Talk:Temazepam/Archive 3

History
The history chapter decribes the history as:

Invention-> approval as sleeping pill -> use as a KGB/CIA/interrogation/oppression/mind control agent -> use as drug of abuse. in a logical progression.

I think this is a gross misrepresentation. It is in fact:

Invention -> use as a sleeping pill. It is still used like that.

And there are some fringe aspects to it.

The abuse part of this history is lacking citations. The reference is a leaflet for school children and parents "careful, prescription drugs can also be abused, kids!" and it doesn't say a single word about temazepam. This really needs some work. Opinions? I tagged it with citation needed. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "underground" use aspects belong in the History section either, although I do think some mention is warranted. I'd move the content down with "Abuse", it is after all an illicit use of the drug. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally idiotic
I find it totally idiotic that at least three quarters of this article are dedicated to fringe aspects of this medication, with endless repetitions, practically every section. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It does still need work, but it has been greatly improved recently through our efforts. Don't get discouraged. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

--- If there is no discussion of the points, no agreed edits can be made. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

KGB psych wards etc.
Looking at this section a few remarks.

Interrogation etc.: I can't see what specific advantage temazepam would have over a whole lot of other drugs for that purpose. It is just a grannie pill (and miscreant kiddie pill). Does the article suggest, it was specifically used for the interrogation of grannies and miscreant kiddies? I would think Scophedal or JB329 would be much nicer.

Psych wards: The temazepam does in no way stick out in the arsenal of a psych ward. Every psych ward of that time would use Haldol, diazepam, Evipan, Scophedal etc. plus electric shocks. The patients were vegetables after that. The KGB would maybe also use something from the stash of the anesthesiologist too.

MKSEARCH, MKULTRA etc.: The same things would have to be investigated by the CIA, of course, just to not stay ignorant. A whole series of subversion and sabotage agents were investigated, including psychochemical agents, incapacitating agents, extremely strong tranquilizers. They really had no reason to frisk grannies medicine cabinet for that and give a code name to the wonder pills found there. Maybe the grannies medicine cabinet had a code name too? The wonder-weapons vault? We thought that as kids too.

Mass oppression by chemicals: In the drinking water maybe? To dumb the people down? etc. etc. See psychochemical, sabotage and subversion agents and discussion how to apply to cause confusion and disorganization, in the book reference below. Certainly not with grannies pills. Only in the wet dreams. Highly active agents have been investigated by both sides. Reliable source for the complex, if not a bit dated (cold war), but authentic:

S. Franke Lehrbuch der Militaerchemie Bd 1 Militaerverlag der DDR, Ost-Berlin (1970) (also newer editions)

S. Franke Teaching book of military chemistry Vol 1 Military press of the GDR, East Berlin

Read it up, it is the std teaching book of the military academy for "KHOMPETENT" people. Not fringe literature, very thick book. Seriously, cut the crap from the sensationalist and investigational journalists out. And no conspiracy theories. The real picture is well represented in serious teaching books. Probably the interrogators were taking the temazepam themselves, to chill out. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 70.137.138.55 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Of course you can read up about this from 100 reliable sources in every chemical library. Above book serves well to show that this was all well known std in the 60s and by no means a big revelation. And the section of the article is bloated and paranoid crap. We don't want to mix alien abductions etc. in here. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j130670641552610/

Seriously, what do you think they were trying to achieve here? (and related refs on the page) A new addition to grandmas medicine cabinet? 70.137.138.55 (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course both sides were trying all things out on humans. The poor ratties couldn't tell what they were phantasizing. Maybe kaleidoscopic arrangements of cheese bits and raisins. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Insofar, I propose deletion for lack of notability 70.137.138.55 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a sentence or two might be warranted, since the material appears to be based in fact, but no more than that. Something like:
 * Can anyone verify whether temazepam specifically was used in Soviet psikhushkas? I'd be inclined to leave it out if benzos in general were used, but I think it would be notable if temazepam was chiefly or exclusively used in this role. My general opinion is that the cold war stuff should be mentioned in passing but should certainly not receive the gratuitous treatment it gets at present. St3vo (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Psikhushka: I think the whole story doesn't fit. To turn somebody vegetable in a psikhushka, you fill him up with Haldol or another strong neuroleptic, and maybe a sedative like promethazine, plus maybe Akineton. Diazepam maybe as an add-on. If you dose somebody with the relatively short acting temazepam around the clock he gets used to it after some time. With the other stuff not. But what I describe is std psych ward treatment in the 60s, nothing special. I think the noteworthy part of the report is about the treatment of political dissidence as a mental disease "querulatory psychopathy", treatable with the std algorithm for delusional thinking, i.e. all these sick capitalist phantasies. Not the substance. That is bollocks produced by sensational journalism, under the influence of the hysteria around temazepam. Certainly sounds more interesting if they use a drug of abuse, rather than the boring std treatment, but doesn't make sense functionally. Remember the authors of the ref are investigational journalists, not known to be familiar with science. So I don't trust that. So the treatment as a disease is noteworthy, but doesn't belong here. The substance is unimportant, and no credibility.

Truth serum: They say in south east asia. In impoverished circumstances they maybe had no access to scophedal, so they just fed him grandmas lifesavers? You never know. Lack of notability and credibility. Probably a bottle of vodka works much better. Or arbitrary other anesthesist stuff.

Subversion: Much too weak stuff to slip it large scale. Not really disruptive or confusing if the stuff is in a drink or so. Just like knockout drops, even there are better options.

Mass scale social engineering: Total paranoid bollocks. For mass scale effect you need something at least a 1000 times more effective, with a completely different spectrum, e.g. to fog a crowd. Completely unfounded.

The whole story doesn't fit, such that I would also not believe part of it. Drop it. It is just idiot journalism, for which they get paid, if it sells. Not scientific literature, not peer reviewed material. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree re: social engineering/subversion and psikhushkas (barring any new revelations of their importance), but I think a single sentence referring to the truth serum use/investigation by CIA/KGB is warranted. What do you think about the one proposed above? St3vo (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would be ok, if we can independently verify the fact. But these journalists for themselves are not good enough for verification. They are just not a reliable source, after the crap they claimed about mass social engineering etc. Until then toss it. It is an encyclopedia. Not mom I have read in the news they used temmies as a truth serum. For me the source is in the class "Hitler got flying saucers from the aliens", "World is in fact a hollow sphere", "Paris Hilton powders her nose from the inside!", "Nostradamus predicted Bin Laden, also encoded in the Bible." Sorry. Source is dead. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would accept it if it were an established practice, which was well documented, as with pentothal interviews. Not just some east German etc. once fed some guy some lifesavers from his grannies medicine chest, somebody heard. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The way to deal with sources that pass WP:V but that are disputed by other editors is to attribute the information to the source directly. For example:


 * That way the reader can make thire own mind up about how reliable the source is and all the article does is make a statement that somebody has said this. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Remains the question, if it is notable, and if it is tangential to the article. As even with the scientific sources, we have to see if virtually everything that has ever been suspected, investigated etc. shall be included. We have to discuss that. Same for other parts of the article. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha almost funny anon has been given 100% approval of all their edits no matter what. No retreat no compromise, no surrender. 70.137 all the way.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Zero revert rule
I see 70.137 has broken the zero revert rule multiple times on multiple benzo articles including the temazepam article, undoing/removing content some of which is content I added or the goodson added. Breaking of the zero revert rule was meant to lead to an automatic block on whoever broke the zero revert rule out of 70.137 myself or goodson but looks like the zero revert rule is not going to be enforced. At the moment I am very busy but will be back soon. I hope everyone is having a good day.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussing edits on the talkpage and then making them to the article is perfectly OK. This article is not set in stone and I'd encourage all editors to edit and improve the text. If you are unhappy with any of the edits that are being proposed and discussed on the talkpage, please get involved in the discussions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed—70.'s edits were not reversions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Their edits haven't all been discussed. So manual reversions and deletions without consensus are fine, just as long as you don't use the official undo or revert buttons? I don't see the difference. It will take me some time to go through all of anons edits so can't comment on them all.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Domestic market indicators"
Is this section at all necessary or even relevant?

