Inacurate

[edit]

I don’t see the statements are all supported when reading the references, and the posting seems to be written intentionally to diminish the problems with Fentanyl, suggesting the possibly this was written by someone with interests in the Fentanyl industry. How is anyone to know?

It would be nice if someone could provide a more evidenced discussion of Fentanyl. 2600:1702:3070:7600:8CF1:DF03:8998:3694 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What statements? What references? What posting? Meters (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You claim the following: "...[T]he posting seems to be written intentionally to diminish the problems with [f]entanyl, suggesting the possibly this was written by someone with interests in the [pharmaceutical] industry". First, what are these problems you claim exist with fentanyl? Second, please explain how this article appears to be written by the pharmaceutical industry. I cannot find any significant adverse reactions to fentanyl that exist which have been not documented in some degree by this article. Furthermore, I've struggled to find this alleged bias you speak of. I looked at the user names of recent contributors to this article and have found none with names like User:JanssenPharmaceuticaRep or similar. There is little to suggest that fentanyl is any but a safe and effective medication when its carefully used according to preparation labelling and dispensed under the supervision of a physician for a valid medical purpose. If you can find anything to back-up your claims, please let me know. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has had almost three months to respond, so there's not much point in asking for clarification of the drive-by complaint. Meters (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's true. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FENTANIL???

[edit]

Perhaps this is correct - can anyone provide a citation? BeingObjective (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you questioning the validity of that spelling? There are numerous sources that use the "i" spelling. If you want a source then just add one of them. Meters (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedy - and in the US and in a clinical setting - ME - I have not seen the variant spelling - my OR world might be very small - but I ran numerous checks - it is NOT that big of a deal - I guess. BeingObjective (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several Wikipedians have stated this is so - not a one has given a legitimate source of the variant - BeingObjective (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeingObjective:Looking at the results of my cursory Google search more closely, I'm not seeing any solid sources for this spelling. There are quite a few search results that seem to show "fentanil" as appearing on a web page when actually it does not. It appears that the term is being added to page descriptions to catch misspelled searches. Other pages do use "fentanil" but with wording very similar to Wikipedia's "Fentanyl, also spelled fentanil," and may just copies from Wikipedia. This article has included the supposed alternate spelling since 2010, when it was added by an IP [1]. If no-one can come up with a solid reliable source that cannot be a case of citogenesis then WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Meters (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this - it might seem to some a trivial matter - but I was fairly certain it has no solid bases - I tried to correct this previously and got really beaten up - I will likely just leave it for some future individual - I have so many Admin warnings I'm trying to play super nice - many thanks again. BeingObjective (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the small change - I am expecting to be kicked off for edit warring - I really do not see this as that - it has been a fairly painful WP initiation - I do feel rather attacked -- BeingObjective (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a valid, straightforward change. There are fentanyl analogues that end in “-nil”, so maybe that's where the confusion came from. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the comment - it is appreciated.
Kind regards BeingObjective (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sedation and analgesia in intensive therapy:

Other opioid agents used in IT are: fentanil, alfentanil, sufentanil.

The search for the "next" euphoric non-fentanil novel synthetic opioids on the illicit drugs market: current status and horizon scanning:

A detailed review on the chemistry and pharmacology of non-fentanil novel synthetic opioid receptor agonists, [...]

It occurs infrequently enough that it probably doesn't belong in the first sentence, as long as the redirect from Fentanil stays. Kimen8 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply fine with that - many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written

[edit]

Thanks for doing such good work on this article, all. Important work 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 content removals, including "False reports by police of poisonings through secondary exposure"

[edit]

There has been a lot of content removal from this article since 1 May 2025. This includes an edit by @Sacristy aka @Traumnovelle to remove the section "False reports by police of poisonings through secondary exposure" with the comment

This section just gives undue weight to media hysteria with no medical basis, tis article already has an issue with US-centrism and this section further exacerbates this. There is already information on the transdermal effect of fentanyl
— User:Sacristy

I recently found a Fact Check, and I think the section is WP:DUE because it's a myth of great concern in the US. The US Senate is considering a bill based on fentanyl myths. Therefore, I decided to revert. There may be other removed material worth recovering. Looking forward to feedback. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>because it's a myth of great concern in the US
And of utterly no concern outside of it.
The article already suffers from an issue with a US-centric focus and trifling details from news-reports only further exacerbates this issue. This is content that belongs in Opioid abuse in the United States not a broad coverage article that is supposed to be global in coverage.
The section you've restored is longer than the synthesis section for example, that seems undue to me. This isn't information you'd find in a secondary source dedicated to fentanyl/opioids but instead specific sources to the issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"content that belongs in Opioid abuse in the United States" Bad idea for a new article. We already have Opioid epidemic in the United States, we do not need a fork article. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to that article. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is worth including in the article, but probably more briefly under the Society and culture section. Soapwort (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose Section

[edit]

The Overdose section ends with a long, rambling statement that is in no way related to ref #88. I think the entire part of the section attributed to ref #88 should be struck. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a sentence that I presume you were referring to. Just to note the page is not protected so you are welcome to make the edit yourself. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Neuropharmacology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 8 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Idontwannaliveforever (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tnguyen16 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]