Talk:Epinephrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Epinephrine is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Chemistry Portal

Epinephrine is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Core

This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist

This article has been rated as B-Class on the wikiproject's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

MCB Portal

This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

High

This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Archive

This talk page was getting quite unruly and lacked structure, so I archived it. --BJ 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name issue

Epinephrine or adrenaline: what do people think about a poll? --David Iberri (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, in the U.S. Epinephrine is the medical name and adrenaline is the common name, I would think the medical name would be the articles names as well. BJ^Talk 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was brought up here some time ago (see archives). You're right that epinephrine is favored in US medical literature. But abroad, adrenaline predominates in scientific literature as well as among laypeople. --David Iberri (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a more scientific name for epinephrine/adrenaline? If so we move the page to that name and redirect all other names to it, else I would support a poll. BJ^Talk 05:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I thought we prefer INN naming if possible. BJ^Talk 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no more scientific name that I'm aware of. IMO, if there's a term that's universally understood and accepted by a large majority of scientists and medical practitioners, then it should be preferred. In this case, I believe the MoS's use common names for things policy should take precedence over its recommendation to use the INN name. --David Iberri (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your stance now, so I think a poll would be a good idea. BJ^Talk 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an extra perspective: I teach science in an Australian high school, and am also the son of a surgeon, so I have a pretty good handle on scientific language. The use of the word "epinephrine" is very uncommon here. It is generally only KNOWN by the medical/scientific community, and even there it is often regarded as a rather quaint Americanism. The name for the hormone is generally considered adrenaline. In fact, when the staff at my school were trained to use an epipen, only I knew where its name came from. . .Johno 14:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As a UK medical student, I can also confirm that Epinephrine is indeed an americanism. Here the accepted clinical term is also adrenaline, and all British medical texts will ONLY call it adrenaline, including the gods of pharmacology; Rang, Dale, Ritter, and Moore. Afterall, the correct term for an adrenaline receptor is an adrenoceptor/adrenergic receptor and the gland it is produced from is the adrenal gland. It then seems a little confusing to call the neurotransmitter 'epinephrine' or 'norepinephrine'.Swarvellous dude 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The BMJ in 2000 had an interesting article rooting for "adrenaline" [1]. --David Iberri (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an Americanism: I'm a medical student at the Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon and I can say that the term "epinefrina" in portuguese is preferred to "adrenalina" the common everyday name. In European scientific articles, the word epinephrin is becoming more and more common as time passes and sometimes it is preferred as a more scientific term.

Yes, there are some medical communities outside the US that prefer "epinephrine" over "adrenaline". Regardless, "adrenaline" is no less "scientific" than "epinephrine" and is therefore no less acceptable in theory. Keep in mind that we aren't writing an encyclopedia for scientists, and even if we were, those in favor of "epinephrine" are clearly in the minority as far as I can tell. Perhaps the strongest case for using "adrenaline" on WP is that it's almost universally understood by laypeople and scientists alike. --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you check the most important Biochemistry books (Harper's and Devlin, for instance), you'll see they write epinephrin and not adrenalin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.169.114.249 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure who edited Harper's biochem, but as far as I know, Devlin is an American (I think he's at Drexel), so it's no wonder he prefers "epinephrine". --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote's for "epinephrine," following the INN convention. If, according to INN convention, the main entry for acetaminophen is paracetamol (this despite the fact that I bet more people have heard of acetaminophen than paracetamol!), then likewise the same should apply to epinephrine. Andrew73 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why using the INN should be considered a guideline, not an absolute. There are always exceptions to even very well intentioned rules. I can't argue the point for "adrenaline" any better than the BMJ article. --David Iberri (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The BMJ article is inherently biased towards the British convention (not saying that I'm absolutely free of American biases either). A better exception to the rule would be using "acetaminophen" instead of "paracetamol." Andrew73 12:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that acetaminophen/paracetamol should be another exception to the rule, but that's beside the point, isn't it? Maybe the BMJ article isn't the best way to argue the case for "adrenaline" (after all, some of the article's stronger arguments -- eg, the risk argument -- don't directly apply to Wikipedia). So I'm back to square one: is there a good reason why we can't sidestep the INN convention, acknowledging it as a guideline rather than the sole determining factor of page titles? When a suitable term is nearly universally recognized by the scientific community and general public alike, then it should be favored over a synonym that is considerably less familiar to both pools of people. I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, but I don't feel this point is being adequately addressed by folks who oppose the use of "adrenaline". --David Iberri (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the underlying principle for naming drugs in wikipedia is to use the generic name, even if the lay (or proprietary) name is more commonly known. Otherwise, we'd have articles named after more commonly known names like Viagra or Prilosec as opposed to sildenafil or omeprazole. "Epinephrine" then is most consistent with this logic since it's the accepted medical term (at least in the U.S.) as well as INN term. Andrew73 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Our point precisely. In the US it is the accepted medical term. Here the accepted medical term is Adrenaline. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that in the majority of the world, Adrenaline is the accepted medical term. Your point? :-) Johno 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the majority of the world v. the U.S...in these situations, the U.S. generally wins, at least for medical things or spellings of medical things :). Furthermore, the INN guidelines (which aren't always in favor of American spellings (e.g. paracetamol)) favor epinephrine. Andrew73 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, I agree with your paracetamol vs. acetaminophen argument, but IMO it only underscores the fact that Wikipedia's INN convention should be treated as a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule. --David Iberri (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The INN convention is useful as a guideline for selecting non-proprietary names for drugs, but it's not so good for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names. So the Viagra vs. sildenafil argument doesn't really relate to the epinephrine vs. adrenaline debate. --David Iberri (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My point with "Viagra" v. "sildenafil" was that the medical terms are preferred over lay terms (it also happens to fall in line with non-propietary being favored over propietary). Furthermore, if you do a Google scholar search, there are more listings for "epinephrine" compared to "adrenaline." Andrew73 15:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see; my apologies for misreading. Still, I think my point is valid that INN shouldn't be the only thing consulted for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names. Google Scholar's results are helpful, but not terribly so. The argument is whether we should use a term that's known almost exclusively by the scientific community or one that's known almost universally by scientists and the general public alike. --David Iberri (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