So, results of questionable accuracy and relevance, and methodology we can't really verify (at least I can't). Would anyone object to removing this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection: The article is anyway in this respect dominated by findings of the Glasgow police and coroner, and by Australian police, coroner, concerned Victorian health department and pharmacists, concerned citizens. Not to forget the concerned journalists. Must be a local fad in some places, bordering on hysteria. Strange for a pill which has according to british advisory panel "low true abusability" and "low-medium abuse liability" according to the FDA, an incidence of euphoria of 1.5% reported as side effect. Concern: biased collective. See above, my attempt on biased collective vs. coroners findings. Strange for a pill which resembles effect of old paint thinner cloth. 70.137.138.55 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Toss it. St3vo (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon, the FDA and British advisory drug panels have not said temazepam or benzodiazepines have a low-medium abuse potential. We had this argument before, that drugs are not placed in schedule 1, 2, 3 or 4 or whatever based on their abuse potential. Other factors come into play such as toxicity (overdose potential, brain damage etc), crime, harm to society and harm to the user, severity of intoxication, risk of blood bourne diseases and so forth. To prove my point LSD virtually never causes addiction but yet is in schedule 1 or class A. If you look into the history of heroin you will find that it was put into schedule 1 primarily due to drug related deaths, rather than it's abuse or addiction potential. Personally I reckon that section had relevance to the use and misuse of temazepam and should not have been deleted. Oh an one other point benzodiazepines are more commonly abused in the USA than opiates according to the USA government, samhsa.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1979 the Institute of Medicine (USA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse stated that most hypnotics lose their sleep-inducing properties after about 3 to 14 days.[29] In the same reference they state "benzodiazepines have a low true abuse potential" literally, and they elaborate on this. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with that reference. When they say "true addiction" they are defining addiction as meaning euphoria and drug seeking behaviour related to euphoria. Benzodiazepines cause a severe physical dependence but only moderate psychological dependence. Opiates eg heroin cause a moderate physical dependence and severe psychological dependence. Cocaine and amphetamines cause a severe psychological dependence but only a low to moderate physical dependence (some sources say no physical dependence). Benzodiazepines are the hardest drug to come off of and the most dangerous during withdrawal (severe psychiatric distrubances, protracted withdrawal syndromes and convulsions for example), but drugs with a high degree of psychological dependence are the hardest to stay off after withdrawal symptoms subside (due to craving the high). So it all comes down to how you define addiction. The fact is though benzodiazepines are abused/misused more commonly, illicitly than opiates. Actually the world health organisation wanted to move benzodiazepines into a higher schedule but were met with fierce opposition by Roche pharmaceuticals and lobbying efforts and in the end the world health organisation backed down. I think benzos would be in a higher schedule if they weren't a prescribed drug.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Life threatening withdrawal symptoms are rarely seen in benzodiazepines, in contrast with other sedatives, e.g. alcohol and barbiturates, where they are common. The withdrawal symptoms are usually unpleasant and require treatment in many cases. Abrupt withdrawal is contraindicated. Most of the milder symptoms are rebound of anxiety, unrest, sleeplessness, tension according to above ref. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Convulsions are not rare from benzodiazepines. There was actually a lot of suppression of the severity of benzo withdrawal when that paper was written, for example, the patent was still active and in effect on ativan and actually the MHRA of whom the committee on safety of medicines is a branch of or were a branch of actually sat on a clinical trial which showed convulsions in ativan users on therapeutic doses after only 6 weeks I think. I think 3 out of 12 people got convulsions (I would need to check the source for exact numbers). The MHRA sat on this information for I think it was 3 years from memory until the patent for ativan expired before releasing the data to doctors and the public about the risks of withdrawal convulsions. Infact withdrawal convulsions are more likely from benzodiazepines. Convulsions have occured in clinical trials of therapeutic doses taken for only a matter of weeks, but the likelyhood of convulsions from a 4 or 6 week drinking spree is highly unlikely so I reckon benzos are worse. I can get a quote from the head of the National Treatment Agency in the UK where he states that benzos are the hardest drug to come off of.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So people with a bad physical dependence will suffer and get very physically or mentally ill without their drug and people with a strong psychological dependence will get very strong cravings for the drug. Someone with a benzo dependence will suffer without their drug and a person with a cocaine dependence will suffer less without their drug than a benzo addict but will crave cocaine much more than a benzo dependent person would crave the effect of their benzos. A cocaine addict will crave the high and a benzo addict will "crave" relief of withdrawal symptoms (once dependence has developed). Benzos do have some likability similar to alcohol. People like the chilled out pleasant relaxed feeling and the sedative-hypnotic intoxicating effects but the euphoric properties are not as strong as crack cocaine or cocaine. Comments? Agree or disagree?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A very interesting discussion, which part of the text do you guys want to change? I can copy it here and you can redraft it. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed Tim. I am not sure, I will post more tomorrow.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact alcohol is more "pleasantly relaxing" than benzos. Personally I felt that benzos only cause an urge to go to bed and sleep immediately, even with a hint of dysphoria and grumpiness, don't want to see a single more minute of the silly TV drama and hear no single more word from my wife, just sleep. A good whiskey is enjoyable, these pills not. (-: Own research :-) I think the pills are abused, where alcohol is not legally available, namely underage kids. Also in societies where alcohol use is frowned upon, or where alcohol is unavailable due to religious law. I rate benzo sleeping pills low. They give a feeling of old paint thinner cloth, and you are glad if you don't notice, because you finally sleep. People who like the "pleasant chilled out feeling" probably are bums who have no money for a good whiskey, or they got kicked out of the liquor store because of their baby faces, or they obey societal rules and don't drink and don't want to be caught reeking of booze. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But then I am a grumpy old man anyway, and the above remarks are subjective. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that seizures occur only on abrupt withdrawal? I don't need to ask if we agree that these pills resemble huffing old paint thinner cloth? Your Committee says they have low abuse liability, mostly in people who are a little "predisposed" by being a little abnormal. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to focus on editing and discussing the text and sources. This general discussion of the topic isn't a very productive way to use your time. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. source says low abuse liabilty. Source says abuse mostly in people who are already a bit "predisposed". I don't care if suddenly the Committee got "paid by Roche" or "lobbied". Previously they were the only neutral source. Every source who doubts it is the pure Heroin is being paid by the Roche conspiracy. Me too. Cut it out. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No we don't agree that seizures only occur from abrupt withdrawal. Seizures occur during abrupt or over-rapid withdrawal. Fast withdrawals eg less than say 8 weeks from usually high doses can provoke them, not only cold turkey.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon please don't try to bad mouth me implying that I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist or something. Ironically you admitted on wikipedia that you worked for a drug company in research and development for 36 years.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon everytime you attack me I will attack back in self defense of my character. I have not and will not attack you first. I have tried being nice but it never works. I have come back on wikipedia after a week or so's break to find almost half a dozen personal attacks in one form or another. You need to cut it out.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit on the article
Moved abuse related part of History to Abuse. Deleted KGB part. Moved burglary statistics from Rare Side effects to Abuse, where it belongs. Deleted duplicates. Take a look 70.137.153.69 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem here; if anything, the Abuse section probably needs more serious trimming. I still think KGB/MKSEARCH might be worth a mention, but... we would indeed need better references. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted Abuse by regions and countries. Merged subchapters in, deleted duplicates. Please take a look. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Polished Abuse chapter, compacting facts with focus on the large picture, making it concise. Please take a look. Please no reversal as vandalism. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Polished Dependence chapter. I removed reference to psychotic withdrawal symptoms in 6 cases, where one patient took temazepam, nitrazepam and triazolam. The ref below only talks about:

