Talk:Flurazepam

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Flurazepam actually is a pregnancy category X, which means that it will cause major birth defects and must not be used in women who are not on birth control. So, in placement of your "?", make sure and place an "X" under the title "Therapeutic Considerations."-A. Ryan, ANS3

I'm adding an arguably better image (right below), but the article is so short, that two pictures are hardly warrented. Fuzzform 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic content

Does anyone else think that the latter half of the article is unneccessary? There's nothing about the study cited specific to flurazepam; that section could be copied and pasted into any benzodiazepine article. While it is pertinent to benzodiazepines, the article is about flurazepam and should be kept to flurazepam-specific information. I am relatively new and don't know how to handle the kind of change of integrating that content into the article on benzodiazepines or (not liking this idea) creating its own page, which I guess would be titled "conference on benzodiazepines, 1998" or something. I must say, though, that the entire section seems pretty biased, and sort of pointless.. it'd be like if someone held a conference investigating acetaminophen and concluded that because more people die from APAP overdoses than any other pharmaceutical, nobody should.. well, you get the point. That's my own personal qualm, but I still think the passage could be edited a bit for NPOV. I'd appreciate other thoughts on dealing with this content that doesn't belong here; if a few months pass and I don't hear any feedback I'll take care of it. Mr0t1633 (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the same exact passage in the article for clorazepate. The tolerance and dependence really does not need to be emphasized so much - more words than the rest of the article - because these properties are already well-known and long-established. There's no need for a page detailing it on every benzodiazepine article. If there is a page on benzodiazepine addiction, then that's where it belongs. If not, I'm going to axe most of the content eventually, if nobody weighs in to the contrary. Mr0t1633 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. I'll do the same for clorazepate. Mr0t1633 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it! You got some quick fingers there. Thanks again, I didn't expect anyone to even notice the talk page here. I'm glad to see the article no longer espouses incorrect (or at least unproven) statements that benzodiazepines lack any analgesic or antidepressive activity, for example. Mr0t1633 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I just shortened the clorazepate part because if we delete the whole thing there really is no information on dependence and withdrawal. Hope that is ok.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly

Deleted "Elderly" because it is tangential to Flurazepam. It is really unspecific and applies to sedatives in general. The deletion has already been discussed and agreed on the Temazepam page, and I carried it over to here. I don't think we need a new discussion for every benzodiazepine, where this info has been replicated. Will you please not REVERT edits without discussion, I may remind you. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]