<entry id="2226823" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1594200</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>刺激剤</keb>
</k_ele>
<k_ele>
<keb>刺戟剤</keb>
<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>しげきざい</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>stimulant</gloss>
<gloss>excitant</gloss>
<gloss>irritant</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>motivator</gloss>
<gloss>stimulus</gloss>
<gloss>spur</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2023-03-25 08:16:17" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Brian Krznarich</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Fixed kanji.

Added the xref in place of trying to clarify somehow.  there are lots of "stimulant" entries that have similar (and robust) n-gram counts. This one is notable in that the dictionary specifically uses it in a non-chemical context ("failure is a good motivator"). daijs: その失敗がよい―になった」.  It's also notable for *not* being listed as a "stimulant" term on wikipedia's chemical stimulants page as a synonym.

Weblio has a large collection of good glosses from other sources if you'd like to choose some...
https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4

I am extremely suspicious of glossing this entry as "irritant" (even though you'll find this on weblio, and on other "stimulant" entries).  If it's in the context of "non-刺激剤" or "low-刺激剤", then perhaps low-irritant or non-irritant/anti-irritant makes sense.  But I don't think it would be used as "irritant" in a non-negated context...

Look at this terrible gloss/translation, for example:
呼吸刺激剤
respiratory irritant《医》〔睡眠時無呼吸症候群などの治療に用いられる〕
The example sentence says 呼吸刺激剤 would be used to *treat* sleep apnea.  It's a respiratory stimulant, not an irritant....
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>刺激剤	13305	50.2%
刺激薬	13120	49.5%
刺戟剤	100	0.4%
刺戟薬	0	0.0%

https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4
日本語WordNet(英和)での「刺激剤」の英訳
刺激剤
incentive, motivator, inducement
積極的な動機づけの効果をもたらすもの
(a positive motivational influence)


EDR日英対訳辞書での「刺激剤」の英訳
刺激剤
読み方 シゲキザイ
encouragement</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -5 +5 @@
-&lt;keb&gt;刺戟剤&lt;/keb&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;刺激剤&lt;/keb&gt;
@@ -8 +8,2 @@
-&lt;keb&gt;刺激剤&lt;/keb&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;刺戟剤&lt;/keb&gt;
+&lt;ke_inf&gt;&amp;sK;&lt;/ke_inf&gt;
@@ -15 +16,9 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・1&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant (drug)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;stimulation&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;/sense&gt;
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;n;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・2&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;motivator&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-03-28 22:03:37" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Given the overall set of glosses, I think the "(drug)" qualifier is not needed or appropriate. I have no problem with including "irritant". It's fine in the context.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>GG5: a stimulant; an excitant; a stimulative; an irritant.
中辞典: a stimulant; an irritant; an excitant</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -17 +17,3 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant (drug)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;excitant&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;irritant&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-03-29 20:50:12" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't think the x-refs are needed.
"stimulus" is sense 2.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・1&lt;/xref&gt;
@@ -20,2 +18,0 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;stimulation&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt;
@@ -25 +21,0 @@
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・2&lt;/xref&gt;
@@ -26,0 +23,2 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;spur&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>