured and written to meet the standards of reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. 
Therefore, I propose that this article can be a suitable replacement for the dead link, thus improving the quality of the information provided on the "Caffeine" Wikipedia page.
I kindly request that a member of the Wikipedia community who has the ability to edit the page reviews this proposal and, if found suitable, replaces the current citation number 243 with the following:
"Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation". The Golden Lamb. Retrieved 29 July 2023.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or further clarifications needed regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Kelsey HappyFhantum (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023 

message: In the last paragraph of the introduction it says "A cup of coffee contains 80–175 mg of caffeine, depending on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted (darker roasts have less caffeine), and how it is prepared (e.g., drip, percolation, or espresso)." and cites here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8705492/.
The claim that darker roasts have less caffeine isn't supported by the article, which agrees that the numbers are not statistically significant.
I suggest that this should either be reworded to reflect this, use a different citation, or be removed altogether.
Additionally, and I know this isn't a source, but I was a barista and learned a lot about coffee, I know that this isn't true - the type of bean matters way more than the roast for caffeine content. Padrillium (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: in the article it cites, it says, "it showed a positive correlation between the caffeine levels with the degree of roasting till a certain point where the levels dropped in the dark roasted coffee." so maybe just removing the darker roast part but still keeping the rest of it; like, "...on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted, and how it is prepared...". Frost.xyz | (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Already done by . -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023 

message: @Zefr I am seeking other references about this death and I am thinking about a re-write of what I posted. I purposely avoided mentioning the origin of the drink and the law suit to avoid my post looking like news. Additionally, I argue my post does not fit squarely into any of the four categories listed in WP:NOTNEWS. While it might be difficult to find a case study on this event, my purpose was to draw attention to the additive effects of other chemicals and/or preexisting conditions that might lower the amount of caffeine necessary to cause heart damage or death, and therefore I used a reference that I could find. Using this specific event in this context does seem like a good example of additive effects. Lastly, I would like to communicate that point without casting a shadow on energy drinks in general. You might know there continues to be debate about the health effects of "energy" drinks. If you have any ideas or references I would be glad to follow up. I have searched PubMed and the CDC so far and found it will take more research to find a non-newsy reference. Perhaps a good re-write and the use of multiple references, including some from peer-reviewed research, might work better. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstengel (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lethal Dose Lower In Combination With Other Chemicals and Preexisting Conditions 

message: The first picture of the structure does not include the 3 “CH3” groups in the molecule 149.88.21.138 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see dead-end lines, which are the standard skeletal structure representation for methyl groups. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of chemical structure 

message: All sources mentioned physical dependence. It was not specified that physical caffeine dependence is classified as “low-moderate” in the DSM-5, specifically “Functional Consequences of Caffeine Withdrawal.”
“Caffeine Withdrawal Disorder” was rated as Moderate 13% and I modified it and it was removed after a short period Frome page. Yungocdy (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  physical Dependence   

message: It's a locked article so I can't edit it myself, but one of the sources in the caffeine article is wrong, specifically citation 24. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine "Caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug.[23][24]" 
It does not say anywhere in the paper that it's the most widely consumed psychoactive drug. 
An alternative source that actually makes that claim can be eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680974/ 
Link to the faulty paper in question https://academic.oup.com/jsh/article-abstract/35/2/269/965314?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false (edited) 82.147.167.3 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in citations with regards to the claim of caffeine being the most consumed psychoactive drug 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kph7917 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: "A systematic review and meta-analysis from 2014 found that concurrent caffeine and l-theanine use has synergistic psychoactive effects that promote alertness, attention, and task switching; these effects are most pronounced during the first hour post-dose."
1.This point's reference #56 is from a research article paid for by Glaxosmithkline using Glaxosmithkline employees. Glaxosmithkline produces products with L-theanine and caffeine Which is a conflict interest. 
2.Does not establish how  L-theanine adds any benefit when it lists things caffeine is already associated with by itself.
You can see an example of one of Glaxo's products here with caffeine and L-theanine. 
https://www.amazon.com/Replenish-Excedrin-Electrolytes-L-Theanine-Caffeine/dp/B0BN71G5CD?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1&psc=1 2601:8C:4E80:7578:1DD5:595D:5CFB:52AB (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-Theanine reference needs better citation or should be removed.