Talk:Caffeinism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caffeinism 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 medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on May 21, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why do I not see anything about caffeinism on webmd? A google search is also remarkably sparse.

Yes, this seems like a load of BS to me too. "may be less than one soda or cup of coffee a day?" I drink a lot more than this, and I exhibit no mental illness. Nor does anyone else I know that drinks a considerable amount of caffeine. Also, all mental illness related edits are made by one anonymous user, and all their other edits are on articles on 1) Caffeine, 2) Coffee, or 3) Mental illness.

I think what the article means to say is that (over-) using caffeine can lead to problems that may seem pathologic to a psychiatrist, meaning one tends to act more like someone truly sick if he's on caffeine

The idea isn't bad, I think it does deserve a bit more credit - Its not like drinking 8 cups of coffee a day will make you the sanest person possible. The article itself is pretty bad though. Dabljuh 17:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a case of un-Wikipedia-like format?

I don't see a problem with this article, in terms of POV or lack of evidence/external support. Except, it is my understanding that Caffeinism is a slang term refering to caffeine addiction. If I am correct, then should this page not simply re-direct to Caffeine or Drug addiction? Since caffeine addiction in itself is not important enough to warrant its own page (unlike alcoholism). Moreover, there is no information on this page that isn't contained on both of the previously mentioned pages. So, unless someone disagrees, I will put in a motion to merge with Caffeine. --User:carbonrodney 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back -anything- to stop there being a page at this name. Redirection to the addiction section of the caffeine article would probably be the best idea - like what caffeine addiction does right now. --Kiand 01:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a new page for caffeine-induced psychosis?

It seems like caffeinism is synonymous with a caffeine overdose. Why does it include information on caffeine and psychosis?

What are you people talking about?

If you google search the topic you pull up many sites and articles on this topic, some dating back more than 8 years. Please research your distust before trying to discredit or flame someone.

below is the top line and definition from google.

Results 1 - 10 of about 933 for caffeinism

caf·fein·ism (kă-fē'nĭz'əm, kăf'ē-, kăf'ē-ə-) n. A toxic condition marked by diarrhea, elevated blood pressure, rapid breathing, heart palpitations, and insomnia, caused by excessive ingestion of coffee and other caffeine-containing substances.

Meaning #1: poisoning resulting from excessive intake of caffeine containing products

 Synonym: caffiene intoxication

Wow, we have some real bright members

Therefore what? They are a caffeine conspiracy writer and are coming up with this to take down the Pop companies? Please. It seems to be an annoying tendency of Wikipedia members to rip on all anonymous articles, regardless of content, without looking up even the SLIGHTEST amount online.

I don't know what your problem is people, but this isn't like you're going to be made an Ace for taking down the most articles. Even if that is your goal, try to take down articles that have no merit, not those that hold some virtue. If you feel you can help rewrite it, fine. But don't trash the whole article. This wiki-elitism is really stupid and doesn't improve the site. I know you guys are especially proud of the fact that you have memberships but guess what: ANYONE CAN GET ONE. IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU SPECIAL. So, if your going to tear down a site, do some research first, okay? --Fritz9000 05:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Fritz. Can't you spot the POV-pushing from a mile? JFW | T@lk 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody can get a membership in about a minute. Thus the point: Why not get an account? You see my point here... --Wulf 21:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Move some of article to Wiktionary, then delete?

See subject ^

I'd support deletion (again, I nominated it in the first place), wiktionary or not. --Kiand 22:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would support this as a legitimate dictionary term. I don't think it is. It's a borderline encyclopedic topic. - Tεx τ urε 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under a purely neologistic title, at that. Caffeine intoxication, maybe Caffeine poisoning.... --Kiand 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to a better title. Which one is most appropriate? - Tεx τ urε 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for caffeine posioning, ideally without a redirect from this title, but I doubt that bit'll be accepted... --Kiand 00:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine poisoning does seem to be the preferred term these days. --Viriditas 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any opposed? - Tεx τ urε 15:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with a transwiki. There is such a thing as caffeine poisoning, but this can be merged with caffeine#Toxicity without all the pseudoscientific waffle about it causing all ills of mankind. JFW | T@lk 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to try the merge we can make this a redirect. - Tεx τ urε 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect, only because I don't think this article can be expanded in any useful way. --Viriditas 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I suggested that I got shot down, but I'd also back it being done. This article is pseudoscience, a neologism, and only got past VfD because the same neologism was used to refer to something else and 99.5% of VfD voters don't go past a google test. --Kiand 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to move the article to Caffeine poisoning or merge and redirect to Caffeine? - Tεx τ urε 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged with caffeine#toxicity. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If I missed anything feel free to make changes to Caffeine - Tεx τ urε 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]