text:
Talk:Piero Sraffa

Untitled
Need to link to Capital controversy Charles Stewart 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This thing is sorely in need of some structure, but I sure can't be bothered to fix it right now. -- Echeneida

Sources and Interpretations
Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and I need help inserting several sources. I referenced them, namely Ajit Sinha's (2009) article on the influence of Sraffa on the later Wittgenstein (available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422388), Sinha's (2015) article on Sraffa's influence on the methodology of economics (available here: http://jie.sagepub.com/content/27/1/33.refs), a retrospective on Sraffa edited by Kurz (from which a selection and the citation is available here: http://dse.ec.unipi.it/~salvadori/pdf/Ch1-LegacyCUP.pdf). Ajit Sinha's interpretation of Sraffa, namely that he completely repudiated supply and demand is controversial, though is backed up by significant archival evidence. Sinha's 2010 work "Theories of Value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa" began this inquiry and he has a new monograph coming out this year on this interpretation. Nonetheless, while his interpretation may be controversial, his presentation of the two orthodox interpretations, specifically Garegnani and Samuelson (and not to mention Kurz and Salvadori) is not. This is why I cite him. Anyway, if you could help me create the references--I cited them numerically in the text, but not in the references section, I'd appreciate it. Amilcontentanalysis (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dates
Different dates appear on Find-A-Grave. Lincher 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sraffa a Radical Marxist ?
I have deleted the allegation '''Sraffa was at this time a radical Marxist. '''. First there is no proof given and second, there is no evidence that he joined the Party. That he was collaboration, there is no doubt. Samuelson is discussing whether Sraffa was member or not of the party – obviously to him a highly important theoretical element – with no definite conclusion. Cuauti (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rich from Japanese bonds?
The story about Sraffa buying Japanese bonds the day after the atomic bombing and then getting rich seems really fishy. Defeated governments typically don't honor bonds. I googled this to look for corroboration, and all I found was articles that 1) protrayed it as an urban legend, 2) were copies of this Wikipedia article, 3) cited this article as a source, or 4) provided no reliable source. A discussion I saw also hinted that what actually happened was that he bought the bonds at the beginning of reconstruction, which seems a lot more reasonable. Does anyone have any reliable source for this claim at all? MrVoluntarist 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm is the source of the "dubious assertion".

Okay, that's just a brief profile on him, and that specific claim isn't sourced. Even if I accept it at face value, note the difference: The source you gave claims that he bought the bonds "after Hiroshima", from a "defeated Japan", believing they wouldn't lie in "postwar rubble". The last two imply the war was over, and defeat conceded, which was NOT the day after the bombings. And "after Hiroshima" doesn't necessarily mean the day after. Btw, I know you can find lots of stuff on the internet perpetuating this bit. The reason I brought it up was that all of them seem to point to unreliable sources, and it sounds too much like an urban legend. I could justify chaning the Wikipedia article's wording to just say he bought them "after the bombings", and leave it un ambigous, and then change "dubious" to "citation needed". Reasonable? MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd be happy with the removal of the description, myself. The above brief profile doesn't exactly give details on the story, but itself reports it as being "an anecdote".  The claim is conceivable, but I just don't see it as properly cited/supported yet.  LotLE × talk  17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd want it removed too, but I'm worried people will just want to re-insert it if they don't see it upon reading it the first time, thinking it's "obvious" that it should be added (and so won't consult the talk pages). Is there a way we can acknowledge the existence of this urban legend, while noting the doubts?  Is this rumor about him something people would want to know when learning about him? MrVoluntarist 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

History of mathematics
An anonymous editor has added a description of Sraffa's relation to the history of mathematics that I frankly cannot really make any sense of. What exactly is being claimed here? Why is it notable? Is it original research? I see some books cited, but I cannot figure out why they are cited or what point they are meant to support. Can anyone else understand this? LotLE × talk 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition

 * Added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.32.176 (talk • contribs)
 * Earlier version by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.24.187 (talk • contribs)

Recently, Sraffa's mathematical orientation has begun to be studied in the context of the history of twentieth-century mathematics. Above all, Garciadiego's BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES' (1992) has called into question the mathematics (which has several schools, such as "natural" and "intuitionist" mathematics) provoked by paradoxes in Cantorian set theory which may not be paradoxes. Poincare in particular was set on developing a mathematical approach which would "avoid" these putative paradoxes, and his mathematical agenda informs his most widely circulated work, SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS. This book not only affected Sraffa. Einstein was hugely influenced by it and wrote about it in glowing terms.