everyone has heard of adrenaline but not epinephrine, but when it comes to acetaminophen/paracetamol most people have heard one but never the other, i'm english and i live in australia and here its always called paracetamol (same with adrenaline) but i have never heard of acetaminophen (or epinephrine) until a month ago

[edit] Responses to RfC

Adrenaline - understood also by lay-people. Andreas ^(T) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Epinephrine - other than in the intro and the terminology section, epinephrine is used in the entire article. If it is renamed to adrenaline then the article should be rewritten to use adrenaline instead of epinephrine. I don't see much gained in doing this. Cburnett 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please refer to the discussion above. The issue is that "adrenaline" is almost universally recognized, while familiarity with "epinephrine" is localized to the US scientific community. --David Iberri (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I read it. I say stick with epinephrine, but if I "lose" then I'm warning that this is not a simple page rename as "epinephrine" is used throughout the article. Cburnett 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Okay; apparently I (mis)read the comment you left as a rationale for your vote. The effort required to change "epinephrine" to "adrenaline" is trivial and isn't valid as an argument to retain "epinephrine" as the page title. --David Iberri (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as epinephrine. To paraphrase what I've argued previously, this article is mainly discussing epinephrine in the scientific/medical sense, not the cultural sense. And since it's mainly known as "epinephrine" in the medical community (e.g. a search on Google scholar shows more hits for "epinephrine" than "adrenaline"), the name of the article should stay consistent. Andrew73 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline. As previously stated, it is mainly known as Adrenaline in the SCIENTIFIC and MEDICAL communities in the English speaking countries outside the USA. Which, to all Americans, really do exist! :-)
Adrenaline per WP:COMMONNAME, with epinephrine redirecting here. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In medical circles usage seems to be fairly evenly split, apparently mostly following the American/Commonwealth division (although knowledge of both synonyms is widespread). Among the general audience, adrenaline is substantially more well known. I think in this situation the preferred title for the article, following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), would be Adrenaline. -R. S. Shaw 08:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as Epinephrine. The Adrenaline article already is required to list half-a-dozen disambiguation links. So moving this article to Adrenaline really means moving it to Adrenaline_(Biology), which is lame. Heathhunnicutt 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, Adrenaline (disambiguation) would be kept where it is, and this article would be titled simply "Adrenaline" (and would have a disambig line to "Adrenaline (disambiguation)" like it has now. -R. S. Shaw 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment. If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), the scientific or medical name is preferred, not the lay term. Andrew73 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Both adrenaline and epinephrine are widely accepted medical names, so this Manual of Style guideline does little to help choose between them. -R. S. Shaw 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Adrenaline" is not the standard medical term in the U.S. Maybe in lay discussion, but not in the medical community. Andrew73 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is not the only English-speaking country; in many others the standard medical term is adrenaline. -R. S. Shaw 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep going back to this point. This article is intended for global consumption by medical practitioners and the general public alike. "Adrenaline" being widely known in both circles, it should be our preferred term as well. --David Iberri (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But then we also have an article on sugar rather than sucrose. Raymond Arritt 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as Epinephrine - but note that the official position in Europe is to use "Adrenaline", whilst the British Pharmacopoeia uses BOTH European Pharmacopoeia names and the rINN. As the British National Formulary states:

"Adrenaline and noradrenaline Adrenaline and noradrenaline are the terms used in the titles of monographs in the European Pharmacopoeia and are thus the official names in the member states. For these substances, BP 2005 shows the European Pharmacopoeia names and the rINNs at the head of the monographs"

