text:
Talk:Drill bit

Clearly the authors are oblivious to their errors by referring to drills as drill bits
There may well be drill bits - where the tips are interchangable but this article is clearly about drills (and not drilling machines)
 * I just added some liberal around the offending introductory paragraph which is a bit ridiculous and should be removed/toned down/relegated to a section on opine and linguistics. prat (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Drill Bit Types
Would information on "Star Drills" go in here? I can't find them anywhere else, and it seems at least vaguely appropriate. FYI - Start drills are for drilling rock and concrete, with a cross or star shape at the drilling point and meant to be hammered into rock, twisting a 1/8th or 1/4 turn each hammer hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.179.2 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since gimlets are included here I think star drills would qualify as well.Savonneux (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about "Drill Saw Bits" ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting things up
I'd like to take this page and break out the individual types of drills. Maybe this should just become a disambiguation page for several different types of drills, perhaps containing pictures so that people could find out the name of something if they only know what it looks like?

My concern is really that this page is hugely long, and contains way more information than is really appropriate. I mean putting a cutting head for an oil drilling rig and a forstner bit on the same page is fairly ridiculous. They're not even remotely related. --Jburstein 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So I've done some work on this, including organization. If someone would like to fix it further I'd appreciate it.--Jburstein 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think what makes this article excellent is the breadth of the list, indiscriminately covering every drill bit type (the oil well one esp. interesting). This is a gem waiting for featured status. Breaking it up would take away from its comprehensiveness, though this is only my subjective opinion. Ksenon 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with covering so many types, but the article really is unwieldy. The types should be better organized, and it wouldn't hurt to give each type their own page, with only a little blurb and a link here.--Jburstein 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think very few, if any, need their own page, but I think there should be pictures of every type so people can recognize them. I do a agree that they should be better organised. I believe Ksenon is right and he has been pushing to complete the article to bring it up to features status. Luigizanasi 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I came here to try to identify the purpose of a drill bit from a photo of it - much easier with them all on one page, rather than shuffling back-and-forth among a dozen pages. There would also be disagreement whether similar types of drill should be grouped on one page. It is handy to link to one page for drill bits : I don't think people often create or expect links to go to 'category' or 'disambiguation' pages. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Forstner bits
If I were to write something about Forstener Drill, would I put it under 'drill' or 'drill bit'?

- too late, I put it here!Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and I changed it from "drill" to "bit". Also added name of inventor, Benjamin Forstner.  His obituary mentions that he was the inventor of the "Forstner flange bit" or Webfoot augur. --Quicksilver 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a disambiguation project. I stumbled on this page that was linking to the Spring disambiguation page. I think I fixed the links right, but I'm not an expert on spring steel vs. hardened steel. I'd appreciate it if somebody would come along behind me, keep me honest, and fix anything I screwed up. Joe 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose some changes to this page, which I'll make if nobody stops me.
 * Make this a page about drill bit types (which it mostly is already)
 * Concentrate on the cutter end of the drill bit
 * Move the morse taper stuff to a separate article about drill bit shanks done
 * Add stuff on metals used for drill bits
 * Add more drill types - spoon bit, gimlet, masonry etc
 * Make a new page about drill sizes (letter, number etc)
 * Make a new page about the geometry and parameters of the twist drill (needs good drawing)
 * Split up the "domestic" paragraph on this existing page into twist, masonry, spade etc bits done

Now, I'm really beginning to worry. I'm obsessing about drill bits. And their shanks. And what sizes they come in. I really ought to see a counsellor... :-) Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might also consider:
 * Coating mateirals, such as titanium nitride
 * Bits for use with a brace: similar to Forstener, but without the ring-shaped blade and with a screw replacing the center point. This could probably go with either spoon or spade bits.

Good work so far!--Joel 21:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, coatings and brace bits are good topics. Thanks. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

This article is getting really long and it's only half done yet. I'll just keep editing it on a single page and we can split it up when we've worked out how. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I just added a bunch more bit types, started the bit materials section, and a few other changes... I'll take some photos of some of the bit types I added as soon as I get a chance, probably tonight. Bushytails 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Very nice new pictures! We ought to work out how to break this page up, it's getting unusually long. I still intend to create a separate page on the geometry of the twist drill bit(when I've learnt enough about it!). Should the drill bit materials section go to a separate page? Emrys2 11:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a bunch more photos on my camera waiting for me to upload (installer bit, left-hand bit, damaged screw removers, drill-saw bit), but they're not as good... Not sure, however, how to organize the page.  A page on drill bit materials seems a little small; maybe move the entire rest of the page into Drill bit types or something?  Hell, if we keep making the page longer and longer, we might have to submit it to featured article canidates.  :)  Bushytails 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Galleries?
I'm a bit concerned the usage of galleries for some sections and not others, as it seems to make the page very inconsistent, and interrupts the flow of the page... With the assumption that there will be two images for every section (gah!  I'll get around to photographing some drill saw bits as soon as I can find mine...  I only have about 6...  must not be enough, as with a half hour of looking, I found zero!), it would be nice if every section followed the same layout...  do you think it would be best to standardize with all images on the right, like they were before, or all images in galleries? I personally prefer having the images on the right (doesn't interrupt the text, allows quick scrolling through them, etc), but am of course open to other ideas. It's also likely some/all sections will get a bit longer, when people with knowledge of the history or other information about the bits updates the page (assuming we're not the only people who care about drill bits, that is. :)  Whadda ya think? Bushytails 17:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (your friendly neighborhood power tool weilding wolf)
 * I'm in two minds about gallery versus thumbs, thus my hmm? comment. If there are going to be multiple images per section then galleries may be okay but the images may need to be reworked to look their best (the PCB images come to mind, the first looks lousy as a gallery shot). On the other hand the same argument could be applied to the thumb version of the PCB's - the images appear to dominate the text, but how much text should there be, besides just enough? ;-)
 * If two or more images are going to be shown for a section then galleries are effective, especially if the images are of different dimensions.
 * The page is getting a tad long (lots of different bits, so that's inevitable) and galleries compact it slightly
 * Yes, it's probable one or the other, unless single images are left aligned? That may fix the flow problem

Graibeard 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Push-drill bits
Push-drills, looking somewhat like a screwdriver, use interchangeable straight-flute bits instead of twisted-flute bits. You may remember the Stanley "Yankee" drill. They seem to have disappeared from the market since the introduction of cheap cordless hand drills, much to my disappointment. (They didn't need cranky NiCd batteries or extension cords, and were always at-the-ready.) I don't know if that style of bit has a particular name. Could a section about them be added to this article? --QuicksilverT @ 00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Go for it. You might also want to describe them in the Drill article. Coming to think of it, I don't think Yankee screwdrivers are mentioned in the screwdriver article & they should be. Luigizanasi 06:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The Screwdriver article makes a one-sentence mention of them: "Manual screw drivers with a spiral ratchet mechanism to turn pressure into rotational motion also exist, and predate electric screwdrivers." It could be amplified a bit. I was recently looking for replacement bits for my old push drill on the Web, and I ran across a tool that was a cross between a push drill and a push screwdriver.  It had the exposed spiral slots typical of the screwdrivers, but was equipped with a hex chuck, allowing it to accept all the hex bits on the market today, including twist drill bits mounted in hex shanks.  It could be used as either a screwdriver or drill. --QuicksilverT @ 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