How much is PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES affected by Poincare's agenda? Now that Sraffa's papers are open to inspection, Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori--two of the leading Sraffa scholars--have begun (although only begun) to reveal the influence of Poincare and the response to set theory, on that work. This has allowed us to begin discussing Sraffa's work in an entirely new set of terms. A revolution in Sraffa studies has begun. Kurz writes:

"Sraffa studied intensively Jules Henri Poincaré's La Science e l'Hypothèse (1902). From his annotations relating especially to chapter VIII, 'Énergie et Thermodynamique' (see Sraffa 3137), we can infer that in his view an objectivist approach in any of the fields of natural philosophy had to take into account the principles of thermodynamics. He read and took excerpts from Heinrich Hertz's Principles of Mechanics (1899), focusing attention on the physicists' concepts of 'cause' and 'interdependence', and their corresponding role in economic theory, and on the problem of which kind of 'quantities' could in principle be taken as given in order to determine some other quantities (see D1/9: 8-10). These considerations find an echo in a document presumably written in the second half of 1929 in which Sraffa specified those 'quantities {that} have an objective, independent existence at every or some instants of the natural (i.e. not interfered with by the experimenter) process of production and distribution; they can therefore be measured physically, with the ordinary instruments of measuring number, weight, time, etc.' He stressed: 'These are the only quantities which must enter as constants in economic theory, i.e. which can be assumed to be "known" or "given".' (D3/12/13: 2)13

"Representing the Production and Circulation of Commodities in Material Terms: On Sraffa's Objectivism" http://www.uni-graz.at/heinz.kurz/pdf/On_the_classical_approach.pdf#search=%22sraffa%20poincare%22, page 18.

Ten years ago we would never have dreamed of discussing Sraffa's work in terms of "objectivity," much less "thermodynamics" or the "natural process of production." These are all, not only terms of art, but also, they are terms of art within an historical context. Putting PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES into historical context--as a work of the dominant modes of thinking during the early twentieth century--has now begun.

 * It looks to me VERY like original research, a university essay, probably a very good one. The writers cited are Garcadiego (book, may not be directly relevant), Heinz Kurz (online article, can probably be cited) and Neri Salvadori (no reference cited). The text should stay out until someone can independently read and summarise these documents, as far as they are relevant. I will have a look at Kurz when I have a moment. Itsmejudith 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Had a quick look at the link, which is Kurz and Salvadori. The article is concerned to point out Sraffa's turn from subjectivism to objectivism. It does not have an immediate relationship to mathematical theory. I have found some other references which should be useful to this article.

Gehrke, C; Kurz, HD Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the classical theory of value and distribution HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 38 (1): 91-149 SPR 2006

Pasinetti, LL The Sraffa-enigma: Introduction EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 373-378 SEP 2005

Naldi, N Piero Sraffa: Emigration and scientific activity (1921-45) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 379-402 SEP 2005

Rosselli, A Sraffa and the Marshallian tradition EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 403-423 SEP 2005

Marcuzzo, MC Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 425-452 SEP 2005

Garegnani, P On a turning point in Sraffa's theoretical and interpretative position in the late 1920s EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 453-492 SEP 2005

Kurz, HD; Salvadori, N Removing an 'insuperable obstacle' in the way of an objectivist analysis: Sraffa's attempts at fixed capital EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 493-523 SEP 2005

Kerr, P A history of post-Keynesian economics CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 29 (3): 475-496 MAY 1 2005

Para, JB Between Wittgenstein and Gramsci - Piero Sraffa, outline of a portrait EUROPE-REVUE LITTERAIRE MENSUELLE, (906): 249-250 OCT 2004

Bellino, E On Sraffa's Standard commodity CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 28 (1): 121-132 JAN 2004