2 patients: One with nitrazepam, the other with nitrazepam and triazolam

And: The occurence of such withdrawal symptoms is extremely rare

And: the psychotic reaction even more rare

And: gradual reduction recommended.

Dependence
This is another case where nitrazepam and triazolam got misrepresented as TEMAZEPAM AND nitrazepam and triazolam.

I was tempted to delete it, but just carried over "has rarely been observed" with "hypnotic benzodiazepines", and to reduce slowly and use diazepam. But I think it needs a better reference, and these misrepresentations of references bother me. Have just left it in as a placeholder.Again article does not cite ref properly! I wonder if nobody is proofreading the article against its references.

reference below, its in Japanese.

Two cases of psychotic state following normal-dose benzodiazepine withdrawal] [Article in Japanese]

Terao T, Tani Y.

Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.

We report two cases of severe withdrawal symptoms after abrupt discontinuation of a long-term normal-dose benzodiazepines (BZD) administration. Case 1, a 61-year-old man, suffered from delirium on the 7th day after abrupt discontinuation of nitrazepam, 10 mg/day. Case 2, a 49-year-old woman, suffered from auditory hallucination on the 4th day and visual cognitive disorder on the 5th day after abrupt discontinuation of nitrazepam, 5 mg/day, and triazolam, 0.5 mg/day. A withdrawal syndrome after discontinuation of normal-dose BZD is uncommon, and a psychotic withdrawal reaction is even more uncommon. We show how a continuous administration of BZD for a period of longer than 6 months and the presence of severe insomnia are risk factors predictive of a psychotic reaction. We also explain the predictive method used to determine the onset time of such a severe state. In the case of a psychotic state, we recommend intravenous diazepam injection. To prevent withdrawal reaction, we also recommend a gradual reduction after administration of normal-dose BZD.

PMID: 2902678 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE 70.137.181.232 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse: South America
There are claims lacking credibility and reliable source (BINLEA 2006) I can not see how they arrived there. Probably "police intelligence".

1. It makes no sense that they transform diazepam into the less active temazepam in laboratories.

2. Major crime sprees all over south America, caused and driven by temazepam. This is such an unspecific statement, that I tend to delete it.

Deleted the unverified source BINLEA 2006, replaced by fact tag, citation needed. Also quantitative detail. In this medical and now also forensic article I want to see reliable and verifieable and repeatable and broadly agreed research. Even "peer reviewed" is not good enough, as much has been claimed, investigated, suspected. Even less what the police thinks, "police intelligence". Cut such sources out, and also the journalism. This is an encyclopedia, not "police intelligence". Quantitative statements would be more credible. I hate the sensationalist, mushy and substanceless claims of this article. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse: Australia
The import numbers, prev chapter Border situation, domestic market indicators are lifted from BINLEA 2006 and maybe others. They talk about benzodiazepines generally, not temazepam. fixed. Main imported benzodiazepine was diazepam. Temazepam is "occasionally injected" This needs to be proofread against the refs, like the whole article, it turns out. I start regretting that I touched the article, but then it is supposed to become an encyclopedic entry, isn't it? Why are the other folks not discussing? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article again misrepresented other benzodiazepines as temazepam. The mentioned imports of "1000 capsules each, from Peru and Sri Lanka, both TEMAZEPAM", were actually both DIAZEPAM. DELETED! I am sick of this. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated forgery
The article misrepresented 1.4Mio seized Fenethylline tablets as Temazepam capsules. Deleted. Will proceed to delete related materials added at the same time. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you mistake a stimulant for temazepam? I'm starting to think misrepresentation is the right word here. Even the reference title was altered; there isn't a single report of a temazepam seizure in that document. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Source misrepresentation is a particularly insidious form of vandalism. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse North America: article claims temazepam abuse rivaled that of other benzodiazepines, in spite of being less prescribed. ref: DEA diversion stats. Here the ref

Illicit Distribution:

Individuals abusing benzodiazepines obtain them by getting prescriptions from several doctors, forging prescriptions, or buying diverted pharmaceutical products on the illicit market. Domestic and foreign products are found in the illicit market. Alprazolam is one of the top three prescription drugs illegally encountered. In 2006, as reported by the National Forensic Laboratory Information System, state and local drug laboratories analyzed 24,057 alprazolam, 6,360 clonazepam, 5,886 diazepam, 1,444 lorazepam, and 333 temazepam exhibits. In 2006, the DEA drug laboratories, as reported in the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence system, analyzed 384 alprazolam, 107 clonazepam, 179 diazepam, 60 lorazepam, and 22 temazepam exhibits.