So whilst I might hold a cheerful grudge against the US (re branding of a universal term, so resulting in the INN, ?uniquely?, deciding on an alternative name) I accept that the INN should be the name used for the article. As the INN is "official" from the WHO, this encompasses more than just Europe vs. US debating - wikipedia is afterall worldwide and so "English-speaking" needs to include also Canada, Carribean, South Africa, New Zealand & Australia usage - I guess most of these follow INN ? David Ruben ^Talk 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia officially uses the INN, I believe, but that's only relevant to government - some document as such was probably signed by some Canberra flunky who didn't really know what he was signing. In keeping with our grand traditions, scientists and doctors ignore the INN and work with British names. As said before, you'll never hear the word "Epinephrene" here.Johno 13:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This may help. --David Iberri (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline. Axl 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline, as that is what seems to be more common. Strad 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline (despite my being an American) because it's universally recognized, the most common term, and no less scientifically valid than "epinephrine". --David Iberri (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as Epinephrine Per David Ruben. (I speak British English). The common-name guideline is surely intended to chose the most sensible name used within one community of speakers. It is not a useful tool when two communities disagree. I disagree that the INN guideline isn't useful here. It is precisely useful here since we have a stalemate. A whole bunch of big brains in Geneva or wherever have already had this discussion and no doubt one side came away feeling bad. The point of the INN guideline is that often there are good arguments for both sides and rather than fall out with each other, we defer to an international authority. Win some, lose some. Colin°^Talk 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken, but I respectfully disagree. I'd like to think that the INN used solid reasoning to avoid "adrenaline", but my best guess is that it was to avoid a conflict with the proprietary name "Adrenalin". And that's just silly, especially considering the pro-"adrenaline" arguments that have been cited here, along with the convincing arguments in the BMJ article. I doubt it, but does the INN publish rationales for their selection of names? That'd be an interesting read. --David Iberri (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your guess is reasonable. I did read the BMJ article and it makes a good case. The world of science and medicine is littered with words that were misguided: artery for example. We're not going to change that any time soon. Colin°^Talk 09:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the link -- I'd never realized the origin of the term. Very interesting history. But the "artery" story is quite a bit different than the "adrenaline"/"epinephrine" debate, IMO. On the one hand, you've got a term that's been deeply ingrained in the whole of the scientific community for centuries. On the other, you've got a comparatively new pair of terms, one of which is universally understood, the other only meagerly so. While I agree that it would be nice to defer to an international authority, I wouldn't recommend doing so without considering whether their decision was sound. And in this case, it seems that their decision-making process was either poorly informed, or I'm missing the piece of the puzzle that rationally explains why "epinephrine" is a more internationally acceptable term than "adrenaline". This brings me to one of my initial suggestions, namely that we use the INN convention as a guideline and not an absolute. When there are reasonable and compelling arguments to use an alternative non-proprietary term (ie, not the INN recommendation), there should be room for discussion and the establishment of community consensus. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline, more common, much more useful in a general encyclopedia Wolfmankurd 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for epinephrine for the above reason and because epinephrine is functionally and chemically closely related to norepinephrine, both of which are catecholamines. So do you australian/british people use norepinephrine or do you have another name for that too?

yes, noradrenaline Andreas ^(T)

Adrenaline, just as scientifically valid as 'epinephrine' but understood by more speakers of english worldwide (including the US). Almost every article in the "In other languages" box uses an equivalent term, so it would be also understood also by speakers of those languages who are learning english. It's also the most intuitive name for a chemical produced in the adrenal gland.--Eloil 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline. Why use a term which is used by a minority and will be misunderstood by the majority, when you can use a term which is used by the majority and understood by everyone? SheffieldSteel 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline - admittedly, I personally refer to it as epinephrine, but given that there is no single accepted worldwide standard, it does make more sense to use the term that is more universally recognized. Dyanega 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Both with a redirect of one term to the other - both terms are widely used. Some people will search only one term and not the other. I like one term better but would prefer not to answer the RfC with my personal opinion but rather what is better for wikipedia.VK35 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this misses the point of the discussion. Both terms have entries, and will have entries, and one will redirect to the other. The question is: "which term shows as the title when the article is displayed (and is then used throughout the body of the article)?" Of course, it should be what is best for Wikipedia, not personal preference. Which term is best for Wikipedia? -R. S. Shaw 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everybody, not just for experts, and many more people will search adrenaline than epinephrine. In addition, those who know the name "epinephrine" also know that it is the same as adrenaline, but only a few of those who know the name "adrenaline" know that it is the same as epinephrine. Lova Falk 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep as Epinephrine and have Adrenaline be a redirect with a link to the disambiguation page on this page (viewable to only users who were redirected if possible). Urdna 03:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If I might chime in here...this is a stupid thing to argue over. They're the same thing & this is exactly what redirects & clarifying opening sentences are for. That said, let's take an unscientific look at scientific work: PubMed lists (as of today) 114,117 articles for "epinephrine" and 109,870 for "adrenaline" so epinephrine gets a slight edge there (incidentally, it's 90,775 to 86,731 for the respective nor-'s). The article's creation was under Epinephrine so there's another point (per WP:MOS's "first major contributor"). Finally, I reiterate that it just doesn't matter. Redirects are cheap. Moving the article won't help anything, especially since epinephrine has a trivially slight advantage in scientific use and gets the "first major contributor" footprint. — Scientizzle 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Adrenaline. The overwhelming preference for this almost everywhere outside of the United States, in medical and colloquial contexts is the point. This has been detailed elsewhere on the page. And don't give me "in USA vs. World, USA wins". WP:CSB and Aluminium. America does not always win, and it is a minority in this too. --Talionis ^{(Shout me · Stalk me)} 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of arguments

Partly for my own benefit, I've attempted to summarize the main arguments for "adrenaline" and for "epinephrine" below. Perhaps it'll be useful for others trying to follow the conversation. --David Iberri (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-"epinephrine"

Medical terms are preferred over lay terms
"Epinephrine" is more scientifically or medically accepted
"Adrenaline" is a lay term
The INN term is "epinephrine"
There are more Google Scholar results for "epinephrine"
The US often wins out over the rest of the world w.r.t. spelling of drug names
The "most important" biochemistry texts use "epinephrine"
Wikipedia convention is to prefer the scientific over the lay (or proprietary) name

[edit] Pro-"adrenaline"

"Adrenaline" and "epinephrine" are equally "scientific", so the most common term should be used per WP:COMMONNAME
"Adrenaline" is almost universally recognized among both scientists and the general public worldwide
"Epinephrine" familiarity is localized mostly to the US scientific/medical community
Wikipedia's INN convention is useful for choosing a non-proprietary name for a drug, but not useful for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names; it shouldn't be consulted for choosing between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine"

Thats 7 to 5 should I edit the article? Wolfmankurd 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously why was it EVER epinephrine? Is it produced in the medulla of the supraepinephral gland? No! Does 'epinephrine' bind to alpha or beta epinephric receptors? No! Do we learn in medical school how to distinguish the various 'epinephral receptor' differences with epinephrine and norepinephrine? No! Seeing epinephrine as the title for the adrenaline article is like a fat american sitting on your chest each time you view the page. Also i've heard that epinephrine is gay and im homophobic so i say we switch it back to the straight (with a steady girlfriend) adrenaline.