Sen, A Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, 41 (4): 1240-1255 DEC 2003

Harcourt, GC Piero Sraffa's political economy: A centenary estimate. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (3): 582-586 FAL 2003

Porta, PL Piero Sraffa: His life, thought, and cultural heritage. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (3): 598-602 FAL 2003

Cohen, AJ Critical essays on Piero Sraffa's legacy in economics. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (1): 164-166 SPR 2003

Foley, DK Sraffa's legacy CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 27 (2): 225-238 MAR 1 2003

 * Hope this helps. I'm responding to Request for Comment btw. Itsmejudith 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation 2 is a mix
This is a mix of Shackle and Hicks: What is cited was written by Shackle in the Economic Journal 1930 resuming the Symposium. (republished: Shackle, G. L., 1967, The Years of High Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 45) Hicks (1939, Welfare Economics ?) concluded that Sraffa’s critique ruins the assumption of perfect competition leaving neoclassical theory a wreck. But to salvage something from the wreck we could go on as if perfect competition is given, taking into account that this is a dangerous step. (republished: Hicks, J. R., 1957, Value and Capital, An Inquiry into some fundamental Principles of Economic Theory, Claredon Press, Oxford, page 83-5.)

''It seems to be agreed that this situation [increasing returns] has to be met by sacrificing the assumption of perfect competition. … [Y]et is has to be recognized that a general abandonment of the assumption of perfect competition … must have very destructive consequences for economic theory. … and the basis on which economic laws can be constructed is therefore shorn away. … It is; I believe, only possible to save anything from this wreck – and it must be remembered that the threatened wreckage is that of the greater part of general equilibrium theory – if we can assume that markets confronting most of the firms which we shall be dealing do not differ very greatly from perfectly competitive markets. … We must be aware, however, that we are taking a dangerous step, and probably limiting to a serious extend the problems with which our subsequent analysis will be fitted to deal.'' Cuauti (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WPP Economics classification
I've rated this as a B-class article of High importance: it's clearly less important to that project than Karl Marx, which is high importance, and almost as clearly more important than Friedman's k-percent rule which gets top importance... --- Charles Stewart (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20061021074903/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sraffa's critique
At the end of the penultimate paragraph of Sraffa is written: Sraffa sought to replace the individualistic and positivistic account of price as the result of an equilibration of supply and demand, for instead as price serving a social function, namely to reproduce a stationary or expanding economy given a distribution of income. This seems grammatically nonsensical. Could someone pls clarify what is intended? (The reference given is also unverifiable)LookingGlass (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piero Sraffa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040906131234/http://rabbit.trin.cam.ac.uk/~jon/Msscolls/Sraffa.html to http://rabbit.trin.cam.ac.uk/~jon/Msscolls/Sraffa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Piero Sraffa Page
I found some inaccuracies in the biography of Piero Sraffa. Is it possible to change them, or risk blocking the profile? I would like to add some information on the biography. thank you very much! --G.cusumano (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 * If you can provide sources for your changes and you are confident in the quality of your sources, just go ahead and edit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piero Sraffa


text: Category:Belt regions of the United States

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Verbeiren

 * No Google hits at all for "Sven Verbeiren", probably made up. Delete if existence of legend cannot be verified. -- Ferkelparade 11:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like patent nonsense; none of the references can be verified by Google, not even the purported 2001 publication. Looks like a carefully constructed hoax. Sjc 11:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Has several signs of being a hoax. (Flemish monster from 1864 known by the name "Sandwich"?  Quotes from 1864 written in colloquial english.  No listing I can find for any of the "references".) Not, however patent nonsense as we define it. Rossami 12:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty dubious... I'd say delete it, unless some (extremely unexpected) evidence should turn up to corroborate it. It's good hoax, though... for BJAODN? -FZ 12:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a prank.  It's one kid twitting another.  (Covered in acne with a nasal voice, dribbling food down his shirt?) Geogre 14:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
 * Delete: Seems to be a hoax.--Ern 02:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, I've forgotten my username so can't log in (author of the Sven Verbeiren-page). All the books named in the sources are in my posession, and I've hired a book called "Vlaams Sagenboek", translated "Flemish book of folklore", wich also tales of 't Neuzeken. If I owuld had a scanner, I could prove you.


