Talk:Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 December 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy articles
A fact from Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This revert should be undone. It reintroduced structural issues, such as "Jane" and "January 10" appearing in the intro and nowhere else. Worse, some misleading statements are made about the letter and its authors (who both appear to still be living, thus BLP applies). "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered" makes it sound as though there was something wrong with the letter itself, but the cited sources do not suggest that. A partial quote from Jick at the end makes it sound like he was taking some blame for what followed, whereas the full quote in the cited source does not give that impression at all. Granted, the article does indicate that the letter was misrepresented, but not everyone will read the whole article, and the "Methodological limitations" section currently appears before the "Misrepresentation" section. This can all be resolved by simply undoing the last revert, which appeared to have nothing to do with actual content. 176.115.14.1 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar [1] who has been using multiple proxy IPs. He is the reason that the article was locked a few days ago. Per block evasion any requests from this user should be denied. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This revert should be undone. In addition to the points raised above, "the other letters to the editor in the same issue of the Journal as Porter and Jick's letter had been cited a median of 11 times" turns out to be inaccurate. The cited source says that it was letters published within four weeks of that one, not just letters published in that same issue. 37.119.12.180 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody who is a Wikipedian in good standing (i.e. not one of Belteshazzar's many, many sockpuppets) has opinions on this then we can discuss it. Belteshazzar just needs to go away. DanielRigal (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the L.A. Times article isn't accessible to everyone, but the analysis it cites is here: For context, we also ascertained the number of citations of other stand-alone letters that were published in nine contemporaneous issues of the Journal (in the index issue and in the four issues that preceded and followed it). So the current article is clearly inaccurate when it says In comparison, the other letters to the editor in the same issue of the Journal as Porter and Jick's letter.
Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered might technically be accurate, but is certainly misleading, since the authors only claimed to have studied patients who were given narcotics while hospitalized. Likewise, the partial quote from Jick The letter wasn't of value to health and medicine in and of itself. So if I could take it back—if I knew then what I know now, I would never have published it. It wasn't worth it. is not a fair representation of everything he said in the NPR interview. He clearly was not taking blame, though that partial quote could lead one to believe otherwise.
Then there are structural issues, such as "January 10" and "Jane" appearing in the intro and nowhere else. Also, The authors concluded that of the 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic drug, only four of them had developed a "reasonably well documented" addiction among patients who had no history of addiction. is awkward and unnecessary, since the full text of the letter immediately follows. This can all be fixed by undoing the revert, which had nothing to do with content. 151.60.89.1 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares what you have to say because you have been blocked on many accounts for repeated sock-puppetry and vandalism and also blocked on about 16 proxy IP addresses. Per WP:BLOCKEVASION your requests will be denied and any of your edits can be reverted. We are not undoing any reverts for a long-term vandal such as yourself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, opinions on whether this coverage needs improvement are very welcome from anybody who is not Belteshazzar (or any other known vandal). If you want to, then please make a suggestion for a specific change. Please ignore any attempts by sockpuppet IPs to hijack or disrupt the discussion. There is no need to even read their comments. In fact, I suggest that we just remove all such kvetching in order to make space for sensible discussion among editors acting in good faith. DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 