You have a valid point but your method of conveying it is disappointing. Please refrain from such inflammatory remarks in the future. --David Iberri (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i was being sarcastic... im not actually homophobic. I personally find my 'fat american' comment offensive so if you could please censor that as well. I mean come on! really? you think it's possible for adrenaline to be straight? or epinephrine to be gay? REALLY?! I'm no biochemist but i dont think stereoisomers acount for molecule sexuality. While you're at it why not head over to pages linked to comedy and have a crack at disabling those? No? Any takers? Ok. So will the page be changed to adrenaline?

Okay, fine; I uncommented it. I had supposed you were making an attempt at humor, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for remarks like that. Plus it's difficult to take your comments seriously when they're in the context of such sophomoric humor. Having said that, I agree with you that this page should be at "adrenaline". Whether it will be moved is not up to me, but is a matter of consensus. Unfortunately we're not there yet and comments from those previously interested in this discussion seem to have petered out. --David Iberri (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

well i think thats because all thaat has needed to be discussed has been discussed and yet it is still epinephrine but why is it? Whoever has the power to change it change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.101.177 (talk • contribs)

Any editor has the power to change the title, but it won't be (or at least shouldn't be) changed because we haven't reached consensus. That was the point of my comments above. --David Iberri (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously - you have epinephrine (=US scientific) vs. adrenaline (=lay worldwide, aust, english and european scientific). Does anyone dispute this? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: FWIW my vote is for adrenaline when I think of it like that. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I am glad you all got that off your chests.

[edit] RE:Summary of arguments

Since this was never resolved & seems to have died out I have to question the 7-5 comment

Pro-"epinephrine"

~~Medical terms are preferred over lay terms~~ countered bellow
~~"Epinephrine" is more scientifically or medically accepted~~ same point twice
~~"Adrenaline" is a lay term~~ thats 3 times
The INN term is "epinephrine"
There are more Google Scholar results for "epinephrine"
~~The US often wins out over the rest of the world w.r.t. spelling of drug names~~ examples? personally i think this argument is imperialist.
~~The "most important" biochemistry texts use "epinephrine"~~ POV is there list of important texts? and each with it's UK or US bias

* Wikipedia convention is to prefer the scientific over the lay (or proprietary) name same point agian'

Pro-"adrenaline"

~~"Adrenaline" and "epinephrine" are equally "scientific",~~ <- counter
The most common term should be used per WP:COMMONNAME seperate points
~~"Adrenaline" is almost universally recognized among both scientists and the general public worldwide~~ needs sourcing
~~"Epinephrine" familiarity is localized mostly to the US scientific/medical community~~ hard to tell other than officially which may not be common usage (see above)
Wikipedia's INN convention is useful for choosing a non-proprietary name for a drug, but not useful for choosing between two equally valid non-proprietary names; it shouldn't be consulted for choosing between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine"

I'd like to add that WP has a habit of drifting into being US centric and so the fourth point for epinephrine is actually a reason to use adrenaline.

I assume it has been edited in between as I count 8-4 in the initial and 2-2 after I edited it here, or accepting all arguments that weren't repeats it's 5-5 with at lease 3 needing sourcing to be valid. The most compelling argument is that it's the INN the google scholar result is supporting of this but possibly influenced by it. The counter is that the INN is not preferred in the MOS or naming policy and adrenaline has a broader recognition (care to look for results on normal google 440,000 adrenalin plays 125,000 epinephrine...) I'm biased as I'm British but that vote count was either incompetent or a blatant attempt to POV push and I couldn't' let it lie. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. On a pure vote from above; its adrenaline 11, epinephrine 6. Not binding but something to think about (not including a vote from me) --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is the release of adrenaline controlled?

Was hoping to find the answer to the above question. SmithBlue 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit on regulation to the article. It's not complete, but it's a start. --David Iberri (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David. SmithBlue 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Citation required for some statements. --218.186.9.3 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] used with lidocaine

At the dentist's office, I noticed that the lidocaine was labeled as containing epinephrine. I asked the hygeinist what its function was, but she didn't seem to know. Any idea? Does it act as an anaesthetic itself?--207.233.88.250 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The half life on lidocaine is tiny. It is metabolized extremely fast. The epinephrine is added to constrict blood vessels in the area so that the lidocaine stays in one area (the area to be worked on) and so that it is not metabolized extremely quickly. In people who cannot be given epinephrine (usually because they have some heart condition), lidocaine or other anesthetics must be administered repeatedly (IIRC, once every 15 minutes)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.108.54 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone told me that it might act to keep the lidocaine in the body for longer, because it constricts blood vessels.--207.233.88.250 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this, the epinephrine is used for its vasoconstrictive effect. This helps to maintain a bloodless field. This has two advantages (this is my analysis not source's) 1-lidocaine often used before minor superficial operations (e.g. stitches, etc.) and it helps to have a clean field 2-if lidocaine is injected shallow in a wound, the cleansing action of the bleeding may flush out some of the lidocaine. Rlax 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline is given with local anesthetics to cause vasoconstriction, as mentioned above. But I haven't heard anyone mention two of probably the most cited reasons for giving the vasoconstrictor adrenaline with local anesthetics. The benefits of vasoconstriction are 1) that the local anesthetic generally stays localized to the area it was administered (ie, vasoconstriction helps minimize systemic actions of the anesthetic) and 2) as a result of not being distributed systemically, the anesthetic stays in higher concentrations in the area administered, so that it has a longer half-life. The only local anesthetic that doesn't need to be administered with adrenaline is cocaine, because it has inherent vasoconstrictor activity. --David Iberri (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrenaline/Epinephrine move