The ref simply does not say this. deleted. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Africa, South America
The statements seem to be lifted from here, INCB 2005: http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/ar/2005/incb_report_2005_full.pdf Then benzodiazepines, amfepramon, buprenorphine, slimming pills have been promoted to be temazepam. fixed, replacing by benzodiazepines, diazepam, flurazepam. I seem to remember that the same ref has been used in other benzodiazepine articles. The wording seems so strangely familiar. De ja vue? Will check. This needs serious proof reading. Not by a neurotic, psychotic etc. like me ;-) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No trace of temazepam in Africa and South America so far. (BINLEA, UNODC, INCB) What remains in these is unspecific. Propose to delete these sections. Agree? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia
The truth is seemingly, that temazepam is commonly prescribed in Australia, even a little more than diazepam. Then it is/ has been diverted by heroin abusers, to beef up the action of their heroin, particularly during some market drought. So it was also occasionally injected. This may have developed into a local fad among junkies some time, somewhere, when heroin was scarce. No reason to suspect, that we will soon see bitching and moaning flocks of amputee-zombies roaming the streets all over the world. And it has little to do with the pharmaceutical properties. Injection of heroin together with ingested/injected benzodiazepines may give you a free ride in the black cab. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article sounded too much like a pharmaceutical version of the british zombie movie I saw. Except that they don't want to eat our flesh, but raid our medicine chest. But I think the article already got much better. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can cite a government report from australia which states high levels of benzodiazepine intravenous use. You are using original research. Why don't you cite sources to say that injection of temazepam (or benzos in general) is a fad some place somewhere i.e. isolated? I cannot believe that the editors and admins are agreeing with your original research and letting you delete to your hearts content especially when you are wrong in much of what you say. And you complain about Goodson and myself. Since when was original research (which is inaccurate I might add) reason for a deleting spree?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty certain temazepam is listed in aus as a schedule 4D drug, not S8 as the article suggests 220.240.24.226 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"...the Australian government decided to put it under a more restrictive schedule than it previously was,[50] and since March 2004 temazepam capsules have been withdrawn from the Australian market." I am a pharmacist, (and yes I'm Australian), and i sell the stuff rather frequently. So would someone like to tell me why it says here it was removed from the market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCyclone (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Danny, you sell gelatine capsules or tablet form temazepam? The article only says the capsules were removed from the market, not the tablet form. Are you saying gelatine capsules were not removed from the market in Australia?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finland
data here: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index44716EN.html

In Finland in 3420 suspected "drug drivers": 59% benzodiazepines: diazepam, alprazolam, temazepam, oxazepam, clonazepam.

I don't find the 82% here. Finland has a zero tolerance policy, which makes a violation to drive even with legally prescribed medications, if police think you are unsafe, i.e. you make a driving mistake. Insofar I can not see how to differentiate from abuse. Probably the entry doesn't belong into the Abuse section and into the article. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose to scrutinize all abuse data, after above questionable claims of the article. This Abuse chapter is in need of serious proof reading and reproducible references. The stakes are a bit higher than for investigational journalism. "Sensation: Cow with two heads foretells the future!" 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

UK
The situation and the discussion in the UK 2004, as reflected in the article, is best studied here:

http://www.benzact.org/execho.htm

and in the reply of the medical commission, link in the beginning of the text. These things have not been observed in the US with 100Mio prescriptions. The effect of date-raping, burglerizing, robbing and threatening Scotsmen, carried away to violent crime in benzo-induced dutch courage, is unknown here. Also the benzo-induced crippled mutants are unheard of. It must be a local fad. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is an incompatibility between benzodiazepines and Calvinism? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse UK refs: The statements are supported by quite dated refs. ref "Ashton" is dated 2002, before withdrawal of gel capsules and rescheduling 2003-2004. Ashton cites as ref "Stark et al" 1987. Unfortunately no abstract available in medline. This needs more work. Can somebody verify citations in this section? Newer references? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Finland
Propose to remove this too. See Finland above. These are data from traffic law violations with a methodically inseparable mix of legal prescription use and drug abuse. Insofar not comparable to the data available for the US, and not having the significance of the local injection fads known from Scotland and Australia, which led to rescheduling there. (For me the discussion about rescheduling and gel caps is the notable part, but also a bit duplicating "Legal Scheduling" chapter.) Take a look at the link I provided and read. Agree? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. in Finland in the suspected drivers in 82% (2006:88%) cases were detected substances which impair driving. 59% were BENZODIAZEPINES namely diazepam, alprazolam, temazepam, clonazepam. There was a change of driving law in 2003, leading to a sharp rise in case numbers: Zero tolerance. Deleted statements unsupported by ref. Now it is rather unspecific to temazepam. (and boring, nothing special) Propose to delete. Agree? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Asia, Pacific
For me the interesting part is the use in societies, where alcohol abuse is frowned upon (SE Asia) or religiously forbidden (Brunei,Malaysia), even if this connection may not sound politically correct and is not yet cited. Unfortunately I am not sure about Singapore in that matter, except that they are extremely anal about everything. I think the Malaysia part in "Other drugs" ref (the one with the fenetylline) is lifted from some UNODC paper. The people are all copying from each other, even verbatim, until in a circular citation chain they finally cite themselves without knowing. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgery Abuse Finland, VANDALISM
Here the real source: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index44983EN.html

The prevalence of temazepam of 82% relies on forgery. The true figure was 14%, after diazepam with 34%, alprazolam with I-forgot-%. See link. There they have the complete breakdown of the statistics, with a nice bar graph. Its the national report of Finland, unquestionable the cited ref of the article. This is a subtle form of vandalism, as I have claimed before. Vandalism, because intentionally the editors are misguided into wrong conclusions, the whole article is destroyed in its integrity and credibility by insidious mixing of false data with seemingly sound references. Only on close scrutiny and tedious proofreading of all references it becomes apparent, that this "scientifically well referenced article" is a piece of scientific fraud. This is what I have claimed for several months, and I think it is now time to intervene. All other benzodiazepine articles have also been worked by the same editors. I propose to scrutinize them. Please hunt down the incriminating edits with wiki-blame script and take action that this does not continue. I don't have the script, or the nerve to do it manually. I already did much. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This vandalism has occured by Thegoodson in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temazepam&diff=204515762&oldid=204415695 part of a long series of edits, adding 12k related material. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of diazepam tablets from Peru and Sri Lanka as temazepam capsules, and the misrepresentation of 1.4Mio fenethylline tablets as temazepam capsules are part of the same 12k series of edits. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In this series of edits, the whole international drug barons, the temazepam cartel, Mafia, Russians, etc. were added. Suddenly the cheesy report of the Strathclyde police mutated into half the worlds police hunting a Medellin like cartel of temazepam drug barons. (I guess with black CIA helicopters too) I kick all this material out. I advise to go through goodsons other edits too, he is all over the benzodiazepine articles. You can forget about the scientific facts and reliability of WP, with that kind of contributions.

Here the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temazepam&diff=204516227&oldid=203487845 have fun reading. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks damn like the mighty NLIEP at work. (National Low Intelligence Employment Program) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You could have made this much easier by stating the situation clearly. Instead I spent 20 minutes looking around for the graph, looking at his contributions, ect. Basically in this diff Thegoodson said that 82% of the drivers had temazepam, but only 14% do according to the graph on p. 78 of that report (pdf). This is strange, and you should ask him about it instead of assuming vandalism. Also, when you tell us about a table, tell us the page. I also agree that the information on drug abuse looked excessive. Most of that information should have went in the subarticle. We need to keep a summary style. II  | (t - c) 06:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of a long series of misrepresented facts by Goodson, found by tedious proofreading against the references. We can not ask him. He simply didn't answer to us, but instead stopped posting. He is not around for weeks since then. He said temazepam is the absolutely leading drug of abuse in this ref. There is nothing to be asked. It is contradicted. He named 1.4Mio temazepam capsules as police seizures. They were fenethylline tablets, after locating the reference. A whole series of hard to verify statements have been added, which turned out to be misrepresentations. I am now trying to bring the article to a point, where we can verify statements. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"This is what I have claimed for several months, and I think it is now time to intervene. All other benzodiazepine articles have also been worked by the same editors."