sharpening
More information about sharpening.--Gbleem 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright time to get this article up to Featured List standards
It's really close, just needs a copyedit and a few more lines in the empty sections. Ksenon 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates fair better with footnotes. It is a good article and footnotes would be a plus.-- Dakota  ~  ε   °  21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brad point drills & Step Drills
These are NOT suitable for plastics or sheetmetal, and the general consensus I have heard from others is they're a gimmick at best (and I agree from personal experience). These bits have a gigantic lip clearance, which provides no support to the cutting face. The end result is the bit punches straight through thin or soft material, leaving a mucked up hole in the rough cross-sectional shape of the drill. I would be glad to see a situation where a brad point is more desireable over either a spade bit or a 118 degree twist drill. A spade bit combines the best parts of the brad drill without the downfalls while drilling in wood or other materials, and a 118 degree twist drill supplies the proper amount of lip clearance to support the drill in a thin, mallable material. Additionally, ALL drillbits will mar the edges of plastics if the hole angle is not maintained - even brad point drills. And if you are really interested in drilling through plastics, invest in a squirt bottle and some cold tap water. If you're going to be doing a lot of it, man up and use a 90 degree twist drill like you're supposed to. If no one has strong objections, I'm going to edit the brad point drill section to reflect some of this. - Toastydeath 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * IME, they are great in wood (including plywood), polycarbonate & acrylic (plexiglas) with a much cleaner exit than spade bits which are only useful in really rough work. In sheet metal I've always used regular drill bits & reamed out the scarf. But then, I don't do precision metal work. You might want to also bring up your points at WikiProject_Metalworking. Luigizanasi 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I notice some weirdness in the step drill catagory. I would arge both of these drills are, to a large extent, fad drills for the wide array of materials they proportedly cut through, when in both my experience and observation they are sorely lacking compared to other drill options of equal or lesser price. Step drills have a firm place in professional construction work, as they can cut through laminate countertops and drywall very quickly and to a variety of hole sizes without changing drills. But putting them under metalworking saying they'll do sheetmetal? If we accept "aluminum foil" as standard sheetmetal, then yes, these bits will cut sheetmetal. A holesaw is far more appropriate, faster, and requires less cleanup. What is the reasoning for having step drills in metalworking rather than the woodworking section? - Toastydeath 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree regarding step drill bits. In the machine shop I used to do work in, a very experienced machinist used step bits all the time. Unlike spiral fluted bits, they have the advantage of drilling round holes in sheet metals, where spiral fluted bits create Reloux-triangle shaped holes. Also, hole saws are scarcely a replacement. Step bits are good for machining and accurate to near 1/1000 of an inch, where hole saws aren't that accurate, and while a step bit will cut 1/32" increments from 1/8" to 1/2", I'm not aware of any hole saws that are competitive with that small size and small step value. The step drills I own have cut at least a few hundred holes through sheet metals including 1/8" steel perfectly competently and aren't dull yet although they haven't been sharpened. And step drills are available that cut through steel up to 3/8", which is significantly more than tinfoil. The only, extremely minor quibble I'd have with the section is that, to me, it makes it sound as though Irwin acquired Unibit from Petersen, when in actuality, Petersen acquired Unibit, then Irwin acquired Petersen.

Ingling 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jobbers'" Bits?
The word "Jobbers'" bits is only used once on this page, as a picture caption for the non-tapered bit pictured with the Morse Taper bits, and not explained or defined anywhere. Furthermore, the first image refers to what I believe is widely known as a "Jobbers' bit" as a "Twist Drill," where it is my impression that any drill with spiraled flutes is a twist drill, including the brad-point and masonry bits also shown in that picture. I believe Jobbers' bits are the most common type of drill bit, what most people think of when they think of a drill bit, and that there should be a section on them, and it should be the first section after "twist drill." I also think that the current section on "twist drill" includes a mixture of information about twist drills and about Jobbers' bits, and that this information should be separated out and put into the respective categories for the generalized twist drill and the subset Jobbers' drill category. Note that Granger, McMaster-Carr, and MSC, the three largest industrial supply companies in the US, all use the terminology of Jobbers' and twist drills as I've described above. But on the consumer (as opposed to industrial) side there's not nearly such consensus in product naming. Lowes doesn't refer to anything as either a "Twist Drill" or "Jobbers" drill. The bits industry calls "Jobbers'," Lowes refers to simply as "drill bits." The Home Depot doesn't use the term "Jobbers'" either, but does use "twist drill" as the category for a wide variety of spiral fluted drills including brad-point, hex-shank, and masonry bits, as well as, oddly enough, non-spiral drills including Forstner bits and step drills. Ace sells what industry calls "Jobbers'" bits as both "twist drills" under the DeWalt brand and "Jobbers" under the Vermont American brand. Sears doesn't use the term "Jobbers" but uses "Twist drill" consistently with industry to refer to all spiral-fluted drills.

I don't know what the best way is to handle the terminology when there seems to be a difference between industrial and non-industrial usage. I would do this by having a section on "twist drills," including all varieties of spiral-fluted drills, each with its own subsection, the first of which would be Jobbers' drills. Within the Jobbers drills section, I would mention that the term "Jobbers" to classify this type of bit is mostly used in industry, and in consumer sales, these bits are sometimes still called "Jobbers' bits," but are also commonly referred to generically as "twist drills" or just "drill bits," distinguished from other types of "twist drills" or "drill bits" only by their lack of a specific name.

What do others think? Would this be an improvement in the article's terminology? Does anyone outside the US have input on the consistency of terminology for this very old, standard drill design?

Ingling 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You are right that "jobber" is an old term, come down somewhat fossilized to today. The word in general had two senses way back in the 19th and early 20th centuries that today would be covered by the words reseller or middleman (first sense) and contractor (second sense). I've always assumed that in respect to drills it referred to the "contractor" sense, in reference to job shops as opposed to production shops or tool and die shops. In other words, job shops doing a wide variety of work (MRO, small batch manufacturing). I think that your line of thinking is basically correct in that there is no universal standard in terminology. However, I don't agree that the metalworking industry categorizes in quite the way that you described. I have found that "twist drill" refers to any general purpose (metal, wood, plastic) drill of the type at the bottom of that photo (and in industrial usage, masonry bits, although spiral-fluted, don't get referred to as "twist drills"), and that "jobbers'" refers specifically to the length of certain twist drills. For example, short ones are called "screw-machine-length drills", regular-length are called "jobbers'-length drills" or just "jobbers' drill", and extra-long ones are called "taper-length" or "long-length" (no idea what "taper" has to do with it, but that's the term). It is definitely not true that a screw-machine-length twist drill is called a "jobbers' drill". As for Home Depot, you may be right that they (quite logically) call any spiral-flute drill a twist drill, although that doesn't match traditional industrial usage as far as I have heard it. Industry probably should use the term "twist drill" in that way, although it doesn't. If you go to McMaster-Carr and search on "twist drill", it brings up a page describing "Drill Bit Style" with examples of each length. Anyway, that is my two cents. — Lumbercutter 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, jobber describes length. There are (I think) 3 length series defined in British Standards, "stub drills" (short), "jobber length" (medium) and "long series" (um...long). The jobber length drills are by far the most common, the ones you buy in shops. For each series, a precise length, with tolerance, is defined for each diameter drill. But I don't have a table of sizes to hand. "jobber" never describes a type of drill, just a length. I've never heard it used to describe anything other than the length of a twist drill.Emrys2 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm what Emrys2 said: I work in a CNC Machining shop and one of our standard consumables are jobber drills. Again, I couldn't tell you the exact length definition for a Jobber - but generally speaking Long Series are Greater than 8D (as in 8x the diameter of the drill). Most standard drills are 5D, and stub are less than 3D (though I couldn't actually say where the cut-off points are and I don't really have any sources apart from what the entire business and it's contractors and suppliers refer to them as - there is probably data in one of the Catalogues: in fact the Dormer and Iscar websites may be a good place to start. 62.7.71.94 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lip angle, stub drill, point angle
This things are not well dealt with in the article. I'll leave it to experts to fix. The spur drill needs to be differentiated from the spade and a close up pic of the tip is needed to show what the text is saying. Good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.166.227 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance wanted in choosing drill bits

 * I moved the follwing by 98.233.0.89(talk) from the article page, as it's more appropriate here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In common usage, the ordinary consumer (handyman) is often confused as to what drill bits are available, and how he can effectively delineate between them. The chart above is helpful, but not as useful as it could be. For example, what does the various colorings on drill bits in the store mean if anything? Is a silver, Black or gray color indicative of anything? Drilling through metal and concrete present the greatest problems for most people. Anything will drill through wood, plastic and soft material fairly well, even dull bits. Bits seem to dull quickly when it comes to concrete and metal, especially metal, and it is hard to distinguish which type bit to use for these tasks, never mind buying those that won't dull so easily. The angle of the bit is important, yes, but how it relates to the job at hand is still a bit foggy, and the average do-it-your-selfer (me) wants a bit more guidance.

 * There's a risk with this that we'd fall foul of WP:NOTHOWTO. However I'm sure we could link to one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Manufacture of Morse bits
The article says Morse bits were made at first by cutting grooves then twisting the bit (and adds that's why they were called "twist bits") but Morse's patent says spiral grooves were cut. That seems the more sensible way to make them, elaborate machine tools were used at the time and one to cut grooves on a rotating blank would have been technologically possible, indeed, since Morse said that the spiral varied along the bit to give better clearance of the cuttings, the notion that such a drill that was true would be made by post-machining heating and twisting seems improbable. If origin is needed for the "twist" in the name just look at a bit. Some earlier bits (rather like a gimlet) were made by twisting a blank but whether they were called twist bits I cannot say.--SilasW (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well drilling bit
The image has the following caption:

Typical tri-cone rock bit. Approx. the size of a gallon milk jug.

