Jump to content

Talk:Benzodiazepine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Archiving text, talk page was over 100 kb and replying to anon ip editor.
Line 40: Line 40:
There are also plenty of citations available that counter some of the claims made in the article. It should be noted that there are major efforts in several countries to ban benzodiazapine use altogether, and that a number of these efforts are being spearheaded by [[Medical Doctors]].
There are also plenty of citations available that counter some of the claims made in the article. It should be noted that there are major efforts in several countries to ban benzodiazapine use altogether, and that a number of these efforts are being spearheaded by [[Medical Doctors]].


I encourage anyone with the time and knowledge to follow wiki guidelines while posting numerous alternative citations to the blatant drug company propaganda in this article.
I encourage anyone with the time and knowledge to follow wiki guidelines while posting numerous alternative citations to the blatant drug company sales [[propaganda]] in this article.


[[Special:Contributions/69.171.160.51|69.171.160.51]] ([[User talk:69.171.160.51|talk]]) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/69.171.160.51|69.171.160.51]] ([[User talk:69.171.160.51|talk]]) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:51, 3 February 2010

Good articleBenzodiazepine has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 24, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

/Archive 1 /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5

Therapeutic Use

Shouldn't Veterinary use be moved to the Therapeutic section of the article, instead of being tacked on to the very bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinhenryjr (talkcontribs) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lots of Misinformation in this Article (Reads like a Drug-Company Sales Pamphlet)

Citations do not by themselves a neutral article make. There is a lot of legitimate controversy (at the professional level) about benzodiazapines, their safety and side effects. Really there should be a controversy section in this article.

There are also plenty of citations available that counter some of the claims made in the article. It should be noted that there are major efforts in several countries to ban benzodiazapine use altogether, and that a number of these efforts are being spearheaded by Medical Doctors.

I encourage anyone with the time and knowledge to follow wiki guidelines while posting numerous alternative citations to the blatant drug company sales propaganda in this article.

69.171.160.51 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I also encourage people not to be shy about appealing to Wikipedia administrators over the heads of anyone who reverts legitimate additions or changes to this article without proper justification (watch out also for phony justifications)--

Automatically reverting changes that you don't like (or that you are being paid not to like) without justification is considered vandalism by Wikipedia standards and will usually be dealt with if reported often enough to Wikipedia administrators.

You also have the right to appeal to more than one administrator.

69.171.160.51 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is reasonably neutral. There are no organised efforts to ban benzos either by professionals or "citizen" groups and it will never happen. There are efforts to reduce long-term use especially in the UK, Holland, Denmark and Norway and to a lesser extent in other countries. Which claims does the article make which have not been "countered"? Which sections or statements are not neutral? What areas of controversy have not been covered? Also do note that this article is the main benzodiazepine article and therefore is only meant to summarise important points. More indepth discussions on benzos are done on the other benzo articles such as benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome and long-term effects of benzodiazepines. You may not have read these articles.
Randomly accusing editors who you have never even met or interacted with of being paid by the drug companies and threatening editors is not particularly helpful. I suggest that you tone yourself down and find citations to back up what you say or think is wrong with the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]