Editors plural, I assume that you have included me in this despite the fact I have never misrepresented a paper in my edits. Is it not hypocritical when you use every oportunity to slander me and my edits at every oportunity, fraudulently. You need to stop vandalising my reputation with lies. You are being more subtle now I see by just using plurals rather than naming me by name but still the same old tricks. I am tired of following you around defending myself. This needs to stop. I have had 6 months of this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Literaturegeek, I personally see most of these problems coming from edits by TheGoodson, perhaps due to English being their second language. I do however share the general concern that this article may still contain statements that appear to be supported by references, but these references may be misrepresented and do not in fact support the text in question. I'd expect this to be a matter of great concern for everybody, and I'd welcome your help to verify if the references match the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

hello Tim. It is of concern to me. You missed the point of my and entire subject of my post above though which I think should be of concern to.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubbing
Since we find that we can't trust much of the text of this article, I propose moving all the unverified text to Talk:Temazepam/draft and only replacing this in the article once it has been checked or corrected. Do other people think this is a good way forwards? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... could be. By the amount of copyright-infringing content that was removed, this article was easily a candidate for speedy deletion, and I must say I was tempted to recreate it from scratch as was done with Fluoxetine last year. At least stubbing (stubifying?) would keep the main article accurate while content is verified. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am finished so far. Your move. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tolerance revisited
I am still in strong opposition to the references disputing tolerance which I feel is totally inaccurate. This has already been discussed here.Talk:Temazepam The lader article actually says that there is no dispute over hypnotic tolerance but his paper is misquoted and misleading to the reader as it reads as if tolerance to the hypnotic properties is controversial (temazepam is only licensed and marketed as a hypnotic). The next paper disputing tolerance is a small scale study of 11 people which may have methodology problems in it's design. The third paper on the midazolam and temazepam at least one author is employed (and probably a multi millionaire by the looks of things) by just about every drug company going which as far as I am concerned explains a lot of why his study magically found results which contradicted just about everything that is known about hypnotic tolerance. Dr Allen who authored the midazolam and temazepam article is employed as a consultant for glaxosmithkline and publishes papers where he stands to gain financially and has been forced to disclose this in this paper. and a paid consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Orion Pharmaceuticals, Grants/Research Support: NIH, GSK Speakers' bureau: GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim .... Allen, Richard P = Consultant:GlaxoSmithKline, Respironics, Xenoport, IM Systems. consultant: Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Orion Pharma, consultant: Sepracor. Norvatis, Speaker Bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Wife-financial :IM Systems.

Richard P. Allen, PhD has received grant or research support from IM Systems, Inc., has served as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Schwarz Pharma, Inc., and has received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., and Schwarz Pharma, Inc.

I think that it is time to remove the pseudoscience from the tolerance section.

I think that I have been pretty fair minded and have made several concessions and I believe my argument over the tolerance section is valid. Anon 70.137 has been allowed free reign to delete massive amounts of the article but I really feel that I am not getting any concessions here at all. I do accept there are some concerns about copyrite etc so obviously deletions needed to be done. Why was anon allowed to delete the KGB stuff? The concensus was that that stayed although there was some talk of perhaps shortening it a bit. I think some fairness needs to be applied here.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have specific concerns about the reliability of sources, these are best discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, so you can get wider community involvement. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See this is what I mean. Anon disputes the reliability of something (eg it is from the BBC not peer reviewed, journalistic [even though news sources are considered reliable sources on wikipedia]), not a problem just delete it. Even the wikipedia rules of reliable sources don't apply to anon 70.137. If I dispute something I have to go through masses of bureaucracy. Besides few people specialise in benzos anyway so I will just get people ignorant on the subject matter from the noticeboard passing their views. Tolerance to hypnotic properties was controversial amongst experts in the 1970's but not so now. Even the drug companies no longer try to promote that benzos retain their hypnotic properties. They only argue about whether the anxiolytic properties retain their benefit.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok serious question, would yourself Tim and Fvasconcellos be willing to make the addiction section of the tobacco article more neutral with all views included. There have been plently of papers and "professional" opinions which found and concluded that tobacco was non addictive and did not produce dependence. Infact recent changes in the definition of addiction requires that a person loses control of their drug misuse with dosage escalation, not a typical feature of tobacco "dependent" people. I can dig out more than enough information to dispute that tobacco is addictive. I would like to know if the same standards will be applied if I edit that article. I have the concern that because benzos are prescribed that there is a bias. Will Tim and Fvasconcellos make edits to the tobacco article if I help them to dig out the information? It shouldn't matter if the information is industry funded or not. We won't mention that in the tobacco article just dispute that tobacco is addictive and dispute that tolerance and dependence occurs. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am being serious. Also LSD has a section (which actually isn't even referenced like it was here on this article) about the CIA and MKULTRA's use of LSD. Since referenced material was deleted from the temazepam article without concensus I would like the admins to apply neutrality across the wiki articles and delete material from the LSD article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we can not wait to fix this article, until all other addiction and drug related articles are fixed. We, or the admins, can also not make fixes to this article contingent on fixes of other articles, or those of other articles contingent on this one. There is no such things as equal standards. Most articles about psychoactives are full of crap. Hi mom, I'm wasted. The benzodiazepines are primarily medications, but have a medical aspect of abusability, tolerance, dependence to them. Criteria, see WP:MEDMOS.

LSD and MKULTRA: Is relatively easy to check from some declassified papers. LSD as a subversion agent etc. is also easy to check, from a teaching book, which concludes it is not suitable: The victim notices, that it has been drugged, by seeing angry fruit salad. Every doctor who has seen freaked out hippies can diagnose and treat it. Every hippie recognizes it and asks where they got the good stuff from, and if he can have a few more to take home. etc. But what they want is a stuff, which doesn't show up in any drug screen, if you don't know exactly what you are looking for with GC/MS, and which passes every differential diagnosis as schizophrenia. 3 months and 1 kilowatt-hour of ECTs later the patient is released from the looney bin as improved. He doesn't believe any more that L. Ron Hubbard / god / Hare Krishna/ Lavrentiy Beria selected him to be incarnation/ reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard/ god/ Charles Manson/ Gandhi/ Papa Doc Duvalier/ Lavrentiy Beria, and/or to work in addictions, but still believes sleeping pills are a mind control drugs. Underline applicable. ;-)