As one of the metrified I have little idea of how big a gallon milk jug would be. Would I have to assume US gallons? The diameter of the drill bit would be enough to appreciate the size of the drill bit.

--94.193.93.109 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 * "I have little idea of how big a gallon milk jug would be."

 * Four quarts ?

 * "The diameter of the drill bit would be enough ..."

 * In inches ? :P  210.22.142.82 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs More Pictures
Should have a picture of every type of drill bit 76.211.238.246 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Good luck with that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

too technical too quickly
98% of people who are interested in drill bits are going to be interested in your standard, garden variety. When I look at the metal bits section there's not even a reference to HSS to differentiate from wood drill bits.

WP should have technical information, but it needs to start at a basic level rather than jumping to all the specialties with no decent overall explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbowers (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Square hole drilling
The article needs section about drilling square hole. With Reuleaux triangle shape. From Reuleaux triangle applications section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle is link to drill bit here, but no square drill bit is present. BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Drill bit


text:
Talk:Guttural R

Unfaithfulness of Jackson's movie
It's unfair to say Gandalf's trilled r is unfaithful, as tolkien merely says that uvular vs alveolar R is more a manner of the race of the person speaking it, rather than the language being spoken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.165.18 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 July 2004 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point. I'll try to change the wording of the paragraph, or consider its removal. - Gilgamesh 11:15, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Examples
It would be nice to have some sound files containing examples of the uvular R ... --zeno 15:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renaming?
A user in Category talk:Uvular R pointed out that one of the guttural Rs (in Brazilian Portuguese) isn't even uvular. Would it be better to rename this to Guttural R? - Gilgamesh 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Category:Uvular R necessary?
This category strikes me as quite superfluous. It's intended to be phonetic, but it doesn't describe just one particular sound, but rather four (and one of those isn't even uvular!) which is really just a feature of orthography. It's basically Western European language cruft, since this is nothing particularly unique and really not more interesting than any other any other sounds of language.

Couldn't we just settle for listing of the articles where this is featured in uvular R instead? What's to stop people from adding a seperate category for every imaginable layman's term for sounds?

Peter Isotalo 12:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

This category exists because it's a remarkable linguistic phenomenon that continues to influence European and Middle Eastern linguistics to this day. The alveolar and uvular R are phonetically in very distant parts of the throat, and the difference between them has even influenced cultural politics. They most certainly are more than phonetic differences, but a study in culture itself. - Gilgamesh 01:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There are at least a dozen different realizations of /r/ (or one os the allophones) in many different languages, and they are not at all restricted to just the alveolar/uvular dichotomy. There are a whole slew of approximants, including [l], [w], andd  as well as taps and flaps (,, which can be said to be just as unique as the uvular realizations. There are even vowel realizations, like the rhotic vowels in American English ("fur", "father") or the  of northern German as ("der"). If "uvular R" is enough for a seperate category, than "approximant R", "flap and tap R" or "vowel R" is just as valid.
 * As for "a study of culture itself", this sounds like systematic bias even moreso than just the linguistic category of uvular R. The point is that there is little or nothing that actually connects one language or dialect featuring uvular R to another. It's a feature that has appeared in such widely different contexts without any connection to other languages that it must be considered to be something fairly universal. It is simply a perceptory feature of human linguistics that has to do with all manners of /r/-realizations and is not unique.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you're missing the point. Alveolar and retroflex flaps, trills, approximants, etc. are all in close proximity to each other in the mouth.  Guttural Rs, however, jump to the throat, a radically distant location in the mouth.  This phenomenon appeared mysteriously in parts of northern Europe, and spread from there.  It is not a common feature anywhere else on earth except when influenced ultimately by the original uvular R zones in European languages, chiefly northern France, northern Germany and Denmark.  It is true that other languages have phonemes that correspond roughly to R or to uvular consonants, but none of them are so radical as to associate alveolar, retroflex and distant uvular Rs as different realizations of the same phoneme.  If you have any more comments, I suggest we take this to Talk:Uvular R.  I will copy this thread there. - Gilgamesh 08:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not a discussion about the merits of this article, but of the category. The discussion belongs on that talk page.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the uvular r
A few remarks on the "uvular r" article prompted by my ongoing research on the subject:

1) Regarding southern Sweden, it is said that "after Sweden gained control, the people of Skåne gradually began to speak Swedish, but retained their uvular Danish pronunciation". I think this misses an important point, namely that at the time of the Swedish takeover, in all likelihood both Danish and southern Swedish had an apical r. The new pronunciation in southern Sweden is no doubt due to Danish influence, but one which postdates the Swedish conquest. 2) Similarly, the mention of apical r in southern France as possibly being due to under Provençal influence is somewhat misleading -- apical r being the original one in French, it would make more sense to say that southern French has retained this. As it now stands, it gives the reader the impression that apical r has been _introduced_ due to Provençal influence. In relation to French, it might also be worth mentioning that the dialects of Acadia and Louisiana, as well as some varieties in Canada proper also retainthe apical r. 3) Less importantly, but perhaps somewhat interesting: a) uvular r nowadays exists in Breton, and b) dialects of Afrikaans around Cape Town (but not in the city itself!) also have a uvular r, for reasons yet to be determined (though _possibly_ due to Huguenot immigration in the 17th century).

As for references, I don't have them at hand when writing this, but can supply them to anyone interested.

Best,

Mikael Parkvall Department of linguistics, Stockholm University

Renaming
If no one objects, I'm going to rename this to Guttural R, and the category to Category:Guttural R, seen as there are an increasing number of examples in similar regions of the throat that aren't exactly uvular. - Gilgamesh 08:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This was a very inappropriate move. You're supposed to give people a reasonanle chance to object before actually moving an article. Waiting just under two hours isn't exactly giving people that chance. A week, or at least a few days, is appropriate.
 * And I do object, because this article is confused enough as it is. Here are my objections:
 * There are no references anywhere. Not even on the talk page.
 * The general layout and terms like "Guttural pseudo-R" are pure original research (and most of the article is getting awfully close to deserving a VfD).
 * The mention of Tolkien's constructed languages and his POV of which type of "r"-pronunciation he himself prefered does not seem to me to be in the least encyclopedic.
 * The scope of this article is simply not reasonable any more. The various realizations of /r/ or phonemes that are audibly similar to /r/ are indeed an intresting subject, but seperating the fronal realizations from the "guttural" and granting them a seperate article is not reasonable. The phonetic typology is getting more and more blurred with every new edit. It is also accompanied by the Category "Guttural R"; which if it was applied to all the appropriate languages, would probably include an unreasonably high percentage of the world's languages. This is simply not acceptable linguistic classifications of encyclopedic articles on languages and dialects.
 * I've put up the factual dispute-sign, and I would like all of these issues to be adressed properly before it is removed.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact of the matter is, alveolar R and guttural consonants are not interchangeable in most of the world's languages. Go outside parts of Europe and dots of the Middle East and you just don't find it, except among colonists from those regions.  Not in Siberia, not in Central Asia, not in China, not in India, not in Sub-Saharan Africa, not in the Americas.  Guttural R is a rare phenomenon that only has so much notoriety because the vast majority of its users are from northern Europe.  French, German, and even Portuguese are common today, but originally they were not.  Guttural regions have murky but defined boundaries on the geography of parts of Europe, and the phenomenon is extremely rare among native speakers of languages outside those boundaries.  Even in Portugal, for instance, guttural R is uncommon outside Lisbon.  But with my communication handicap I'm not sure if I'm making enough sense here—could someone help me? - Gilgamesh 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, I didn't write the entire article alone. I didn't write most of the Portuguese section, nor Arabic section.  User:Mustafaa helped a great deal. - Gilgamesh 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I do trust Mustafaa a lot in these matters, but I must point out that his edits  have not been about these theories about pharyngeal or even glottal "r". Those ideas seem to be almost entirely your work.
 * I know that part of what you're saying is true, partially because I have myself read about it, and partially because Mikael seems to bring up a lot of valid points. None of it seems to be supportive of your latest claims, though. I'm a bit surprised that you all of a sudden changed the title from "uvular r" to "guttural r" (this is wording you insisted on in previous discussions). Where have you gotten these theories from if you can't show references? Have you come up with this terminology yourself? Please cite your sources or revert to material that is not verifiable.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Danish pharyngeal R evolved under Low German influence. That is known, though we had previously mistakenly labeled it as uvular (and omniglot.com made this mistake too).  And Brazilian glottal R and Rio de Janeiro velar R evolved from uvular R in standard Lisbon speech.  That is also known.  And as for "guttural R", see guttural consonant, and it is a collective term for velar consonants, uvular consonants, pharyngeal consonants, epiglottal consonants and glottal consonants—basically, anything on the hard palate and further back.  In this case it is not a social distinction, but merely the fact that guttural consonants include velar and further back.  Glottal R isn't originally my work, as I had only documented the velar R section; and pharyngeal R, as I said, was a correction of earlier errors.  But all and all, considering that consonants in most languages do not usually "jump" this far in mouth location just for one phoneme between dialects, and that this phenomenon isn't nearly as often encountered outside the uvular R regions of northern Europe and their colonies, this subject is worthy of documentation.  I've asked Mustafaa for aid in helping me explain this; he's currently unavailable for most of the month of May, and I'd prefer to wait until he returns.  Until then, we can try to cover all our bases here. - Gilgamesh 22:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, since you can't be bothered with verifying your own claims, I looked up "guttural" in The Penguin Dictionary of Language and found the following entry:
 * guttural A popular impressionistic label for a consonant sound made toward the back of the mouth, or for a low-pitched, throaty voice quality. It is not used in phonetic description, which instead uses terms as velar, uvular, and pharyngeal - notions capable of more precise articulatory location.
 * That's one of the reasons I'm quite skeptical to using "guttural" in the title of an encyclopedic article about phonetics. It's simply not a term becoming the title of an encyclopedic article and far too general to be used as proper phonetic terminology.