text:
Talk:Dopamine

DA-mediated cognitive functions
I just went ahead and indicated the VTA projection and target neuron subpopulation that mediates drug reward under Dopamine. Idk if you're interested in updating the other parts of that section, but I figured I'd just post this here since I'm not particularly keen on updating the entire section myself. This 2014 review mentions how VTA DA neurons consists of "anatomically and functionally heterogeneous DA subpopulations with different axonal projections" and contains coverage of dopamine-mediated aversion and reward prediction errors. What the review said about distinct neuronal subpopulations/projection targets is something I've read repeatedly about the mesolimbic pathway in particular; the VTA-NAcc pathway contains (at least) 4 distinct subpopulations of projection neurons that synapse onto the D1-type or D2-type MSNs NAcc core or NAcc shell (e.g., see this table), where each of those NAcc subpopulations mediates a distinct function (as noted in the refs I used ).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Great, that's fine with me. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Feeling of satisfaction
This article is very technical, which is fine I suppose, but I'm having trouble seeing anything in the lede about the effect of satisfaction it has on a person. For instance, if you run a marathon the brain release Dopamine and you get a feeling of extreme satisfaction. Shouldn't this be explained in plain language so the reader can easier identify and understand the overall subject? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 * That probably isn't even true -- as I understand it, the sense of satisfaction after running a marathon comes largely from the release of endogenous opioids, not dopamine. Anyway, the lede of our article says, "The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity."  That seems reasonably clear to me.  I agree that the section on the physiology of dopamine does not describe the reward-related effects particularly well, and ought to be improved.  Even so, it is never going to be extremely simple, because the unfortunate fact is that the "folk" understanding (i.e., dopamine = pleasure) is not correct. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't discount it entirely; exercise does cause a dopamine efflux because it increases PEA biosynthesis.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Randomly stumbled across a review - - on cognition involving pleasure/hedonic value + reward/motivation in the nucleus accumbens associated with food consumption.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796262/figure/F1/
 * Food hedonic value appears to be inversely regulated through GLP-1 peptides and their GLP-1 receptor in the NAcc. The review doesn't mention the shell/core + direct/indirect subpopulation of neurons where these are expressed though. Thought this was interesting+worth noting here since I believe the original finding of a distinction between the role for dopamine in reward vs pleasure was based studies with food. I remember reading somewhere that mesolimbic+nigrostriatal lesions decrease motivation for food, but don't affect its hedonic value.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Drug addiction section
I am thinking about editing this article to a point where it can be nominated for GA and perhaps after that FA. Quite a number of improvements are needed, at many points in the article, but in particular I think the drug addiction section needs a complete reworking. This article is read by a very broad audience, and the drug addiction section is probably one of the parts that will interest readers the most, so I feel that it needs to be made much more accessible. It seems to me that the easiest approach is to go back to the version of 16 March 2014 and then work from there, adding references as needed. A simplified version of the current section could be added as a final paragraph.

To make this easier to evaluate, here is a copy of the version of 16 March 2014:

 * A variety of addictive drugs produce an increase in reward-related dopamine activity. For some addictive drugs such as alcohol or heroin, activation of the reward system may play only a minor role in addiction, with suppression of suffering being the dominant mechanism, but for other drugs, including nicotine and psychomotor stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, increased postsynaptic dopamine receptor activation or increased levels of synaptic dopamine appear to be the primary factor. When people addicted to stimulants go through withdrawal, they do not experience the physical suffering associated with withdrawal from alcohol or opiates; instead they experience apathy, boredom, restlessness, and most importantly an overwhelming urge to consume more of the drug.[medical citation needed]

 * The addiction potential for stimulants is strongly dependent on the level of dopamine increase they produce.[medical citation needed]

 * Treatment of stimulant addiction is very difficult, because even if consumption ceases, the "craving" that comes with psychological withdrawal does not. Even still, when the craving seems to be extinct, it may reemerge when the individual experiences environmental stiumli (friends, locations, situations, etc.) that are associated with the drug. The brain mechanisms underlying these cravings have been a topic of extensive research. There is evidence that they are associated with long-lasting changes in the density of dopamine receptors in parts of the brain.[medical citation needed]

Any thoughts? Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 * We stopped using the DSM's old definition which grouped addiction and dependence sometime a few months back; we've instead used two sections to cover addiction and dependence–withdrawal separately. Addiction and substance dependence, the drugbox addiction_liability and dependency_liability parameters, and MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM section guidelines all reflect this distinction, so it would be ideal if this article did too.