Tobacco: Give me a break. Like alcohol a cultural thing. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes cultural, we can edit the tobacco article to say that tobacco is not addictive but it's use is more influenced as part of the culture. We are thinking on the same wave length now. Anyway my post above was addressed to Tim and Fvasconcellos.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway my main issue is with the tolerance section moreso than the MKULTRA and KGB stuff.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I guessed you would be satisfied with our discussion of the KGB topics. So we can delete that from the list? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Smoking
I didn't think benzodiazapines could be smoked. What's the boiling point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.139.144 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing this article, difficulties
Anon I am finding it difficult to keep my cool when you keep trying to get people to come over here to the temazepam page to attack me or side with you against me as you did on the edinburgh page where I was forced to defend myself yet again.Talk:Edinburgh.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

citecheck
Can somebody verify ref Hammersley et al. against statement in the article. Abstract does not yield it. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If it says DIAZEPAM, I am more willing to believe it. I want to have it checked anyway. But by somebody else. (Goodson doesn't respond, because ROCHE put a contract on him, I guess) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

citecheck Ashton 2002
Ashton 2002 is a (partially) reprint of a much more dated article of hers, with minor rework. It still relies on abuse data Stark 1987 as a ref. All her refs are very dated. The focus is on injecting drug abusers. How much of the statements is still valid? How much is valid outside the domain of injecting drug abusers? The scope of many statements is not very clearly stated, I like to narrow it down. (time, collective, raw data, primary references) So far the Ashton ref doesn't meet criteria for a scientific reference, because it doesn't provide these. So I presume that the book is more addressed to the lay audience. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are joking.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am serious, for the reasons above. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon you need to provide references saying that injection of benzos no longer happens. You need to offer citations and not your original research and original opinions.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Not I need references to prove that it doesn't happen any more. But I can simply not extrapolate references into the future after their date if they describe time variable data and facts. Obviously abuse statistics are time variable, as are other time statistics. We can only state what the reference says, at that time. This is not original research, but the rule of citations. If the ref says, 1990-1992, it is that. Not 1992-2008. I want to know when, where, who, by what data. And then we state that exactly. And a ref from 1987 is not good to state facts after that date, if we look at statistics. The whole article suffers from that, and we will fix that. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I support you writing the dates which you have done of when the findings were found. Are you arguing that the entire citation should be deleted though?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I want a citecheck of the claims against her fulltext references. The same for the whole section. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pill pictures
Do we need pill pictures, brand as well as generic, in the articles? I think not, given the number of brands, you need too many. They don't really add information, and if we are fair we have to include all, including generics, or remove all. 70.137.180.247 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article is titled temazepam not Restoril® or other brand name, so calling any picture of it as generic is redundant. I'll update the caption of the image. If any other free images of other generic "brands" are added by editors, they should each be considered accordingly. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if we have Restoril pictures, why not also Mylan 4010, to be fair. Or remove all for neutrality vs. generic manufacturers and for being brand neutral. So how about removing all for neutrality? 70.137.180.247 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutrality just isn't an issue here. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would buy either the brand name or a certain type of generic of this controlled substance based on images shown in this article. If more images are uploaded and added to the article to the point that there are so many images to be distracting, then maybe this should be reconsidered. But several images in an article make the page more informative, readable, and attractive. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Next month when I need a refill on this, I'm probably going to be going to a different pharmacy and they usually have a different brand of this, half green half white capsule. Not sure what the manufacturer is. I can upload an image of that too if you think it would improve the article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides the given reason, that several images in an article make the page more informative, readable, and attractive - are there any factual reasons which make the pill pictures notable?

What in the pictures makes them informative, in the sense of information content? About what do they inform? What do they say? Is what they say notable?

I still do not see a message beyond "This is how pills look", and "this is what is imprinted on them". Please explain what the benefit of knowing this is.

Please explain what the benefit of more instances of such information is, in the sense of how educating and notable are many such pictures compared to one or none.

Do the pictures really make the article more readable?

Do the pictures really make the article more attractive?

Attractive to WHOM? 70.137.184.193 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your problem. Images like this are in many drug-related articles such as Fluoxetine. If you want the image deleted, then nominate it for deletion. Plus, you really should get a real account instead of just using new IPs. Usernames are actually more private than anon accounts. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also pictures don't have to be individually notable, only the subject of the article. If the picture represents the subject of an article, it is notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, article content doesn't fall under WP:N but the question is legitimate - what does a picture of a generically imprinted pill add to a drug article, temazepam or other? Pills just look like...pills. Free content or not, have we increased the knowledge-content of the article? St3vo (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic there should be no picture of any pill in all of Wikipedia since everyone knows what a pill looks like and they all look the same? I don't think that's a tenable position. The image shows an easily identifiable sample of the drug that's the subject of this article. It's clearly appropriate and adds to the article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I believe the informative value of pill pictures is near zero, except for the identification of the drug. In the case of non-proprietary medications the number of generic manufacturers and related key codes is frequently so large, that an exhaustion of the list would exceed the scope of the drug articles. But only an exhaustive list is usable for easy identification of a drug or medication. This list would have then also to be ordered in reverse, sorted by color code, imprint/key code/manufacturer.

This is the topic of drug identification books and data bases. Just having a 10% chance of looking at the article and saying "wow I recognize my pills" is useless. If you are in great doubt about the medication the pharmacist handed out you better use google. I can not see a valuable addition to the article, unless someone explains it to me. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a google finds a non-exhaustive list of 27 temazepam pills with picture at drugs.com. It shows an orange Mylan 4010 = 15mg. The yellow capsules in your picture are probably orange, overexposed photo. The size of such list would be greater than 27 pictures, which is really impractical. We don't know what they have in the many other English speaking countries. We also don't know about imports etc., many generic OTC in the US are an Israeli brand. So 2-3 pictures are really only a very small sample without any identification value. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically an all or nothing argument. Such arguments for removing is specifically meant to be avoided by Wikipedia policy. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But see WP:INDISCRIMINATE - we're simply saying that the image is not notable for inclusion in the article, which is a legitimate argument. To clarify, I don't believe that there should be no pictures of pills at all, but I'd personally like to stick to the brand name/original-patent versions for precisely the reason stated above by anon70 - there are dozens of nondescript generics, lacking any unique characteristics other than an imprint number (unlike, say, the K in Klonopin branded clonazepam). I'd really like to hear some other opinions on the matter, since there is clearly no consensus here. If the general feeling is that generic pill pictures should stay, I'm more than happy to shut up about it, but it's a reasonable discussion to have, and there are broad implications for other drug pages. Best, St3vo (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE has nothing to do with this. I get the feeling that you all are not very familiar with the application of these rules in real world articles. Look, the article is about temazepam, this is a bottle of temazepam. It illustrates the subject quite nicely to show how it is sold on the market and is far more illustrative than the simple DEA reference blister pack image. In an article about milk, would you expect that a bottle of every single brand name and packaging would need to be shown if one is shown? I would think not. You are building a Straw man argument. If you want to open this up to further comment through some type of Wikipedia process, then be my guest, but I don't think any more bickering here between just us is going to solve anything. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Several points to make: a) many medications are now only made in generic form. b) many of those generic medications are made by one manufacturer (sometimes the original manufacturer at that) and then sold to other manufacturers who re-sell it under their own name (ie: mylan). As a result c) many generics sold by different companies look the same and indeed are the same. You will also find certain medications only come in certain forms (capsule vs tablet), despite having different manufacturers.  Regardless, as long as we dont end up with a huge gallery of different pills for a single medication, I think they serve a purpose and deserve inclusion.--Nsaum75 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the way these policies are commonly used in XFD debates, but I fail to see how the statement: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" does not apply to this situation. You're welcome to disagree with my assertion but I think it's perfectly acceptable to at least discuss the merit of pill images. Fvasconcellos directed me to this conversation from last year on this very same issue, and Nsaum75 has made some excellent points. I think we can all agree that some pill images are suitable for inclusion - which? St3vo (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nsaum75 has indeed some point, in that for some medications the original is not manufactured any more. But we see already 27 plus different generics for temazepam, and I am afraid showing one of them forces us to include all. The article is pretty much cluttered after that. The which? is then really the question because we have to be neutral and I don't know if brand name neutrality could become a legal issue. Somebody else may decide that, I am not a lawyer. These 27 don't look alike, but differ in color code and imprint. See here

A previous search delivered a non-exhaustive list of 27 different versions of this medication. A full list would be much larger.