 * And as examples of other sounds jumping around in the mouth, I would recommend you to read up on the quite jumpy realizations of the Swedish phoneme, which is quite thoroughly described (with references) in voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative and Swedish phonology. This a pretty good example that there are other phonemes than /r/ that are very varied.
 * Also, why should the guttural realizations of /r/ have their own article if it's so incredibly varied? If anything, it should be discussed in an article concerning the phonetic variety of "r" in general, including the vowel realizations (in all places of articulation).
 * Unless you cover your bases by referencing questionable edits, I suggest that you revert that which is not verifiable as well as disputed. Others should not be forced to verify your edits for you.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was citing my sources here. But if I'm not, then I really don't know what to do here now. And yes, I was well aware of the Swedish pronunciation of CH. Since I'm obviously not communicating well, can we get Mustafaa here? He was always so much better at this than I ever was. - Gilgamesh 09:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you're communicating very well. The problem is that you're just not being forthcoming as to where you've gotten the information from. Have you read Cite your sources and Verifiability? What you need to explain is where you've picked up this knowledge and what you base your phonetic analysis on (besides your private opinions). I am not a linguist myself, but what I've learned from even very basic phonetic literature is that making such general statements about sounds just isn't a valid analysis. If anything, my citation from the article in the Penguin dictionary should give you a hint as to the extent of the problem. If this is your own private phonetic analysis, then I strongly suggest you try to read up on the subject.
 * On a side note: is usually refered to as "sj" or "sje", not "ch".
 * Peter Isotalo 23:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think it may make sense to define this as a page about, not a sound, but a sound-shift: the shift from alveolar trill to back trill/fricative. This sound shift is common enough to be of significant interest, and one particular areal case of it - its spread from France through neighboring countries to Scandinavia - is documented in some detail, as I understand. I'm not sure that "guttural R" is the best title for such a page, but it has the advantage of not excluding clearly related cases like the Danish and French shifts, while excluding shifts of r to a bilabial trill (say) which don't show any particular connection to this sound shift. A bibliography should certainly be added at some stage, but I certainly see the problem: it can sometimes be difficult to track down suitable references for statements that count as "common knowledge", like French using a uvular R. - Mustafaa 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Glad to see you could join the discussion, Mustafaa. If anything, I would like to hear some proposals form either of you (or anyone else for that matter) about an appropriate title for an artilce on the more general "r"-shift. "Guttral r" is certainly not appropriate since it treats the sounds formed in the back of the mouth as somehow more relevant or canonical than the entire phenomenon. I'd also like some comments about classifying languages according to isolated and very general phonetic shifts.
 * On a side note, I leafed through Ladefoged's Consonants and Vowels at the book store today, and he claims that the uvular trill is a very rare sound. Personally, I know that it occurs only in some Norwegian and Swedish dialects, High German, Parisian (?) French. I know there's isolated dialects of English ("the Northumbrian burr", I believe) and it does occur in Russian, though it does't seem to belong to any particular dialect, but rather to individual speakers.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

rhotic ?
why not rename "rhotic"? peace — ishwar  (SPEAK)  17:56, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

 * Do you mean rhotic r, ish? Personally, I think it might be a good idea to summarize this information in the article rhotic consonant.
 * Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 19:39 (UTC)

 * I think there are two issues here. Phonetically "gutteral" is too imprecise to be a useful term. However, the 'guttural R' is a sociolinguistic phenomenon, and here it is the very imprecision of the word that is so useful: the precise phonetics don't matter, it's the throaty quality that people have in mind when they speak of this. I don't know of any other good word in English. "Whirr" is used for crickets and treefrogs as well as people, so it's not appropriate. "Rhotic" as a phonological term also covers coronal trills, flaps, and approximants, which aren't the point of this article.

 * Speech registers of various languages are distinguished by the gutteral ar, and therefore a separate article on this subject will be useful for linking from other articles if for nothing else. I came to this article for just that reason: Zamenhof only used a few Slavic words in Esperanto, less than two dozen, but one of the words he thought important enough to bring in was kartavi "to pronounce the letter  in the throat" (my translation from the SAT dictionary of 1934).

 * However, I agree that the phrase "pseudo-ar" is a poor choice. Better to explain that the Inuit sound, while phonetically similar to the gutteral ar, is completely distinct sociolinguistically, and should not be considered a rhotic at all. It's only due to the influence of Danish orthography that the letter R was chosen for it. kwami 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dutch uvular trill
The section dealing with the pronunciaton of the R-sound in Dutch describes an obsolete situation.

The assertion that the uvular trill (R\) is common in certain parts of the Netherlands, but alveolar trill (r) still prevails, is wrong. It's the other way around: uvular trill is considered the standard R-sound, while alveolar trill has almost become extinct. A great many Dutch wouldn't even be able to produce a correct alveolar trill.

In the southern provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg it's the voiced uvular fricative (R) and voiceless uvular fricative (X) that's favored most, not the uvular trill (R\). Although voiceless uvular fricative resembles the velar fricative (x), which is a very common sound in Standard Dutch, this particular sound is replaced by a voiceless palatal fricative (C) in southern dialects, so there's no confusion possible whatsoever.

A development that makes the Dutch situation a bit complicated is that the uvular trill (R\) is ousted by a sound that is most of the time described as an alveolar approximant (r\) - but which I think more resembles a velar approximant (M\) - in syllable-final position. This sound, which has its origins in the western part of the Netherlands, is frowned upon by many but is unmistakably gaining ground rapidly. In certain parts in the West, uvular trill has been replaced by either the alveolar approximant or the velar approximant in all positions. The Leiden area is most notorious for pronouncing the R-sound as 'American r'. It is also named 'Gooise r', because this pronunciation is in the region called 'Het Gooi' very common as well. As all Dutch broadcasting companies operate in this region, the future of alveolar/velar approximant looks extremely promising.

People learning Dutch as a foreign language are not normally taught the alveolar trill, but the uvular trill instead.