 * As for how to describe addiction... that's a pretty hard problem to tackle. These two reviews (1st is paywalled - linked here temporarily; the 2nd covers addiction in generality, with psychostimulant-specific coverage in certain parts)  explain addiction in general, describe a subset of the reward system, and describe structure/pathway-specific roles in addiction and addictive behavior. Table 1 in the 1st review contains a list + definitions of addiction-related behavioral terms for context. That review also includes a simplified schematic of the system. Anyway, I'll let you decide how to summarize the disorder, but I'll note that the striatum as a whole is the region of the reward system that drives addiction.

 * Just for future reference since I figure it's worth mentioning: KEGG has published diagrams on the addiction-inducing signaling cascades of amphetamine, morphine (doesn't show downstream/NAcc signaling, but indicates the DA signaling effect), alcohol, and cocaine (I've seen others in medical literature too). A host of other drugs/drug classes, ~10 of which are listed in the Addiction section's 1st paragraph, have been shown to signal to the nucleus in the NAcc and overexpress ΔFosB. I don't really have the time/interested to do the same for other drugs as what I did for amphetamine, but I've covered some of this material in several articles (e.g., Ethanol). My point is that the current evidence regarding the clinical significance of the NAcc in addiction is often just stated, but rarely explained, in addiction articles on Wikipedia.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for chemistry and biochemistry sections
Would anybody be able to suggest good references for the chemistry and biochemistry sections? This is textbook-level stuff, and expect the best source is some standard textbook of biochemistry -- I'm sure it won't be found in recent review articles. Unfortunately chemistry is my weak point. I'm reasonably confident that the material in the article is more or less correct, but we can't move to GA or FA if those sections aren't properly referenced. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're asking about structure activity relationships and/or pharmacokinetics, https://books.google.com/books?id=R0W1ErpsQpkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage is pretty comprehensive. For chemical-related data on dopamine itself, I'd suggest using pubchem's entry.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Opiates and ethanol/alcohols
For some addictive drugs such as alcohol or heroin, activation of the reward system may play only a minor role in addiction, with suppression of suffering being the dominant mechanism - ignoring what I wrote/linked above regarding these two drug classes, does the cited ref directly support this clause?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely supports the first part -- that's basically the theme of the article. (It can be downloaded at http://www.docdroid.net/xk9t/nutt2015.pdf.html if you don't have direct access to it.)  It doesn't directly support the second part -- I'll remove that at least until I can locate a clearer source.  It's pretty common knowledge though that opiate action and stimulant addiction are quite different in the types of dependence they involve. I'll leave it to you to remove the tag if you think it appropriate.

 * Let me further say that I hope you feel free to make any edits to this article you think are needed. I just ask that the complexity of the material be kept at a level appropriate for an article that is viewed by thousands of people every day, from a very wide range of backgrounds. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems fine with a minor tweak to the recent revision.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede
The statement "Dopamine is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families that plays several important roles in the human brain and body, as well as elsewhere in biology" seems to diminish its importance outside humans. The discussion further down the article makes it clear that it is highly conserved and very widespread: found in nearly all multicellular animals. Can we find a more nuanced way of saying this? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm open to suggestions. This article gets several thousand page views per day, and I would guess that 80-90% of them come from people mainly interested in the role of dopamine in reward and addiction, so we should make particularly sure the article works for those readers -- but at the same time we shouldn't give an impression that is misleading. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change "the human brain and body" to just "brain and other nerve cells"? LeadSongDog come howl!  04:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving new addition to article here for discussion
The following text was inserted into the "Reward" section by. I am moving here because at best it needs to be discussed; at worst it does not belong. This article is currently a nominee for Featured Article, so it needs to be kept clean while the review proceeds.