There is nothing to be illustrated, which has not yet been illustrated by the pictures of Restoril, and even these don't explain much. It says in the article it are pills. The DEA reference picture shows what is known as "pills" to the general public, to make sure the police understands what pills are. In an article about milk I would not expect a picture of a milk bottle in an encyclopedia. I would expect this picture of a milk bottle in an article for learning how to read, for healthy three year olds, or for other-gifted adult readers. Don't cite false analogy now, but the same is true for your pill picture. I may remind you that the article is targeted to the broad public, including the educated reader. It is not targeted to a special and other-gifted subpopulation, which indeed could be misguided by misconceptions arising from the text, the statistics and the chemical formula. Could you maybe in simple words explain, for us only, what you mean by a straw man argument? I fail to see a connection, after following the link. Besides, we are not bickering here, but we are discussing. Please keep your appeal to processes reserved for the night court, where this will be a striking argument, I am convinced. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the picturte. What is wrong with showing people what it looks like?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.55.18 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like this picture, the generic bottle look unappetizing.

And I already know how pills look. The Restorils look nicer, mmmm. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose in case of generic commodities, like paracetamol, to show no picture, if there is not a reason which makes the pills special in any sense. Otherwise we have to include all 500... And it really shows only how nondescript pills in an unappetizing pharmacy bottle look. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am against removal of the photos. They are a informative and useful addition to the articles.  When you look at other articles, like Bottled water or Toothpaste or even Soft drink, there are multiple photos of each, despite the fact that there are many different designs and types of bottled water, toothpaste and soft drinks.  Getting even more specific, if you look up Cola there are examples of not only the brand name Coca-Cola but also a generic brandless cola as well as a glass of cola.  Would this not be the same as looking up Restoril and seeing photos of the brand drug as well as generics? Precidence exists all over Wikipedia for the inclusion of example photos of both brand-name and off-brand items articles, and I don't see why that wouldn't and shouldn't apply to medication as well. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We didn't yet arrive at the conclusions how they are informative and useful. This question has never been answered in the discussion, except by proposing it helps in identification. But this has been refuted by the large number of generics, which would have to be included to be useful in identification. So the words "informative" and "useful" still stand as a conjecture. That this is also the case for ACME brand tooth paste, foot balm and milk is another issue and not binding in this discussion. We have to leave these issues to the editors of the other articles. I cannot see any consequence for us derived from such articles per analogy. My personal view is that this is below the expectations for an encyclopedia, but I have mentioned it already, above.

70.137.184.193 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As we are now at analogies, the whole discussion here reminds me of the wonderful movie "Idiocracy", which you will have to watch. There is a steadily repeating discussion about the Gatorade-like drink "Brawno", which in this futuristic America has taken the place of tap water. All the desperate arguments of the only normal-intelligent person are answered by steady repetitions of the formula "But Brawno contains electrolytes. Brawno is the thirst mutilator!" from the steadily repeated TV ad, which is being watched around the clock by the (idiot) population, while munching from a trash bag size package of chips, and drinking "Brawno" from a bucket size mug. Cheers! 70.137.184.193 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheerio! 70.137.184.193 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can all vote for Bush next time, and then wait for another 10 years, and at that time the argument is settled by the fact, and such additions are commonly regarded as highly informative and useful, like this:

''Temazepam, the sleeplessness mutilator. Relax baby - no more bad dreams and no more bad memories. Because it is a pure agonist.''

Then we have finally arrived in the future we deserve. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope, by your analogy, that you are not referring to yourself as the "only normal-intelligent" person, while the rest of us are the "(idiot) population". I am trying to assume WP:Good Faith, but your last few edits seem to follow that stream of thought. Please forgive me if I am mistaken. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to overstretch the concept of analogy here, as I said above I feel that analogies are not binding to us. But it really makes me worry if the condensed discussion is:

1) These pictures are informative and useful.

2) Why are they then informative and useful, and to whom, and for what?

3) Because they are informative and useful and others do/say that too! and goto 1)

And I am saying this in good faith, and I may repeat point 2) because point 1) stands as a conjecture, because 2) has not been answered. and 2) has been stated by others too. So, from now on we will be able to shorten the discussion by just saying 1) and 2) I mind that we are not moving forward from 3), and proceed to answer 2)

And please don't divert the topic to "you and us and the good faith", a discussion can not answer a question by repeating the initial statement. Repetition does not make it more true. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing from your user page and talk page, I am not the first person to ask what pictures of generic ciprofloxacin pills, paracetamol, mouthwash and toothbrushes, as well as Oral B products have to search in an encyclopedia. The question remains unanswered, as well as the question WHY this is informative and useful and to WHOM and for WHAT. Suspecting that I am overstretching above analogy doesn't answer the question but diverts it into an AD HOMINEM.

After you have demonstrated what Oral B looks like, I will now proceed to demonstrate what Anal A looks like. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in the opinion that you are in a process of establishing and broadening a precedent, which will allow to include an indefinite number of related pictures of brand and no-name products into articles without having answered the question of usefulness and informative value. The more broadly such a precedent is established, the less it will allow us to ask the initial question how informative and useful these pictures are, and to whom and for what. I am convinced that such a broad precedent will lead to a rising and in principle unlimited number of inclusions of brand name products also, which would previously have been regarded as non-notable. But the precedent of inclusion of nondescript generic products will then preclude a rejection on grounds of lacking notability. For this reason I stay with my proposal to remove nondescript generic products as pictures and limit the inclusion of example pictures to cases where such a picture has a definite, agreed and reasonable information value and usefulness, based on and proven in the single case.

Otherwise we will have a repetition of the above non-discussion over and over with each new inclusion of a picture and without an upper limit in principle, increasingly biased towards unchecked inclusion, by the existence of a broader and broader precedent, which becomes more firmly established with each such case. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Consequently, I reject the inclusion on grounds of establishing a new precedent for a lower limit of notability, namely zero. I propose to remove such cases from the articles. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Anal A"? I take that as an instance of WP:PA. I'm also getting the feeling that WP:Wikilawyering is going on here. But to each their own. You have your opinion, I have mine. --Nsaum75 (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation. I am Anal A, namely about the exclusion of non-notable pictures, which establish a new lower bound of notability. They open WP to spam articles, like in Oral B. And stop feeling attacked personally all the time. I am talking about ME. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you instead please explain, what the informative value and the usefulness of such pictures is, as in the case of generic pills and Oral B, where you posted the picture of a bottle of mouthwash? Is this an ad leaflet for a drugstore? Today 50% off? Or is it an encyclopedia? I would not mind the pictures, if I can print out a coupon for 50% off, and we call it Discount-o-pedia. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said, you have your opinion about articles and I have mine. Wikipedia is about building Consensus.  You asked for people's opinions on whether or not articles should include pill photos, and myself and others have given them to you.  Some may agree with you point of view and some may not.