The Right Honourable (talk · contribs) moved this page from "Epinephrine" to "Adrenaline/Epinephrine" in this edit [2]. The move was in line with WP:BOLD, but doesn't help solve the problem I and others have raised on this talk page, namely that we need to decide between "adrenaline" and "epinephrine". As User:Colin mentioned on my talk page, this may also go against the "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" policy of WP:NAME. I've moved the page back to Epinephrine for the time being. Input welcome. --David Iberri (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he also did the same over at what is now called Noradrenaline/Norepinephrine. --Arcadian 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the revertion back to Epinephrine. Whilst the move might be described as WP:Bold, it was not following consensus (the discussion above failed to reach clear consensus to rename). Furthermore, given that discussion was being held, to perform the action outside of consensus was quite frankly disruptive to our group effort. The WHO have carefully considered this and decreed on the INN. It is really not the place of WP to carry out a debate (vs merely reporting on a debate). I really think the article should be as per the INN, but by all means describe in the article the history of the various names, the WHO's INN and how various parts of the world have chosen to follow this or not etc (all with good citations from reliable sources to verify of course) ... David Ruben ^Talk 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I've reverted too the renaming of Norepinephrine David Ruben ^Talk 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isomers

The isomers section says only "Epinephrine can be found in nature in the R form; however, racemic mixtures of the molecule can be used if its chirality is destroyed." This seems to imply the epinephrine compound is an L form, but that isn't stated (apparently). Also, the R form probably shouldn't be called epinephrine then, since it doesn't have the activity (I presume). Thirdly, what does if its chirality is destroyed mean? Wouldn't one just use the racemic mixture and expect half the level of activity (for a 50-50 mix)? Is some sort of chemical "destruction" or separation step needed? It would be good if someone knowledgeable about this could fix the article. -R. S. Shaw 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Regulation section

Usually when there is a first, second & third, there are three points to be made. Here there is two points & a repeat of the first. I edited it, but the administer reverted it. If you don't believe that tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine-β-hydroxylase are enzymes for dopa and norepinephrine, please go to http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/get_pathway?org_name=hsa&mapno=00350 & click on the enzymes yourself. If there is another way that the first point under regulation is true, in addition to the well documented way mentioned under number three, please add that. I would be most interested & I would expect lots of others would be too. I've already edited it once & the edit just got trashed, so I'll leave it to someone else to fix it again.

Much of Wiki appears as if it is a few sentences taken from one textbook & a few others taken from another. That's fine. I have no problem with that, as long as everything fits together. Having a correct entry is more than making sure each individual sentence is true. It needs to be true when taken as a whole. Stating the same action as two different actions is just as much of an error as any other error.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregogil (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 March 2007

It wasn't 'the adminster' that reverted, just another editor. His summary suggests he did it because your edit was unexplained - i.e. you left the Edit Summary blank. -R. S. Shaw 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks R. S. Shaw for explaining. I'll go ahead & repost. I hope that if someone sees something that he or she wishes to improve on, they will edit instead of reverting to something that is in error. Gregogil 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epinephrine as a neurotransmitter

Epinephrine is also a small-molecule neurotransmitter. The article nowhere mentions "neurotransmitter" except for in "Category". Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? But where? I know way too little about neurochemistry to be able to write something about it myself. Lova Falk 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, epinephrine's role as a neurotransmitter should be mentioned. PMID 6805416 would be a good starting point for a reference. --David Iberri (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference "PMID 6805416" is an old article (1982). Medical Physiology by Boron & Boulpaep (updated ed., 2005), states "Epinephrine ... is made only in the adrenal medulla" (emphasis is the author's). Since the adrenal medulla is an endocrine gland, this contradicts the notion that epinephrine is secreted by neurons. Therefore, I don't think it is correct to call it a neurotransmitter.--DrDrCone (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eppy

In the medical dramas and films and so on, when someone asks for two milligrams of "eppy" are they refering to this? SGGH ^speak! 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see it. SGGH ^speak! 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redheads and epinephrine

From the red hair article:

There is some indication that the uncommon pheomelanin/eumelanin ratios found in redheads may be correlated with some corresponding variations in the abundance of other hormones and neuropeptides, including epinephrine (adrenaline), dopamine, and oxytocin. Wolves which are bred to be tame have been found to acquire a progressively paler coat of fur as they become tamer and tamer through successive generations. The speculation is that the cell biology which produces epinephrine (adrenaline) needed for the high-energy fight-or-flight response is linked to the cell biology that governs the relative production of pheomelanin and eumelanin. This finding might explain why redheads are often characterized as having a distinct temperament compared to the rest of the population.