 * Learning from positive and negative information

 * Studies show that the pharmacological increase of dopamine levels results in a reduction of the ability to learn from negative outcomes and negative information . This suggests dopamine plays a role in learning from undesirable outcomes and information.

There are several issues here. (1) The material may be important enough to belong in the article, but it would need to be properly integrated; (2) the references need to be properly formatted (but that's easy enough), (3) the references are primary sources per WP:MEDRS -- we should look for secondary sources, i.e., review articles. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

3D molecular image
Should Infobox neurotransmitter be modified so we can include a 3D model of the dopamine molecule here? Both Drugbox and Chembox have spaces for 2D and 3D models. I'm thinking about this image in particular. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic passage in lead
I'm not very happy about this passage: In brain cells, it is transported to synaptic sites and packaged into vesicles for release, which occurs during synaptic transmission. After release, free dopamine is either reabsorbed into the presynaptic terminal for reuse, or broken down by the enzymes monoamine oxidase or COMT, producing a variety of degradation metabolites, whose end products are ultimately excreted in the urine. I can't see any group of readers who benefit from it. To readers who are unfamiliar with neuroscience, it will be completely incomprehensible. To readers who are familiar with neuroscience, the only thing in it that basic knowledge that applies to all neurotransmitters is the names of the metabolizing enzymes. I would like to delete those sentences from the lead, but since they were added by another editor as part of the copy-editing process I don't want to do so without a chance for discussion. Looie496 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I did the bold thing, but others may want to try to rescue some of that content; I think it's best removed, though, for the reasons you gave. What remains is a good intro. — soupvector (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

References in lead
Since there are only two refs given in lead would it be better to remove them. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My general practice is to minimize references in the lead, but not to fight about it if somebody adds one or asks for one. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine
A new review and IUPHAR both indicate that TAAR1 is a natural/endogenous target of DA along with the 5 DA receptors, so the receptor will need to be included as a target in the "Cellular effects" heading. Given that TAAR1 a high affinity DA receptor, the diagram File:Synapse_dopaminergique.png should probably be revised to include TAAR1 and possibly the inhibitory TAAR1-D2sh heterodimer, which signals through a unique pathway (PKB/GSK3) relative to the individual receptors (probably too technical). That's probably the only TAAR1-related material that needs to be added for the comprehensive coverage FA criteria.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Behavioral Biology of dopamine
There is very little on this page on the role of DA and DA circuits in behavior. Can I create a new section, should there be a new page? Petergstrom (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The best-studied function is the role of dopamine in reward, which is covered at some length. What kind of material would you like to add? Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mood, emotion, affect, motor function, and executive function, which are all somewhat covered but not to a crazy extentPetergstrom (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, you're certainly welcome to edit the article, but if you want to add so much material that it would unbalance the presentation it should probably be done in a sub-article. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It'd probably be best to cover pathway-specific effects in dopaminergic pathways.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Prolactin inhibiting hormone"
Since when was dopamine released by an endocrine gland?????Petergstrom (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained in the Nervous system section, "Dopamine produced by neurons in the arcuate nucleus is secreted into the hypophyseal portal system of the median eminence, which supplies the pituitary gland. The prolactin cells that produce prolactin, in the absence of dopamine, secrete prolactin continuously; dopamine inhibits this secretion. In the context of regulating prolactin secretion, dopamine is occasionally called prolactin-inhibiting factor, prolactin-inhibiting hormone, or prolactostatin." Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, see this review – Dopamine: a prolactin-inhibiting hormone – and tuberoinfundibular pathway.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Vasoconstriction vs vasodilation, explanation of revert
An IP editor has changed "vasodilation" to "vasoconstriction" in the lede, explaining with the following edit summary: "Fixed incorrect information: Dopamine is a vassopressor, not a vasodilator, therefore it helps treat low blood pressure in trauma by causing the blood vessels to constrict. This constriction increases vascular resistance which then causes an increase i...". I am about to undo the change, and would like to explain why. This issue has come up before. It's a little tricky: the sources indicate that at normal low biological concentrations, the primary effect of dopamine in the bloodstream is vasodilation. At the much higher concentrations attained when dopamine is injected as a drug, the primary effect becomes vasoconstriction. These effects are covered in the body of the article, citing appropriate sources. Consequently I am going to revert to the earlier version. If there is some tweak to the wording that will make things clearer, I am certainly open to it. Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My Compliments on the Article
My compliments on the article. It comprehensively presents a variety of technical information in a manner that is for the most part highly-readable and begins with the core facts.

