Talk:British Pharmacopoeia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	British Pharmacopoeia is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Edit by the BP's Editor[edit]

Whilst I appreciate User:Vallenderm from this edit that you state "Expanded by the Editor in Chief of the British Pharmacopoeia Mrs Matilda Vallender (matilda.vallender@mhra.gsi.gov.uk) to reflect the current rage of products and services provided by the BP", normally one is not meant to edit articles about topics or products one is personally involved with, please see the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I appreciate though your openness in indicating who you are :-)

You obviously will have detailed knowledge on the BP, and thus will be a great source for improving both this and a number of other wikipedia articles. Let me highlight some policies, else your edits potentially risk being reverted as biased or promotional (for the BP). The issues are that all information in an encyclopaedia must be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify. As an involved party, you risk being seen as lacking objectivity and WP:Neutral point of view.

As an example, the current version includes the sentence "Now used in over 100 countries with exposure in most continents of the world, the British Pharmacopoeia sets the standard for pharmaceutical compliance across the globe". Now whilst this may be true (and indeed as a Brit I too would like to think so), but without citing a source for the opinion that it "sets the standard", this seems like promotional WP:Peacocking, and I suspect our American editors will have a differing view on the relative merit of their own pharmacopoeiae :-)

In general as an involved party it is probably better to raise possible missing information here on the articles talk page, and then let another unconnected editor decide whether or not to update the article; again please look at the help offered at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Please do not take any of this to be trying to bite the newcomer, we really do welcome your help and expertise. If you need any help with wikipedia, marking up text or adding citations, do please ask. I will for now step back and let you have a chance to review the above points and consider how you wish to complete your current updating of the article, before returning to copyedit the wikistyling and review the changes later :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David

I take your points and have just edited the article. Thank you for giving good editorial guidance so nicely. I think however that User:Vallenderm ought to be regarded as an authoritative source of information on the topic despite potential conflicts of interest, and your note above suggests to me that you would agree in principle with that. Do my edits do sufficient justice to your concerns?

Yours Ddruk 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More about the publisher....[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=vb9iAAAACAAJ&dq=British+Pharmacopoeia+2006 --222.64.29.189 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone (insiders...???) please pickup which herb oil is for topical use from the following info...[edit]

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used three herb oils for me to appling to my unease back

http://www.hagina.ca/35.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.40.11 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.jxdyf.com/ProductHtmls/changshang/4908.htm

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ypk.39.net/yaopin/zc/gsk/7c501.html

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 of them have been ok, but one brought about corroded skin

Is this related to

http://het.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/747

or other reasons...???--58.38.40.11 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=methyl+salicylate+topical&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, only one of the ok ones contains Methyl salicylate--58.38.40.11 (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that whether the herb oils contain the chemical or not, their topical toxicological/allergic review should be implemented officially. And yet, the preparations should be subjected to clinical trials that involve multi-racial participants. Actually, any drug should do that--222.64.214.106 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND

the relevant specifications, and the test methods should be issued for guided use

Call for the pharmacopial of OTC topical herb oils

http://www.usp.org/pdf/EN/eventsEducation/asMeeting/2007India/session1Track4_01Mitra.pdf

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=herb+oil+site%3Awww.usp.org&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pharmacopoeia.gov.uk/custom/files/Minutes%20HCM/CommitteeGminutes17_10_05-summary.pdf

--58.38.40.11 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly very late, but this is not the forum to seek medical advice. Unqualified people could present themselves in an authoritative manner and give incorrect advice with the best intentions, or intentionally create mischief. For yourself and anyone else hoping for further information as part of treatment/self-medication, please consult a professional such as a pharmacist or doctor. Rayman60 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suffix (BP) after a drug name[edit]

It is common to put a suffix (BP) after a drug name. Does anyone know, is this an abbreviation of British Pharmacopoeia? See e.g. the quote in Strychnine poisoning. 87.115.22.39 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The 'BP' after the name signifies that the preparation is formulated to the guidelines/specification contained within the British Pharmacopoeia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I've downgraded the WikiProject assessment due to a complete lack of independent reliable sources. No unreferenced article can be rated higher than Start class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the reference standard of water not listed at.......[edit]

--124.78.213.44 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Pharmacopoeia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328053011/http://www.who.int:80/medicines/publications/pharmacopoeia/overview/en/ to http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/pharmacopoeia/overview/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]