 * As for the Cipro article, the person was not opposed to using a pill photo, but rather was concerned about promoting a particular brand. The photo is of no particular brand and I believe the situation was settled. It had nothing to do with the situation we are discussing here -- whether to include photos of pills; therefore your argument using that incident is moot.


 * Furthermore, if you have issues with other items I have contributed (ie: the photo of the Chlorhexidine mouthrinse), please feel free to take them to their respective talk page, however the temazepam talk page is not the place for their at-length discussion. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I may remind you, that YOU have brought up the analog cases of "Soft Drink", "Bottled Water" and "Coca Cola" as a precedent to prove how reasonable such inclusions are. I have only allowed myself to add a few more such cases, for illustration, as I know you are familiar with them.

If you don't insist on their function as a precedent, we can now proceed to see, that the concern is the inclusion of nondescript noname pictures, as the precedent for the inclusion of non-notable brand products as SPAM.

The Oral B article is an example of such an article, which reads like an ad. You have contributed the picture there, so you are familiar with the problem of articles looking like an ad. IMO candidate for speedy deletion. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But if you can arrange that all such articles allow to print out coupons for the goods shown in the pictures, I will drop the objection, and we call it Discount-o-pedia. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you think, this is not a discussion, but you are here to give your opinion as a VOTE, then I am wasting my breath. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 70.137.184.193 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from my talk page
This discussion is more appropriately placed here:

Please stop adding pictures of "generic pill bottle" with "generic pills". They just look like "generic pills" from a "generic pill bottle" and everybody knows how "generic pills" and "generic pill bottles" look. Uninformative, not particular to temazepam, could as well be worm medicine. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a useful picture, and the markings on the capsules clearly show that they are temazepam. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Anon137 here - I don't see how a picture of generic pills adds to the article, labeled or not. Could you clarify why you feel it is a useful image? Thanks, St3vo (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is clearly the item in question (as seen if you look at the markings on the capsule in full quality) in the form it is sold. And the image is free (self-made and released to the public domain). I have no idea why it's objectionable. It's not like that article is overflowing with pictures. Wikipedia generally likes to add more pictures to articles when free. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like having a picture, but that particular pic could be almost any bottle of pills as I could not read it on full size. Since you took it yourself, how about retaking it with a closer image of the text on the pills.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't read "Mylan 4010" on the capsules when viewed at full size? In any case, I'll try to put an inset with a closeup that is readable at the size of the image in the article in it. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I uploaded a new version with an inset of a closeup clearly showing the capsule markings. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if we have pictures of Restoril brand, why not also Mylan 4010. WP has to be neutral. 70.137.180.247 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You prevent a consensus by blocking the discussion on the talk page. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued
The talk page isn't affected by the semi protection on the article page. You say the image in question is spam, why don't you nominate for deletion as such then as I suggested before? -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we have to discuss the informative value and usefulness first. The same runs for the Restoril picture. I am not convinced that the historical patent situation has to play a role. Given that there are more than 27 different Temazepam pills on the market, we have to decide, if such pictures are informative and useful, including the original brand name drug. I doubt. it. Otherwise we run into a repetition of the same discussion next time - if Mylan Inc., why not also a different manufacturer? After all such pictures with the manufacturer name are also a contribution to PR. This would indeed turn the article into a drugstore ad, as I said. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So the open questions are: Why are they useful and informative? And which of the much more than 27 different existing pills?

I really think that the inclusion of generics is also a precedent for more such inclusions, without practical limit.

The argument would repeat itself, if the other pictures are informative and useful, why not this new one? The early birds would have an unfair advantage if we find no arument other than a quantitative limit. Then the question would not only be which pictures, but also how many. With a broad precedent standing it would be hard to argue why we could not have 21 pictures, if we already have 20, etc. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 70.137.147.62 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not images of 27 different types of the pill on the page, so this is a total non-issue. Several examples of such images exist in plenty of other articles, so if you want to build a consensus to remove all, maybe you should take your argument to the talk page of the pharmaceutical project rather than here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a total non-issue because it builds a precedent. And there are more than 27 such different temazepam pills around. So which to include? Why is it useful and informative? 70.137.147.62 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We include what we have available. And the only precedent we have is to include images such as this one (see fluoxetine, paracetemol, Diazepam, and myriad others). If better images become available, then a decision should be made as to what to do. Please, please, read up on building consensus and figure out a cogent and consistent reason to remove this image and go to the appropriate forum to build a consensus. It's obvious no clear consensus will be built here as it is, even though there is a link to this discussion on the pharma project talk page. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that no clear consensus builds her. The matter is not important enough to be solved in a stringent and principle driven matter. So we have leave such consensus to the future, should the development of a pill-catalog like or drugstore ad like article make it urgent. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, in principle I am "Anal A" in preserving the encyclopedic quality of the article. But it is also clear to me that WP will not have the exactly same qualities as a redacted Britannica. In exchange for many less notable entries like Oral B etc. it also contains more contemporary and business related information than the Britannica, and this is clearly less academic but still useful. It is just a different type of encyclopedia, I have to concede, as shown in articles like "Ford Crown Victoria" etc. Where exactly the limits of notability and "nice to have" entries are, will be the result of future consensus. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 70.137.147.62 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are agreeing that no consensus to remove the image exists? And you will not try to unilaterally try to remove it again without such of a consensus formed? If so, i'll try to request an early lifting of the semi-protection on the page so you and other IP editors are able to make constructive edits sooner. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to complain about the manner in which "regulars" are locking out IP editors. I have to complain about false accusations of 3rr, vandalism, edit warring, personal attack, et. in which regulars and admins are always partial against IP editors. I see no further point in contributing to the project. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well whatever. If you want to contribute constructively, request the page be unprotected on the request for page protection page or just wait until it expires on March 8 -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit the page any more. It is yours. And look in the edit history for my edits (70.137.x.x) and you see they were constructive best efforts to improve the article, and indeed improved it a lot. I have taken on myself the tedious proofreading against dozens of hard to find sources. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD: you were bold, you were reverted, now discuss and wait until there's a consensus for your proposed change before applying it. You missed that and reinserted and claimed 3rr and IP vandalism. Now keep your change. May somebody else argue it with you. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr
May someone please provide a CliffsNotes™ version of this discussion? Are we just arguing the merits of using an image which looks neither distinctive nor representative of the drug? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A short note is on your talk page archive. We are arguing the inclusion of non-notable generic pill pictures. I have raised concerns that there are more than 27 generics of temazepam out there, and the inclusion of generics like that could as a precedent lower the threshold of notability for brand name products in the future, as already exemplified by Oral-B mouthwash, which reads like a drugstore ad. I concede that this is a trade off of contemporary and business related content against scientific and encyclopedic quality. No consensus has been reached. I have to complain about the methods of muffling dissent by filing false 3rr and IP-vandalism reports as well as reports of disruptive behavior. In consequence I have withdrawn from the discussion. 70.137.142.217 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)