Talk:Benzodiazepine

/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 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think that the article is reasonably neutral and reflects the current medical literature fairly. There are no organised efforts to ban benzos either by professionals or "citizen" groups and it will never happen as they are too useful in the short-term. There is controversy around long-term use which this article addresses and there are efforts to reduce long-term use especially in the UK, Australia, 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 areas of adverse effects, harm and risks benzos are done on the other benzo articles such as benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, benzodiazepine overdose, benzodiazepine misuse 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)

Here is a Medical Doctor (now deceased) who spearheaded efforts to outlaw benzodiazapines: http://www.benzo.org.uk/peartbio.htm

Note the title of his article-- the "Chemical Rape of Body, Mind and Soul - An Account of Benzodiazepine Dependence"

This is an article written by a Medical Doctor, not an extremist.

I accused no specific Editor of anything. But paid Wikipedia editors are an increasing problem.

69.171.160.51 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am familar with him and have never read that he wants benzos banned, he wanted long-term use banned though I think. Do you have a quote where he specifically says that he wants benzos banned?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have made the accusation that the article reads like a drug sales leaflet, I suggest that you actually compare the article to a product information sheet and I think that you will find that this article discusses a lot of things which are ommited from drug data sheets, protracted withdrawal being one and long-term effects being another. The article is not controlled by drug companies so well sourced edits will not get reverted if they comply with WP:NPOV, {{WP:DUE]] and WP:MEDRS. The article is a good article now so only recent secondary sources should be added unless there is very good reason for not doing so. I recommend that you retract your accusations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your quote: "he wanted long-term use banned though I think."

That's right. Which is a ban. You yourself just used the word 'banned'.

Your quote: "I recommend that you retract your accusations."

I have a right to express my opinion about the quality of this article. You have no right to silence me just because I do not agree with your opinion.

This article is biased. It isn't neutral and it misinforms. The discussion area is for people to debate the writing of the article.

Neutrality is a common concern when discussing and editing a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia encourages discussing neutrality so I do not need to retract my opinion about the biased quality of the writing.

I also made no personal accusations, so no one accused you of anything and I do not have to retract anything.

69.171.160.51 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)