I hope an expert in the field of Dutch phonetics will soon rewrite the section about the pronunciation of the R-sound in Dutch, because the information that's currently in Wikipedia is highly misleading.

bkloer 14:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As you can see, the sign about the factual accuracy of the article has been put up for a reason. I encourage and welcome you to correct any information you feel is erroneous. If you don't know how to handle IPA here at Wikipedia, just use X-SAMPA instead and I'll help correct it later. I look forward to seeing your edits.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to add information or to make amendments. After making my comment I found out that a research project about the realizations of the r-sound in Dutch is going on. A synopsis (in Dutch) can be found on http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/nl/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1276494/. It confirms the rich variety of r-sounds in the Netherlands and Flanders: alveolar/uvular trills, velar/uvular fricatives, alveolar taps, approximants and even retroflex realizations. It also confirms the rapid expansion of the alveolar/velar approximant in the Netherlands ('Gooise r'). Although it is said that detailed research into the social and geographical distribution of r-sounds is needed, I think the contribution I made earlier roughly describes the present situation in the Netherlands. Of course, it would be better if those involved in this research project would review it and add a finishing touch. Their interest can probably be aroused? Otherwise I'd prefer you to edit the text - I'm new to Wikipedia - and touch up my English. What's still needed is an accurate description of the distribution and realizations of the r-sound in Flanders, because developments in that area differ greatly.

bkloer -- 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds wonderful. I wouldn't be too confident about those responsible for the project to review it and give their professional approval. The way we work here at Wikipedia is by being verifiable through the citing of sources. An approval from a person or even persons doesn't really count for anything except making an article featured. Why not add this information to Dutch language or perhaps creating a separate Dutch phonology if needed. I can also recommend registering so you can customize your account, get a proper talkpage and there by easing communication with other Wikipedians.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The information I added is highly specific and should probably not be part of a Dutch language article. The alternative is indeed creating a separate Dutch phonology section, but writing such an article is quite a job. I'd rather see someone else doing that job, incorporating (part of) my contribution if necessary.

bkloer--benj 08:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Research by the university of Brussels has shown that the "French r" is conquering Flanders. According to the research, 66% uses the alveolar R, 28 % uses the guttural R, whereas 5.3 % uses both. Amongst younger people (like me :)), the use of the guttural R is widerspread. MaartenVidal 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category is wrong
I dont like this category at all. The category Guttural R is NOT a list of languages alone. Therefore it should be removed, or (even better) deleted. -- 84.174.83.186 10:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[R] and [r]
as in dutch, german and german dialects including swiss german dialects have both (or in the case of dutch SEVERAL) types of /r/ (or (r)?), for example, in Basel and St. Gallen [R] is more common, whereas in Chur and Zurich [r] is usually heard (not universally though, at least in Zuerich). the account of [R] and [r] in Germanic seems rather doubtful to me. it is even controversial which type of /r/ was used in (Proto-)Germanic. Wathiik 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not a separate section for Breton?
The section on French has the following remark:
 * The nearby Breton language in Brittany, which is a Celtic language rather than a Romance language, but is heavily influenced by French, retains an alveolar trill in some dialects.

This is rather cryptic, but suggests that the uvular R is also used in other dialects of Breton. Why not expand on that?... FilipeS 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get your problem. To paraphrase: Breton originally only used an alveolar trill, just like apparently all European languages prior to the 18th century (as far as they had a rhotic consonant, but I don't know any who used not to) used an alveolar rhotic. Under heavy influence by French, the uvular pronunciation was introduced, but some dialects retain the original pronunciation as an alveolar trill. That's all it says, and I don't see how that isn't clear from the paragraph. It's not cryptic, it's totally plain. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

French R
The description of the realisations of the /r/ phoneme in French is outdated. The text says "In the standard dialect of Paris, it is pronounced as a trill (IPA /ʀ/), while in most of the rest of France it is pronounced as a voiced (IPA /ʁ/) or voiceless (IPA /χ/) uvular fricative. However, in much of southern France /r/ remains alveolar rather than uvular." This is incorrect: an alveolar trill (IPA [r]) for /r/ is quite rare nowadays. As to uvular trills ([ʀ]), I don't think I have heard anybody use them, except singers in 1950's recordings (e.g. Brassens). Oh, and the paragraph does not differenciate between phonemic data and phonetic data: the phoneme /r/ may have several realizations in French, [ʁ] being the most common. 84.100.58.8 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rural Quebecois as well as Quebecois from older generations generally use an alveolar trill, and as such this older pronunciation feature must have been retained after the French colonists in Canada were isolated from "Mother France."

French Canadian broadcasters as well as Quebec Province's urbanites, however, try to mimic the modern guttural rhotic pronunciation of Paris perhaps as the result of influence by modern French media from France.

Generally speaking, classical choral and operatic French pronunciation requires the use of an alveolar trill when singing, since an alveolar trill is easier to project than any guttural sound, be it a uvular trill or a uvular fricative."

Not true, while the western part of Quebec (and probably other French dialects west of Quebec) historically used an alveloar trill while the eastern part of Quebec (Québec City area, BEauce, bas-st-laurent, chaudière-appalaches, etc.) used a guttural R.

It's true though that the "eastern Quebec R" has spread to the western part of Quebec during the last 40-50 years and it might be due in part to French influence.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.188.221 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * As for Parisian French, this is entirely true. Nowadays, I've never heard anybody realizing it as []. This pronounciation what that of Edith Piaf, which means half a century ago. Paris has evolved since, and now eveybody pronounces it (be it as a fricative or an approximant). This has to be specified in the article, I guess. Transcendency (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that too. I've never heard a uvular trill either, except in recordings dating back to the middle of the 20th century. So, does anyone object this section being edited ? (85.192.209.124 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

What's meant by "North America" in the sentence " is sometimes found in southern France, as well as increasingly less in North America"? The obvious reference is to Quebecois; is this also intended to encompass Cajun areas and/or some other North American regions? Dratman (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  10:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It was commented quite a long time ago that the description of French /r/ is outdated, but there a still a number of issues lingering in the current version:
 * There is nothing like a "standard dialect of Paris" today: that wording is inaccurate and misleading. There are people from so many origins in Paris that you can hear very many kinds of pronunciations, none of them specific of the city. If this is intended to describe the prestige variety in France commonly heard on radio and television broadcasting, used among educated prople etc., this variety is no more Paris-specific than RP-English is London-specific. Actually, there is (or was...) an old myth in (let's say it so) "impressive popular linguistics" that the best French would be spoken in the Val de Loire, not in Paris... A better name would be "Standard French". This prestige variety uses [ʁ].
 * This "Standard French" is not homogenous (though I would be surprised if it included something other than [ʁ] as realisation for the phoneme /r/...) : at least it was not one generation ago, when linguists André Martinet and Henriette Walter tried to define it by interwieving putative speakers (educated middle-class people living in Paris) and discovered that there were important varietions with many words (somehow correlated with age and regional ties, as far as I can recall). (The work is : André Martinet, Henriette Walter. Dictionnaire de la prononciation française dans son usage réel. Paris : France-expansion, 1973. 1 vol. (932 p.) ; 24 cm.)
 * There was once a more-specifically Parisian variety of French using the trill [ʀ], often called accent parigot. Today it is mostly associated with old cabaret-style songs, for instance by Maurice Chevalier or Édith Piaf (nearly stereotypically) - one contributor above mentioned Georges Brassens, but I wonder if he was not rather using the apical trill [r]; I'd have to check ; it was a working-class accent associated with popular neighbourhoods of Paris in the first part of the 20th century, that have since undergone major sociological change. Now it is barely heard (well, singer Renaud has something of it in his singing pronunciation ; I'm unable to tell if it's his natural pronunciation or if he uses it for stylistic effect) ; to me it's associated with an earlier stage of the language, together with the kind of language used in newsreels. If you're looking for popular dialects in Paris today, you're far more likely to hear a "suburban" variety of French which is quite different from former parigot.
 * I strongly doubt that it is accurate today to describe a characteristic difference in pronunciation between Paris and the rest of Northern France. Neither is homogenous anyway.
 * [ʀ] is still given as the pronunciation of R by many (most?) dictionaries, but this is a matter of transcriptional conservatism - pretty like the historical use of [ʌ] to describe the vowel in cut, which is currently more like [ɐ]
 * I do not remember [χ] being quoted in reference books (but I'm just an amateur), though I'm pretty sure it does indeed exists (I've heard [χ] among Belgian acquaintances of mine). What about its distribution : free variant, unvoiced variant of [ʁ] in come positions, both according to speaker? (I ask because those acquaintances tend to feature final devoicing in their pronunciation of French, so it could be just one manifestation of this. Also, the French phoneme /l/, usually pronounced [l], tends to devoice in contact with unvoiced sounds, e.g. the /l/ of peuple in final position, so I would not be utmost surprising to have something similar with /r/ in, say, propre, since /l/ or /r/ phonemes pattern the same in the language's phonology, and for neither of them is voice a distinctive feature.)
 * I am aware that quite a lot of literature would be needed to be searched to substantiate those claims. But in the meantime, I think the main text should be changed to describe the current situation more accurately. Aucassin (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. The information on French is unsourced anyway and you seem to know what you're talking about.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a minimal edit to reflect points I raised below, but this is still to be sourced. For the prestige variety, I preferred to refer to the "use of the French media" which I find less vague than Standard French, especially regarding pronunciation. (Also, I am not familiar with Belgian, Swiss or Québécois pronunciation of Standard French and would like to avoid undue generalisations.) I wonder also if the persistance of [r] in France is truly southern, rather than "rural" or "away from Paris" ; I well remember that my late paternal grandmother, which was from rural Lower Normandy, used it. It is quite possible however that the change of [r] towards guttural R is indeed less advanced in Southern France today. This needs to be checked. Aucassin (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall seeing a European map that showed the distribution of alveolar and uvular r. It really is a southern feature in France.  I'll see if I can't find it next week when I get home.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename
I think that this article should be renamed to Guttural rhotic. This is an article that describes rhotic consonants as they are phonetically, and simply by its scope is very little orthography-oriented. Naturally, a search for and link to Guttural R will be directed to this page still. Anyone oppose? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually would propose renaming it to something more like "Sociolinguistic rhotic consonant variation" or "Sociolinguistic variation in rhotic consonants" and purging the word "Guttural" out of any authoritative part of the text. "Guttural" is not an accepted linguistic term, it is only recognised in its capacity as a vulgate word. Matthew Stuckwisch 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation
This article has been tagged for lacking citation for more than half a year! Where are the unsourced statements? A cleanup is required NOW.--Fitzwilliam 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Right, before the publication date comes upon us. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A search on JSTOR shows up pretty much nothing for searching the term "Guttural R" except in very old linguistics articles. I'll look into doing an overhaul of the article to bring it up to standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guifa (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