One thing is conspicous by its abscence. The production of Dopamine along with other hormones is documented in response to hypoglycaemia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
Looking at the section on pathology, I was surpised to see that schizophrenia was not among the sub-headings. Vorbee (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) This is especially surprising given that Wikipedia has an article on the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. Vorbee (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Basal nuclei"
A recent edit changed "basal ganglia" to "basal nuclei" at several points in this article. The edit has already been reverted, but I think the revert deserves some discussion. (To be clear, I agree with it, but I think there is value in justifying it.) In my opinion, the change to "basal nuclei" is premature. Although that term is logically preferable, it is still far less commonly used in the literature than "basal ganglia". A Google Scholar search from 2017 onward shows over 18,000 uses of "basal ganglia" but only about 800 uses of "basal nuclei", and many of the latter are referring to other things, such as the basal nuclei of the amygdala. The adoption of the term in one textbook is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification for adopting it in Wikipedia. Other opinions are of course welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter/hormone
Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L-DOPA#Dopamine_functions_as_a_neurotransmitter_outside_the_CNS

Evidence of regulating pleasure cognition
Talk:Reward system - if reproducible, this would result in a paradigm shift in areas of affective neuroscience and cognitive neuropsychology.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated the article with a secondary source.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Psychosis and antipsychotic drugs" section, passage removal
I removed the passage:

"Also, other dissociative drugs, notably ketamine and phencyclidine that act on glutamate NMDA receptors (and not on dopamine receptors) can produce psychotic symptoms.[102]"

Dissociatives do act upon dopamine receptors, both directly and through opioid activity. The source cited originally [102] also backs this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4100:6530:D18B:1695:5896:74A7 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

3-D model is incorrect
Hi, just a quick note to say that the current ball-and-stick model has its upper hydroxy group missing its hydrogen. Thanks, John

 * No, it is correct - dopamine is a zwitterion in the solid state. See the reference in the image caption: Cruickshank et al., J. Mol. Struct. (2013) 1051, 132-136, which is TIRZAX in the Cambridge Structural Database. The reason dopamine forms this zwitterion is one of the hydroxy groups is so acidic that the amino group takes a proton from it. See also Talk:Adrenaline and Norepinephrine for other catecholamines that are zwitterionic for the same treason. Compare them to tyramine that has both zwitterionic and non-zwitterionic forms. And to L-DOPA that is a different kind of zwitterion in which a different OH group is more acidic, the carboxylic OH. --Ben (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, would you look at my comment below your reply? I apologize in advance for my limited knowledge of chemistry. 69.70.135.194 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In this vein the skeletal formula differs from the ball-and-stick model. I think both models should reflect the molecule in the same state (solid or in solution). At the very least it merits a note in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.135.194 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 * To elaborate, a non-expert reader (like myself) might find the discrepancy confusing. 69.70.135.194 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I understand, it is a bit complicated and confusing. I have created a new image based on the previous one but with the solution structure, consistent with the skeletal formula. The solid-state structure is mentioned in the caption. Is this better? Ben (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

History
I can find no evidence of Barger/Ewens synthesising dopamine in the reference Jshake1 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Precursor chemical or chemical precursor?
I'm asking for help, because I'm not a native-speaker. "It is an amine synthesized by removing a carboxyl group from a molecule of its precursor chemical, L-DOPA" Thanks in advance. Retornaire (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Either seems fine - though I'd be tempted to call it a "molecular precursor" or "precursor molecule". — soupvector (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dopamine


text:
Category:Sailing

Sailing is the use of wind to provide the primary power via sail(s) or wing to propel a boat.

To help improve sailing related articles, please feel free to join WikiProject: Sailing

title: Category:Sailing