This seems like pseudoscientific babble to me, but I don't know enough to say for sure. Since there are no references, and since Google finds no reference to this theory other than one blog and a few WP mirrors, I'm tempted to delete it altogether. But maybe somebody who edits this page will be able to say if this paragraph makes any sense whatsoever.Fionah 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primatene Mist

I believe some mention should be made to the inhalation product, sold under the common brand name Primatene, especially since Primatene redirects here. There is actually quite a bit of controversy regarding the use of epinephrine in the treatment of asthma, and it should be noted. User:Mike19772007 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera rendering issue

They are just trying to solve problem with rendering. In renders incorrectly in both opera and firefox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errorneous (talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific? The page seems to render correctly in Firefox 2.0.0.4 and Opera 9.2 under XP (at least for me). -- MarcoTolo 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This [3] doesn't seem correct for me. (Opera 9.21)Errorneous 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about - and the screenshot was very helpful: Opera 9.2.1 under Windows 2000 does demonstrate the issue (though why it rendered "properly" for me with 9.2 under XP on my lab machine is baffling). In any case, it looks like the issue may be with the {{Unreferencedsection}} template and its interaction with {{Infobox}}. Since this problem will probably occur with any use of the two tags in close "page-space" to each other, I'll bring up the issue on the respective template page(s). Thanks for pointing the issue out. -- MarcoTolo 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what is the issue with that screenshot? The whitespace between the heading and the {ref} box? That doesn't seem too bad to me. But look at this screenshot of a Firefox 1.5 rendering on XP. The "Help, get involved" text gets way too involved with the infobox!. -R. S. Shaw 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting

I believe (and I may be wrong) that Epinephrine is used in Boxing and Kickboxing over cuts in order to allow them to heal faster. If I'm right should that be added? Disco (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrenal Dump

This article should also address the efects of a sudden adrenaline rush for which the individual is not mentaly prepared causing paralisis in stress situations. This is fairly common although the article seems to only refer its stimulating effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.224.2 (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to Adrenaline

From what I see on this talk page, the consensus appears to be towards the name "Adrenaline". Also, the most common name is by far "adrenaline" rather than "epinephrine" and that's what counts in Wikipedia naming. bogdan (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is expected that if you move a page that you fix the double redirects. Skimming through shows you didn't. Cburnett (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The mover should have fixed them, true. I've fixed the six shown under Epinephrine since it's best not to leave them undone even if a bot may eventually clean them up. (Others have done some earlier). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no clear consensus in the above discussions for a move Epinephrine->Adrenaline. More definitively, the guideline WP:MEDMOS gives clear guidence to follow the INN ("Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought... Drugs — The International Nonproprietary Name (INN)"). I have therefore reverted back to Epinephrine. (PS being British I was rather fond of adrenaline, likewise frusemide over furosemide etc, but follow in my clinical practice the changes to INN as advocated in our BNF, and for the global reach of Wikipedia the INN should definitely normally apply) David Ruben ^Talk 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all the obvious main-space redirects for adrenalin.David Ruben ^Talk 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy of using the "official" name, but rather we use the "most common" name for something. And that name is clearly "Adrenaline" on both sides of the Atlantic. The searches on google and google news show that overwhelmingly, even the US media uses "Adrenaline", so it's not the usual British/American dispute:

Google news: Adrenaline: 141,000 (3,963); Epinephrine: 10,200 (55) -- all archive (last month)

Google hits: Adrenaline: 23,200,000; Epinephrine: 2,480,000

bogdan (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bogdan, "adrenaline" is clearly the most frequent, most common, most used term. This is enough for the article to be at that name. The officialness is just an extra argument. Are we going to move it back or should we start up the (unclosed) move request again? - Francis Tyers · 10:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not "officialness", but the consensus of the WP:PHARM and WP:MED projects who helped form the WP:MEDMOS guideline.David Ruben ^Talk 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also for medical terms the most "common name" is not generally used but "Article titles use the scientific or medical name". Hence "heart attack" is obviously what any patient & news reports would use, yet WP has quite differently named and indvidual articles for the umbrella term "heart attack" as set out in Heart attack (disambiguation) with the main article being Myocardial infarction. Similarly "heart disease" is the widely used lay-term, yet is not some single condition and our article Heart disease explains and links to 8 separate specifically named articles. "Chest infection" is what my patients would state, yet WP has no such article, but we do have Community-acquired pneumonia, Lower respiratory tract infection, pneumonia and some specific X-pneumonia articles.David Ruben ^Talk 12:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