arabic mistake
it was claimed that Fez speech uses a uvular R. this is definitely wrong; i spent a couple months learning moroccan arabic in Fez and it has no such sound. linguistic accounts of Moroccan Arabic claim the following: that there are two /r/ phonemes, "pharyngeal" and "non-pharyngeal", where the "pharyngeal r" is historically due to /r/ when not preceded or followed by /i/; however, nowadays they almost never alternate (unlike the similar situation in Egyptian, for example), with one or the other having been generalized to all words derived from a particular root, except in a few remnant cases. Richard Harrell's dictionary, and his grammar, and Jeffrey Heath's book "Ablaut and Ambiguity" are all in agreement about this. "Ablaut and Ambiguity" also claims that the two sounds are clearly distinguishable (without saying what they sound like), and also claims to be based mostly on the speech around Fez. i assume that this must describe a former situation, c. 30 years ago or so or whenever Heath did his research. it definitely didn't apply in the speech of any Moroccans i encountered, and i asked a number of them to pronounce some relevant words -- this includes the 70-year-old guy who taught me Moroccan dialect. the current situation is apparently that both /r/'s sound the same (alveolar tap/trill), but are distinguishable by their effects on neighboring vowels. Benwing (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish
Took out this section:
 * Guttural R exists as a pronunciation of the written character Ğ in some, especially East Anatolian dialects of Turkish of Turkey (and in neighbouring Azerbaijani). However, the sound is not an allophone of true, alveolar R sounds in any Turkish language . The pronunciation of the sound is softer than French guttural R (always voiced).

which seemingly refers to a a plain ol' voiced uvular fricative; and even in case it is a trill, it's stressed even in this write-up that it's nothing to do with /r/. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese
The assertion that that the /rr/ in "carro" is normally pronounced as h, x or χ is simply wrong. To the extent that such pronunciations exist at all, they are restricted to certain regions and, by and large, to uneducated speakers, and thus fall far short of being considered standard. As a matter of fact, they sound rather odd to most native speakers and would hardly ever be encountered in the media. Without conducting a scientific survey, I would say that x and χ for initial /r/ and intervocalic /rr/ are restricted to poorly educated speakers from the city of Rio de Janeiro and its surroundings, while the media and all reasonably educated speakers there are actually notorious for their use of [ʁ]. Analogously, [h] confines itself largely to the Centro Oeste, an expansive but sparsely populated region, and, again, to uneducated speakers.

Wfgiuliano (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I clearly remember how (decades ago) on shortwave the female voice pronounced "Radio Nacional do Brasil"! The "R" in "radio" was neither [r] nor [ɾ] nor [ʁ] nor [ʀ], but undoubtedly [x] or maybe [χ]. - So I do not believe, this pronunciation is characteristic of uneducated speakers. 88.68.82.23 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Continental West Germanic
The article claims that Frisian languages are surrounded by languages using the uvular r. As this claim is lacking a source and as I cannot confirm it from my own experience, I would like to delete it. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Throaty R"?
Eh? Who calls it "throaty R"? Sounds like an ad-hoc description rather than an accepted term. If there's no source to show it actually exists it should be deleted. Flapdragon (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FRENCH AND GERMAN HAVE THE SAME R
Seriously, I know they do. It of course varies across dialects, sometimes drastically, but as far as I know (which is quite a bit linguistically) Standard French and Standard German both use the same uvular fricative for their rhotics. Can anyone find me a source on this because I have a couple people who just won't believe me when I say both (standard) languages have the same "r" sound and it's really pissing me off because I know I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.237.118 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See French phonology and German phonology. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They won't believe me if I show them Wikipedia pages, they don't think that's a reliable source. One of them absoltely HATES being wrong and she'll continue to argue that she's right because she thinks something's true just because it's er opinion. So they won't take me seriously if I show them Wiki pages. I need a real reliable source that explicitly says that French and German both use the same uvular fricative to say their "r"s with some obvious dialectal variation, but I can't seem to find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.237.118 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What if you're wrong? "The phonology of /r/" (in Distinctive Feature Theory) by Richard Wiese talks about the issue.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said French phonology and German phonology were the same, of course they aren't. All I am saying is that phonemically they are both uvular fricatives. The most commonly-occurring allophone is the one that lends its symbol to the phoneme, and both French and German have the voiced uvular fricative on their repsective phoneme charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.44.128 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually it is a problem if you are talking about phonology (since you said phonemically), rather than phonetics, as it depends on the phonological analysis then. Usually /r/ is simply described as a rhotic, with all allophones accorded equal status, but it is possible to analyse /r/ as the voiced counterpart of /x/, for example, which would support taking the uvular fricative as the primary allophone. Looking at de:Aussprache der deutschen Sprache, you will find the uvular fricative selected for inclusion in the table of consonant phonemes, indeed, and you may wish to check out Fausto Cercignani's book.
 * However, I still fail to see the relevance of phonological analyses for your question. The actual pronunciation of /r/ in German varies tremendously, and it seems to me that every conceivable allophone or realisation is found somewhere, in some region or individual pronunciation. Basically, my impression is that German has all the allophones found in English as well as the allophones found in French (voiced and unvoiced uvular trill, fricative and approximant), as well as those in Danish, even, and more (various kinds of vocalisation).
 * If, however, you wish to know the most common or "standard" pronunciation of /r/ in German, you might be correct that it is identical to the "standard" pronunciation in French, although it seems to me that the Germans tend (although this depends on the region the speaker comes from) to pronounce their uvular fricative less far in the back (more like velar), and use the approximant realisation more often or vocalise or sometimes even drop the phoneme wholesale, which the French only seem to do in words like quatre, i. e. at the end of a word after a consonant. Therefore, I believe the German /r/ could be perceived as generally "weaker" or "softer" than its French counterpart, which might explain why your friends do not think they are identical. But as I said, it's really difficult to generalise. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bergen, Norway
I may simply have overlooked it, but I cannot find the claim about the uvular r in Bergen being introduced through contact with the Hanseatic League supported anywhere. The uvular r seems to date back to the late 19th century in Bergen. A time when the Hanseatic League had long ceased to be of any importance. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Good point, although Bergensk says that the Low German merchants were present in the city until 1750 and the uvular trill was already acquired in the 18th century, but as far as I'm aware, the uvular trill spread in Central German first and Low German, especially more remote dialects, partly retains the alveolar pronunciation until the present day, and the Bergen dialect certainly was relatively isolated as well. From Bergensk, it seems that the feature was actually acquired from Danish, just like elsewhere in Norway, although it is conceivable that the influence from German in the 19th century supported the tendency towards a uvular pronunciation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yiddish
As it stands the section on Yiddish reads, “The upper/lower distinction also historically influenced the development of upper and lower dialects of Yiddish, the historic vernacular language of Ashkenazi Jews. As these Jews migrated to Eastern Europe (and later America etc.), they brought their particular pronunciations with them.” This “upper/lower distinction” is not defined in the article. Does upper/lower mean place of articulation? Or the part of Germany where dialects or subdialects originated? When you are talking about migrations, it would be helpful to indicate, at least broadly, where the different regional allophones were used at the time of the destruction of the Yiddish cultural area ~1942. — Solo Owl (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I immediately understood it in a sociolinguistic sense, i. e., that the uvular trill was only used in formal (acrolectal) registers of Yiddish. But you are correct that it is not altogether clear if it does not perhaps refer to Yiddish dialect regions, or perhaps German dialect regions, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

infobox
Could we have an infobox, something like

I'm not putting it in myself as this is not an area I have much knowledge about. I've just seen the one in French wikipedia and adapted it a little to English, using the Uvular trill article as a model. It seems helpful to be able to actually hear the sound in particular, especially for those left mystified by the linguistic terminology.

btw Shouldn't Britain be coloured in the map too, rather than being left grey?--Annielogue (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, the "guttural" r represents a range of pronunciations, so the infobox might not be in order, though having sound files sounds like a good idea. The source used for the map didn't include information on GB, which is why it's grayed out (or greyed out).  17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC) [comment by User:Aeusoes1]
 * Changed the proposed infobox into more information. It's voiced uvular fricative now.
 * As Aeusoes1 wrote, this Guttural R can be multiple sounds. Except from the infobox-one, do we have more sample files available? Then we could create some overview. -DePiep (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

North east
On the rhotic/non-rhotic R article Tyneside is given as having this sort of R yet on the map here it is not coloured. Should it not be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.183.81 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The map is from a specific source that doesn't talk about English. Including Tyneside might be a little too WP:OR.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  01:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 * If I remember correctly, the map was first published in the eighties. It is outdated and some of its details are incorrect (eg. use of uvular/alveolar r is not a social marker in German, as the caption implies). But it is the best map I know - in fact the only one. However, Tyneside speech, if I am not completely mistaken, has given up the burr long ago. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 * We don't use a burr in the north east anymore but we do use a very gutteral French style R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.117.92 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Northumbrian Burr means exactly that, a guttural R like in French. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Austria
The map lists as the whole of austria as not using the gutteral R, while the great majority are using it (the uvular fricative to be exact). the alveolar trill is only used in tyrol, vorarlberg, the westernmost part of upper austria (innviertel) and few districts of vienna. using the alveolar trill instantly makes any austrian realise that you come from one of these regions. 90.146.64.185 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * The map was first published in the eighties and it is based not upon research, but upon personal information Peter Trudgill gathered from students. It is outdated and highly inaccurate, but it is the only map of that kind that exists. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was originally published in 1974 using information from his own tape recordings, as well as students, dialectologists, linguists, and several sources dating between the 1930s and 1960s. You are correct that it's outdated, though. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The map has been changed in the meanwhile, apparently based on OR (and not necessarily reflecting the state of the mid-20th century). Shouldn't it be reverted to the original state? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the map now so that it corresponds to the description on Commons (where the sources are clearly stated) and the caption here again. That the map is outdated is a feature, not a bug. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still wrong to claim that Austria uses alveolar pronunciation. Alveolar r is the first thing that gives away second generation immigrants from Turkey and other countries. Wish I had a source. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The text says that the alveolar rhotic is used in  in some standard German varieties of (...) Austria (...), which is, without the slightest doubt, correct.
 * The map has its shortcomings and it is outdated, but until someone comes up with a better map, this one will have to do. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The wording should perhaps be a little clearer as to what is meant for Austria. It's too easy to read the attributes as applying specifically to Germany.

 * And I agree with Florian's opinion that being outdated is a feature. We should of course have an up-to-date map, if we can find one, but I wouldn't want to replace the existing one.  Like rhotacism in the UK, it's interesting to see how the change has progressed.  — kwami (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * How about in some standard German varieties of Germany, Austria and Switzerland?
 * After all, the situation in Germany as well as in Austria is highly complex and constantly changing. This paragraph is not the place for attempting to give a detailed description of the situation, which, for lack of reliable sources will be impossible anyway. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's clear. As would be moving German to the end.  — kwami (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly added Unoffensive's suggestion. By the way, I'm pretty sure the map was wrong or outdated even in 1974. This is the year I was born; and if alveolar pronunciation had been common in Austria at that time, I wouldn't have had such problems with the "Italian" pronunciation later on. Alas, no RSources. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Agreed, the map was not one hundred percent correct even in the seventies. One example: Alveolar r was prevalent in the Palatinate region well into the eighties and still can be found there today.
 * Furthermore, the use of alveolar/uvular r is not a social marker in Germany. Heinrich Lübke, Willy Brandt, Franz Müntefering, Franz Josef Jung and Jürgen W. Falter come to my mind as persons who certainly spoke or speak Standard German and use the alveolar rhotic. And I distinctly remember that Claus Seibel, a news reader for ZDF, even used it occasionally when readig the heute news in the seventies. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Map legend and 'education'
To couple a specific sound to education is like insisting that if you speak Received Pronunciation you are educated and everybody else are a bunch of boors - Scots, Irish, Americans etc. But that is an aside, not to be part of the present discussion.

With reference to the map, entire areas are said to use Guttural R all the time and others only in "educated speech". What exactly are we saying? That these people revert to another way of speaking (presumably less educated) when in normal conversation? Should we not rather be referring to regions where the 'dominant' (or often so-called "standard") variety is spoken and regions where other varieties are spoken, it being a fact that the speakers of the latter in SOME formal situations make an attempt to speak as close as possible to 'standard'? I say some because two highly educated people in a very formal situation will speak to each other in their language variety if they know they ome from the same place. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the terms used in the source. — Lfdder (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Exactly, @Lfdder. The whole map is problematic, but it is the only one we have and it was originally drawn by a well-known linguist. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Lfdder and 'UTOC' (Unoffesive ...) What does one do in a situations like this? If we found a very valid map of languages in South Africa written in the 70s with the word kaffir in it, we might want to use the map, but we most certainly would not use the term. Was this work published when the dominant view was still that the 'standard' variety of a language was the 'correct and proper' way to speak? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed 'educated' to mean as taught in formal education, i.e. where they might use the standard. I don't think Peter Trudgill would ever claim that speakers of non-standard dialects are uneducated. — Lfdder (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that the author did not mean to imply that. But, in all fairness, he lived in a time when no-one without RP an accent would work as a presenter at the BBC. Would it not be a case of 'updating' the language? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you replace it with? — Lfdder (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Trudgill meant is that the use of a certain variant of /r/ may or may not be a marker of social class.
 * However, this is to my mind incorrect at least for Germany, where the kind of /r/ you use depends three factors mainly: your age, whether you grew up in a town or in the countryside and, to a lesser extent, the social class you were born into, not so much the social class you are currently belonging to.
 * Leaving this aside as Original Research, I would suggest we speak of uvular/alveolar /r/ as a marker of social class. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of widespread areas
The map on this page is outdated as it stands now, for example guttural r is and has for centuries been widespread throughout the south-west coast between Bergen and Kristiansand, plus a little farther north and south-east of those cities in recent times, this is especially along the coast of Norway, since guttural r has and is spreading rapidly and has gained a foothold in these areas for many years. --OnWikiNo (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! Totally agree (see also below) Boeing720 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dutch dialects, southern Sweden and western Norway (in the south)
Although the Dutch dialects often uses R in combination with other consonant sounds, would I say that the map ought to include all areas in the Netherlands and Belgium in one of the blue colours. How is "R" elsewise pronounced in the Dutch dialects ? It isn't like England-English nor as in Scotland or like in Slavic languages nor as in for instance Spanish or Italian. The same also applies to a larger area of southern Sweden, not just Scania. And on the "Norwegian Head" (where Norway is wider, in the south) should it cover more than just the Bergen area, most of the southern west-coast and about half the width of those parts of Norway. Boeing720 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The maps are very interesting, however I liked the older one more because it detailed where the uvular pronunciations were more or less likely to be used. For example, it is very widely known and even a shibboleth for south French people to have an alveolar pronunciation rather than a uvular one. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

need audio
The article needs audio for both:

 * comparison of guttural sounds
 * comparison of rhotic sounds

Multiple speakers would be best: older, younger, high-voiced female, low-voiced male, people with relatively obstructed airways (snorers), people with relatively unobstructed airways, etc.