if you google the expressions, you get "Epinephrine rush" (358 hits), "Adrenaline rush" (4,150,000 hits) :-) bogdan (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Googling is generally a poor method of choosing names, and wikipedia is not beholden to outside sources to decide its own naming conventions (hence we have WP:MEDMOS), indeed Google reflecting as it does the internet is always going to have US brands in 1st place. Given this is a medical topic, PubMed will be a more authoratively reliable source^* and it currently gives Adrenaline 110,761 and Epinephrine 115,071. ^*Of course PubMed will have a bias of English-speaking journals (but it is not exclusively so) and the more worldwide-authorative WHO selection of the INN should cary yet more notability. I've posted a heads-up at WT:PHARM David Ruben ^Talk 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, you should not have done this move without a formal move request and adequate discussion. You could have expected that this was going to be a controversial move. Indeed adrenaline wins a Googlefight by a factor 10. But there is a significant precedent on Wikipedia for using the INN. For several years now we have been using generic names over brand names (who on earth has ever heard of sildenafil?) without controversy, and this is reflected in various guidelines by WikiProjects quoted by David. I don't actually see a problem - I have long held that "being redirected can be educational", and I don't see an exception here. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS also says "Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research" and gives an example of original research being "counting Google results". Now, I might have had a hand in writing that bit of MEDMOS, but it has gone unchallenged for some time now. My desire is that as Wikipedians we should not repeat the discussions that international bodies and bigger brains have already had. They may get it wrong from time to time, but it saves us wasting so much time and falling out over trivial matters. And before anyone says "the name isn't trivial", have a look at this article's Notes and References sections and consider whether you think this article is adequately sourced. This is where we should be spending our time. Colin°^Talk 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the article was moved back to "epinephrine" (and not because I'm an American). If paracetamol is the lead name, well surely to be consistent epinephrine would be more consistent given the INN convention. Andrew73 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I personally would prefer adrenaline coming from British/Irish medical education system but the guidelines request that INN is to be used and according to the Martindale (I couldn't navigate WHO's website) that would make it Epinephrine. Why have the guidelines like this if there's going to be exceptions like this? Medos (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The move to adrenaline shouldn't have happened without consensus (which there wasn't). But I am disappointed that the INN convention is trumping WP:COMMONNAMES. My view -- and I suppose this is worth introducing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) -- is that the INN recommendation should only be used in lieu of compelling reasons to choose one term over another. Arguments about Viagra vs. sildenafil, heart attack vs. myocardial infarction, etc. miss the point that the only difference between adrenaline and epinephrine is worldwide usage. That the world calls the substance adrenaline should be reason enough to prefer that term over epinephrine. --David Iberri (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me backpeddle a bit; usage rates aren't the only differences between epinephrine and adrenaline. The INN gives epinephrine a smidgen more "officialness" to some, which I suppose I can't argue with. That still doesn't tip the scales enough in epinephrine's favor for me, though. --David Iberri (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point about the guidelines may need to be ironed out. But as it stands right now it states that they are to follow the INN convention. I fail to see the relevance of your Viagra vs. sildenafil argument. The former is a brand name and the latter is the active drug ingredient so they are different things and debates over them would (hopefully) be quickly put to a close. A more comparable argument would be something like paracetamol vs acetaminophen. They are synonyms but paracetamol is accepted as INN and BAN names but acetaminophen is used for the USAN name.

Unless the guidelines are changed then truthfully this whole argument that is taking plave is irrelevent.Medos (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess. Seems like we have conflicting guidelines on this so Common sense seems to win out. In which case do we go with the most commonly used Adrenaline; international non-medical, & BAN/UK medical or Epinephrine; International official US medical usage?

My view is that more people will look for adrenaline and be puzzled by epinephrine, while anyone looking up epinephrine will understand adrenaline. I am from the UK so not neutral on the subject, but after someone pointed out the medico, guidelines I was going to leave it until I saw the comment on common names (which is a fair point)

I got involved in the last discussion due to counting irregularities (someone was POV pushing or inept). Can we ignore the which is more 'official' and reason which is more useful to readers, that seems like a more productive discussion than wikilawyering.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of practicality adrenaline clearly wins out. Of that there is no doubt. My personal view opinion is that it should be adrenaline but it gives conflicting standards. The common sense argument is valid but it's hardly irrelevant to point out that it's not impractical to have the article named epinephrine. It seems a bit patronising that people would not have the ability to cope with a redirect and merely read a few words to discover the synonym.

I realise that my view seems conflicting and that's probably because it is, but the long and the short of it is that I would vote for adrenaline. - Medos (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 February 2008

My intent was not to be patronising, but to be accessible. For someone not familiar with international variation (say a 7 year old doing a school project) they will almost certainly have heard of adrenalin and may well have no idea why they can't find an article on it, only on this other drug; while any English speaking medical professional anywhere should be aware that they are the same thing. This is why I favour the common name interpretation --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for the sake of the 7 year olds who can understand most of the content of this article and write articles on adrenaline I relinquish. :) - Medos (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to understand most just one or two little bits and not go away as they found nothing --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is quickly devolving into a pointless argument. We're both on the adrenaline camp. Regardless of my opinions of a 7-year old's comprehension, the point is to do with the title, on which we both agree. So I can't say there's much more to talk about. You made some good points previously though. - Medos (talk • contribs)13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adrenal (Suprarenal) Glands

I know that adrenaline is secreted from the adrenal glands, but is there really such a thing as 'epinephral glands'? Of which epinephrine is secreted?

That is another chip in from me to say that we should change this article to have it focussed on adrenaline. We can add "they refer to it as epinephrine in the States" in an opening paragraph to sort that bit out. JoeNorris3K

Good point, ironically if you look at the endocrine page it has been called the adrenal glands.

Insulin comes from the insulinal glands? :p - Medos (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, haha, but no - 'insulin' (the hormone) is not under question. As far as I know, Americans refer to insulin as 'insulin' just as we (the rest of the globe) do; and so we don't really need to come up with reasons to justify the title for its page! Hope you can see my point... JoeNorris3K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.45 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry man. I'm only joking. I see your point. Just making a bad joke -Medos (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of benzene ring

I've seen on many wikipedia articles, that the images always have the double bonds in place for benzene, and not the circular icon in the centre. I know these mean both same thing, however I've always seen the structures with the circle to illustrate the delocalised electron system. It is also worthy to note, that as Kekule demonstrated it cannot physically exist with the double-single-double bond. It has a different bond length on benzene than if it were in the benzene ring. I will also add that having the double bonds in place could mean there is another isomer (not optical/D-L) because of the placement of the groups along/across the double bonds, however this is not true.

What are others thoughts on this? BalazsH ^(talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem using either the circle or the double-single-double bond representation for the catechol moiety for the reason you state: they're the same thing. Maybe it's because my o-chem is too rusty, but I don't see how the double bond representation could mean there's another isomer... Even with the double bond representation, it's understood that each carbon is sp² hybridized, which makes the entire structure (including bonded groups) planar. What room is there for another isomer to be contemplated? --David Iberri (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd better get a picture to illustrate my idea. It's not the shape that is my problem, but the location of the -OH groups around the benzene ring. I made a molecular model illustrating what I'm trying to explain.

Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that whilst it is understood that the double and single bonds are the same in the benzene ring, the model of the double and single atoms would suggest otherwise. Here a second isomer is theoretically possible, because the two OH groups are located around the single bond instead of the double bond. The two models are non-superimposable on each other with real life models.

The carbons (or any atoms in a conjugated pi system) are PLANAR. The figures are incorrect, as clearly the carbons are not planar. If you fix this, there is no discrepancy. They all lie on one plane with the p orbitals above and below the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.108.54 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also see that the angle C=C-O is also different to the C-C-O. I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, I'd just thought I'd mention it. As Kekule's model of the benzene ring (with the double and single bonds) doesn't exist (due to the bond lengths being different of the C=C and C-C, why are they still being used? It may just be me, but the kekule model doesn't show the delocalised system, even if it is known that it's there. BalazsH ^(talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Resonance!

I understand your point completely, although again I think the issue boils down to convention. The alternating double bond representation (which you've called the "Kekule model" -- I trust you, but I've never heard that term) is understood to be equivalent to the circle representation: both represent delocalized electrons shared between sp²-hybridized carbon atoms. I think the only trouble with the ball-and-stick model you provided is that it has both sp²- and sp³-hybridized carbon atoms, while the Kekule representation implies only sp²-hybridized ones. Again, this is outside my expertise, but I still don't see the possibility of another isomer. More input would be appreciated because I certainly don't pretend to speak for chemists. :-) PS: Now with all that said, I actually am beginning to favor the circle representation. Otherwise, I'm feeling like we need to show resonance structures for the benzene ring as in the image to the right. --David Iberri (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think convention does play a very large part. I saw a similar discussion on the Benzene Talk page and that had quite a bit of conflict. I have always learned to draw it with a circle in the centre, and I believe and exam question even asked me why the Kekule structure (with the double bonds) didn't accurately represent benzene. The talk page explains that "the aromaticity in explained in-depth in the article (including equivalent bonds". I feel that although this is explained, those with little understanding of the subject may interpret it incorrectly, even if this is only a small chance.

The resonance model certainly illustrates the bond arrangement better, although it isn't always practical to draw it this way (hence the circular ring). I don't see how the molecular model would imply that some carbons have sp³ hybridisation whilst the Kekule model wouldn't. Maybe it just depends on how the person inteprets it, because if you know that the Kekule model shows benzene and you've been taught it has only sp² hybridisation then that's the way you'll see it. However, at least in my mind, the molecular model shows the same thing as the Kekule model with the alternating double-single bonds, so you'd have to imply the same thing from both of them.

It seems to be that, correct me if I'm wrong, the Kekule version is used more in the US, whilst here in England nearly all textbooks I've seen have it with the circular ring on the inside. Even though convention plays a part, I think wikipedia should show it the way in which it best represents the structure of benzene. This problem can be seen throughout the whole of wikipedia, in nearly all articles of a chemical substance that contain a benzene ring.

I appreciate your feedback, and it certainly would be nice to get someone with more understanding of the area. It seems nothing was really resolved on the benzene talk page. BalazsH ^(talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition: I have looked in a more advanced textbook, which says the following:
"Benzene is symmetrical and the circle in the middle best represents this. However, it is impossible to draw mechanisms on that representation so we shall usually use the Kekule form with three double bonds. This does not mean that we think the double bonds are localized but just that we needs to draw curly arrows [for mechanism]. It makes no difference which Kekule structure you draw - the mechanism can be equally well drawn on either.
When we move away from benzene itself to discuss molecules such as phenol, the bond lengths are no longer exactly the same. However, it is still alright to use either representation depending on the purpose of the drawing."
Clayden, Jonathan et al (2004). Organic Chemistry. Oxford University Press.
I guess it seems that whilst the ring is preferred for benzene on its own, compounds containing the benzene ring can be drawn both ways. The book also mentioned the usage of the word resonance, and that it preffered to use the delocalised system instead, as resonance would imply that the bond(s) are vibrating when this does not actually happen. BalazsH ^(talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While the "circle notation" for benzene is popular in high school teaching, I have never seen a higher-level organic chemistry textbook that uses it, or met a practicing chemist who uses it. The "Kekule notation" seems to be much more popular among chemists. It is overwhelmingly used in all the major chemistry journals I know, whether published by the ACS, the RSC, Elsevier, or Wiley. In my opinion, the reason is that once you go beyond benzene and start to look at heterocycles, polycyclic aromatic molecules, reactive intermediates, and reaction mechanisms, the Kekule notation makes electron counting and "electron pushing" much more straightforward. The circle notation only seems to be common for some organometallic compounds such as ferrocene and some aromatic ions such as the cyclopentadienyl anion and the tropylium cation. --Itub (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I just thought that unless you are actually trying to demonstrate a reaction mechanism, the circular notation would better illustrate the electron distribution. BalazsH ^(talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epinephrine use in resuscitation

Just to put it out there, shouldn't all of the statements relating to the use of Epinephrine in resuscitation of someone in cardiac arrest be put in to one section such as in the Atrophine article under "Resuscitation?" Just was wondering if anybody else is up for the project or if it should or should not be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledoc12 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)