97.104.70.92 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I have added some samples but I cannot write IPA for them. --Error (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed
In the subsection "Spanish," please specify what uvular pronunciation of R is referred to in the last sentence. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Theory on development
We have nothing on the general question of how a very front consonant (alveolar) can suddenly change into a very back consonant (uvular). I would be very grateful for such information, but I also want to put forward my own theory, which is that it may arise through coarticulartion (that is, velarisation, uvularisation, or pharyngealisation). Some Arabic dialects have such a sound and it is very difficult at times to dinstinguish it from an actual guttural R. Listen to the Moroccan Arabic word here, which sounds almost like. This would be the same as alveolar changing to velar  via coarticulation as e.g. in Polish, Portuguese, some English accents, and – importantly – historically in French. 2.244.2.9 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Guttural R


text:
Reboxetine

Reboxetine, sold under the brand name Edronax among others, is a drug of the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) class, marketed as an antidepressant by Pfizer for use in the treatment of major depression, although it has also been used off-label for panic disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is approved for use in many countries worldwide, but has not been approved for use in the United States. Although its effectiveness as an antidepressant has been challenged in multiple published reports, its popularity has continued to increase.

Major depressive disorder
There has been much debate as to whether reboxetine is more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of depression. According to a 2009 meta-analysis of 12 second-generation antidepressants, reboxetine was no more effective than placebo, and was "significantly less" effective and less acceptable than the other drugs in treating the acute-phase of adults with unipolar major depression.

The British MHRA said in September 2011 that the study had several limitations, and that "Overall the balance of benefits and risks for reboxetine remains positive in its authorised indication." A UK and Europe-wide review of available efficacy and safety data has confirmed that reboxetine has benefit over placebo in its authorised indication. Efficacy was clearly shown in patients with severe or very severe depression.

According to a systematic review and meta-analysis by IQWiG, including unpublished data, published data on reboxetine overestimated the benefit of reboxetine versus placebo by up to 115% and reboxetine versus SSRIs by up to 23%, and also underestimated harm, concluding that reboxetine was an ineffective and potentially harmful antidepressant. The study also showed that nearly three quarters of the data on patients who took part in trials of reboxetine had not been published by Pfizer.

A 2018 systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs concluded that reboxetine was more effective than placebo but significantly less efficacious than other antidepressants tested.

Panic disorder
In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial reboxetine significantly improved the symptoms of panic disorder. Another randomised controlled trial that compared paroxetine to reboxetine found that paroxetine significantly outperformed reboxetine as a treatment for panic disorder. Despite this discouraging finding an open-label trial examining the efficacy of reboxetine in SSRI-resistant panic disorder demonstrated significant benefit from reboxetine treatment.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Numerous clinical trials have provided support for the efficacy of reboxetine in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in both the short   and long-term  and in both children/adolescents    and adults.

Other uses
A case series and open-label pilot study demonstrated the efficacy of reboxetine in treating bulimia nervosa. Reboxetine may also have efficacy in treating therapy-resistant paediatric nocturnal enuresis. A pilot study demonstrated the efficacy of reboxetine in the treatment of narcolepsy. Individual trials and meta-analysis suggest that reboxetine can attenuate antipsychotic-induced weight gain and there is some evidence of a benefit on depressive, and possibly other symptoms of schizophrenia when added to antipsychotic treatment.

Contraindications
Reboxetine is contraindicated in narrow-angle glaucoma, cardiovascular disease, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, urinary retention, prostatic hypertrophy, those hypersensitive to reboxetine or any of its excipients.

Adverse effects
Very common (>10% incidence) adverse effects include insomnia, dizziness, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, and excessive sweating.

Common (1–10%) adverse effects include loss of appetite, agitation, anxiety, headache, restlessness, tingling sensations, distorted sense of taste, difficulty with seeing near or far (problems with accommodation), fast heart beat, heart palpitations, relaxing of blood vessels leading to low blood pressure, high blood pressure, vomiting, rash, sensation of incomplete bladder emptying, urinary tract infection, painful or difficult urination, urinary retention, erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory pain or delay, and chills.

A 2009 meta-analysis found that reboxetine was significantly less well tolerated than the other 11 second-generation antidepressants compared in the analysis.

Overdose
Reboxetine is considered a relatively low-risk antidepressant in overdose. The symptoms are as follows:

 * Sweating
 * Tachycardia
 * Changes in blood pressure

Interactions
Because of its reliance on CYP3A4, reboxetine O-desethylation is markedly inhibited by papaverine and ketoconazole. It weakly inhibits CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. Reboxetine is an intermediate-level inhibitor of P-glycoprotein, which gives it the potential to interact with ciclosporin, tacrolimus, paroxetine, sertraline, quinidine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine.

Pharmacodynamics
Reboxetine is a fairly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), with approximately 20-fold selectivity for the norepinephrine transporter (NET) over the serotonin transporter (SERT). Despite this selectivity, reboxetine does slightly inhibit the reuptake of serotonin at therapeutic doses. It does not interact with or inhibit the dopamine transporter (DAT).

Reboxetine has been found to inhibit both brain and cardiac GIRKs, a characteristic it shares with the NRI atomoxetine.

Pharmacokinetics
Both the (R,R)-(–) and (S,S)-(+)-enantiomers of reboxetine are predominantly metabolized by the CYP3A4 isoenzyme. The primary metabolite of reboxetine is O-desethylreboxetine, and there are also three minor metabolites—Phenol A, Phenol B, and UK1, Phenol B being the most minor.

Chemistry
Reboxetine has two chiral centers. Thus, four stereoisomers may exist, the (R,R)-, (S,S)-, (R,S)-, and (S,R)-isomers. The active ingredient of reboxetine is a racemic mixture of two enantiomers, the (R,R)-(–)- and (S,S)-(+)-isomer.

History
Reboxetine was discovered at Farmitalia-Carlo Erba and was first published in 1984; Farmitalia did the first clinical studies. Farmitalia was acquired by Pharmacia in 1993, and Pharmacia in turn was acquired by Pfizer in 2003.

It was first approved in Europe in 1997 and was provisionally approved by the FDA in 1999. In 2001 the FDA issued Pfizer a "not approvable" letter based on clinical trials the FDA had required when it issued the preliminary approval letter.

In 2010, the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQEHC) published results of a meta-analysis of clinical trial data for reboxetine in acute depression, which included data on about 3,000 subjects that Pfizer had never published but had mentioned; IQEHC had combed through Pfizer's publications and reboxetine approvals and had determined this data was missing from the publication record. The analysis of the complete data set yielded a result that reboxetine was not more effective than placebo but had more side effects than placebo and more than fluoxetine; the paper led to widespread and sharp criticism of Pfizer, and stronger calls for publication of all clinical trial data.

Brand names
Edronax is the brand name of reboxetine in every English-speaking country that has approved it for clinical use. Brand names include (where † denotes a product that is no longer marketed):
 * Davedax (IT)
 * Edronax (AU, AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, DE, IE, IL, IT, MX, NZ, NO, PH, PL, PT, ZA, SE, CH, TH, TR, UK)
 * Irenor (ES)
 * Norebox (ES)
 * Prolift (AR,† BR, CL, VE†)
 * Solvex (DE)
 * Yeluoshu (CN)
 * Zuolexin (CN)

title: Reboxetine


text:
User:Faedra/Gallery

GALLERY:

These images have been uploaded to Wikipedia to better illustrate some of the items listed at/by User:Faedra.

Image 2:

. Copyright permission from SN Holbourn 2004.

Image 3:

Image 4:

Image 5:

Image 6:

Image 7:

.

Images of the Hoo Peninsular:

. . . ..

title: User:Faedra/Gallery


text:
Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy

The Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal (also known as Andromeda VI or Peg dSph for short) is a dwarf spheroidal galaxy about 2.7 million light-years away in the constellation Pegasus. The Pegasus Dwarf is a member of the Local Group and a satellite galaxy of the Andromeda Galaxy (M31).

General information
The Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal is a galaxy with mainly metal-poor stellar populations. Its metallicity is [Fe/H] ≃ −1.3. It is located at the right ascension 23h51m46.30s and declination +24d34m57.0s in the equatorial coordinate system (epoch J2000.0), and in a distance of 820 ± 20 kpc from Earth and a distance of 294 ± 8 kpc from the Andromeda Galaxy.

The galaxy was discovered in 1999 by various authors on the Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS II) films.

title: Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy