THC Science

Pharmacology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Rave (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave articles

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Altered States of Consciousness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness 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.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed[edit]

The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is MDMA a psychedelic or not?[edit]

The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy.

The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one.

I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. 2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a classic psychedelic, meaning that it cannot be directly compared to LSD, psilocybin, or even mescaline, but it is somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as cannabis, ketamine, salvia divinorum, and even muscimol. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it is a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has minor psychedelic properties, it is not technically a psychedelic. Thoric (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxism → Chewing Gum?[edit]

Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). Niplav (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug[edit]

I have a proposition to add some text regarding Danny Leclère who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC. Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about Danny Leclère. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. Ino mart (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is "pure XTC" MDMA? Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine.

Section on medical use outdated, US-centric, and wrong[edit]

The section incorrectly reads "As of 2017, MDMA has no accepted medical indications.[where?] Before it was widely banned, it saw limited use in psychotherapy. In 2017 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved limited research on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with some preliminary evidence that MDMA may facilitate psychotherapy efficacy for PTSD.".

MDMA has been approved for the treatment of PTSD in Australia (https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/change-classification-psilocybin-and-mdma-enable-prescribing-authorised-psychiatrists). The accepted medical indication in this case is thus PTSD.

Additionally, the paragraph is very US-centric, in a way that does not fit Wikipedia.

Suggestion to edit the paragraph to: "In 2023, MDMA was approved for the treatment of PTSD in Australia[1]. As of June 2024, it is currently not approved for medical use in other countries." 158.174.187.29 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Latest revision as of 21:49, 8 June 2024

The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed[edit]

Is MDMA a psychedelic or not?[edit]

Bruxism → Chewing Gum?[edit]

The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug[edit]

Section on medical use outdated, US-centric, and wrong[edit]

Leave a Reply

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Skip to talk}}
 {{Talk header}}
+{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid=55312896}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}}
+{{WikiProject Rave}}
+{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
+{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=High}}
+}}
 {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=high}}
-{{WPNEURO|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject PSYCHOACTIVE|class=B|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Rave|class=B}}
-{{WikiProject Chemicals|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}}
-{{WikiProject Autism|class=B|importance=Low}}
-}}
-{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid55312896}}
 {{Copied
-|from       = Talk:MDMA/Effects of MDMA on the human body
+|from       = Effects of MDMA on the human body
 |from_oldid = 629799567
 |to         = MDMA
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 |date       = 17 October 2014
 }}
+{{annual readership}}
 {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
 | age=2160
 | archiveprefix=Talk:MDMA/Archive
-| numberstart=5
+| numberstart=9
-| maxarchsize=75000
+| maxarchsize=100000
 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
 | minkeepthreads=5
-| minarchthreads=1
 | format= %%i
+| archivebox=yes
+| box-advert=yes
 }}
-== Source for history section ==
-Stashing this here. Has some new details about Clegg and corroborates some of the details of the Austin Chronicle article.
-http://www.playboy.com/articles/ecstasy-was-legal-in-1984-and-it-was-glorious
-Has blurb on current usage.
-http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36503623/danger-from-ecstasy-greater-than-ever-say-drug-experts[[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-==Naming discussion==
-Big blocks of content should not be hidden in "note" but placed in the body of the article IMO. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-:I'm of the opposite opinion in this case. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 00:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-::I think the note allows us to include the relevant identifiers in the lead while not cluttering up the opening paragraphs explaining all the other names. We should probably have a general discussion about this since this is done at [[amphetamine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]]. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 01:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::I just noticed that this is also done at [[amfepramone]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::[[Psilocybin]] is the drug article where this convention (adding a synonyms note to the first word, the drug name, in the lead) was first used; it's one of {{U|Sasata}}'s featured articles (see [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Psilocybin&project=en.wikipedia.org]). [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 01:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-::::Okay adjusted to more closely match Psilocybin.
-::::Most of these alternative names should go in the infobox which they currently do under "Synonyms"
-::::Will start a general discussion at [[WT:PHARM]] [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-:::::The current setup is really weird. There's a hatnote pointing to [[ecstasy (disambiguation)]] at the top of the article. With a hatnote to a dab page, I'd expect to see the undabbed term in bold somewhere in the lead. "Ecstasy" is first bolded (in a table) the 15th time it's mentioned in the article, and first explained and bolded as a common/slang term the 19th time it appears (as a "Note" at the very bottom of the article). The lead probably shouldn't include a comprehensive list of common terms, but explaning the term "ecstasy" in a note at the very bottom of the article is ultimately confusing and unhelpful. Creating a section for "Etymology" or "Nomenclature" or something else along those lines and putting it immediately after the lead seems like the best way to deal with common/slang terms for recreational drugs. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 05:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::That hatnote template shouldn't have been used since the term isn't the page title and doesn't redirect here, hence it didn't need to be disambiguated in this article. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-Text should not be in the lead only. Thus we need a section on names in th body. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-==RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?==
-{{archive top|status=No consensus | result=There is clear consensus that "proposal two" should not be used, but otherwise there's no consensus on whether the note is needed at all or not. The question, as presented, implies that there is a consensus to include a note, but I don't see it. Those who commented on notes prefer "propsal one", but many participants pointed out that no note is needed. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 23:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)}}
-:''Question: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?''
-:''Asked  by {{user|Doc James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MDMA&diff=713182459&oldid=713181513]''
-*Propsal one: Keep the note small. And put the rest of the content about naming in the body. List ecstasy as the common name in the lead. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=713181882 Example here] Note below
-:::MDMA contracted from {{nowrap|3,4-[[methylenedioxy]]-[[methamphetamine]]}} also known as '''ecstasy''' (shortened to "'''E'''", "'''X'''", or "'''XTC'''"), '''Mandy''', '''Molly'''<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Luciano|first1=Randy L.|last2=Perazella|first2=Mark A.|title=Nephrotoxic effects of designer drugs: synthetic is not better!|journal=Nature Reviews Nephrology|date=March 25, 2014|volume=10|issue=6|pages=314–324|doi=10.1038/nrneph.2014.44|url=http://www.nature.com/nrneph/journal/v10/n6/abs/nrneph.2014.44.html|accessdate=December 2, 2014}}</ref><ref name=DrugFacts>{{cite web|title=DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy or Molly)|url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasy-or-molly|publisher=National Institute on Drug Abuse|accessdate=December 2, 2014}}</ref>
-{{reflist-talk}}
-*Proposal two: Have a bigger note and do not have the content in the body. Do not mention ectasy as the common name in the first sentence but instead stated MDMA is contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=713164691 Example here] Note below
-:::MDMA has become widely known as '''ecstasy''' (shortened to "'''E'''", "'''X'''", or "'''XTC'''"), usually referring to its tablet form, although this term may also include the presence of possible [[adulterant]]s. The UK term '''Mandy''' and the US term '''Molly''' colloquially refer to MDMA in a crystalline powder form thought to be free of adulterants.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Luciano|first1=Randy L.|last2=Perazella|first2=Mark A.|title=Nephrotoxic effects of designer drugs: synthetic is not better!|journal=Nature Reviews Nephrology|date=March 25, 2014|volume=10|issue=6|pages=314–324|doi=10.1038/nrneph.2014.44|url=http://www.nature.com/nrneph/journal/v10/n6/abs/nrneph.2014.44.html|accessdate=December 2, 2014}}</ref><ref name=DrugFacts>{{cite web|title=DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy or Molly)|url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasy-or-molly|publisher=National Institute on Drug Abuse|accessdate=December 2, 2014}}</ref> "Molly" can sometimes also refer to the related drugs [[methylone]], [[MDPV]], [[mephedrone]] or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as [[Bath salts (drug)|bath salts]].{{refn|<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/nyregion/safer-electric-zoo-festival-brings-serious-beats-and-tight-security.html?_r=0 | work=The New York Times | first=Mosi | last=Secret | title=Safer Electric Zoo Festival Brings Serious Beats and Tight Security | date=August 31, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://nypost.com/2013/09/12/drug-dealers-tricking-club-kids-with-deadly-bath-salts-not-molly/ | work=New York Post | first1=Laura | last1=Italiano | first2=Jamie | last2=Schram | first3=Laurel | last3=Babcock | title=Dealers' deadly trick: selling bath salts as Molly | date=September 12, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324755104579073524185820910 | work=The Wall Street Journal | first1=Arian | last1=Campo-Flores | first2=Zusha | last2=Elinson | title=Club Drug Takes Deadly Toll | date=September 24, 2013}}</ref><ref>http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/drug-molly-everything-but-the-girl</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/dea-molly-use-akin-to-playing-russian-roulette/article_944a6886-1d8a-11e3-ac75-001a4bcf6878.html|title=DEA: Molly use akin to playing 'Russian roulette'|work=The Daily Progress|accessdate=March 3, 2016}}</ref>}}
-{{reflist-talk}}
-[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Support option 1 (short)===
-*'''Support''' If we use "notes" at all they should be kept small. We should not be filling the lead full of hidden text and the lead should not contain content not also in the body of the article. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''support''' per reason given above--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' simple version with the common names rather than longer version. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 16:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' including the common names in the very first sentence and a short note in list format with a complete list of alternate names. IMHO it should be like this:
-::'''MDMA'''[note 1] (contracted from '''3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine'''), also known as '''ecstasy''', molly (US), or mandy (UK), is a psychoactive drug that...
-::Note 1: '''MDMA''' (contracted from '''3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine'''), also known as '''ecstasy''', molly (US), or mandy (UK), E, X, XTC, happy, etc...
-:'''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''S'''upport. Finetuning terminology can be done in the article body. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Support''' yes keep it simple.   Absolutely put street names for recreational drugs in Society and Culture.  People want to load up the first sentence with a zillion names and it is just clutter / stoner spam. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-::But the sentence does have multiple street names. (so, you say don't even write 'XTC' in the opening line?). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::We list more street names in the infobox. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. Users will arrive at the article from the db page [[Ecstasy]]. If they don't the see the name "ecstasy" in the opening sentence (preferably in bold, along with other bolded street names) they may be confused. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 07:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. Especially in the context of redirects and possible moves, 'Ecstacy' and other common names should be clearly visible at the top. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 14:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. Here by Legobot. The first option keeps things clean and concise, and more nuanced material that needs more explaining would be in the body where it belongs. We don't need to cram everything into the lede. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Support option 2 (long)===
-: *'''Support''' I prefer the format of the longer version. <span style="border:2px solid #090E0E;padding:0px;"><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">[[User:Davidbuddy9|Davidbuddy9]]</font>[[User talk:Davidbuddy9|<font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span> 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Support neither===
-* '''Leave as is with no note at all''' <s> e.g. <s>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=713239739]</s> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=714108204 this version] which includes essential information that should not be buried in a note.  That includes the most important street names, which goes to [[harm reduction]], which saves lives (yes even "stoner" lives). Also chemical name probably belongs in the lede.</s>, but no strong preference as long as page is moved to align with other such "drugs with initials" articles (cf. [[Talk:MDMA#Hang_on_--_shouldn.27t_the_page_be_moved_to_Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.3F|below]]).  <span style="font-size:0.9em">If we do have an note I'd still favor keeping "{{tq|(shortened to "'''E'''", "'''X'''", or "'''XTC'''")}}" in the lede and not in the note.</span>  --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC) <small>update version preferred 17:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC); strike & update 01:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
-** ''Comment'' {{U|Doc James}} Where is the consensus that the only two options are a short or long note?  If there is no such consensus then RfC is malformed without (at least) a "support neither" option (cf. {{U|DePiep}} and {{U|Seppi333}} below). --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-***Seppi333 was the one initially supporting the note. People are free to add more options. These other names are in the lead just in the infobox. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-****@ {{U|Doc James}} -- OK I've looked at other articles and believe the right thing is to ''move the page''; please see [[Talk:MDMA#Hang_on_--_shouldn.27t_the_page_be_moved_to_Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.3F|below]].  Whatever happens with the note is less of a big deal; will change my !vote accordingly.  --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 01:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-*It includes the text " In the media "Molly" can sometimes also refer to the related drugs methylone, MDPV, mephedrone or any other of the pharmacological group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.[18]" ]]Molly]] does not even redirect here. This content is too tangential for the lead IMO. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Support''' At this point, I don't even care because IP editors are going to end up putting the street names back in the lead - it's how those terms got there in the first place.  Frankly, the lead reads almost like <blockquote>Take MDMA {{abbr|PO|by mouth}} {{abbr|TID|3x daily}} for desired recreational effect</blockquote> which is a bit absurd since this is a globally banned substance and not a pharmaceutical drug.  Moreover, given its status, its common name in the literature is not as significant as its primary street name, which happens to be Molly or Mandy, depending on the location, and Ecstasy or one of those two, depending on the drug quality/impurities. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-* Per [[WP:OTHERNAMES]] ecstasy (and other names if popular enough belong in the lead). It makes sense to put the chemical description in the lead as well. The more obscure names and other related drugs belong in the body. I don't see a need for a note at all. [[User_talk:WarKosign|&#8220;]][[User:WarKosign|WarKosign]][[Special:Contributions/WarKosign|&#8221;]] 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::The proposal all involve putting the popular names in the lead. The question is which ones are popular and were and how in the lead they should go. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' If we decide to include any note at all, it should be small, but I think it should be smaller than Proposal 1. The lead as it is already indicates that MDMA is the acronym for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, so it's not necessary to state it again in the note. I '''strongly oppose''' taking "3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" out of the lead text, as suggested with the examples. -[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Discussion===
-* I don't really have a preference either way. It would be nice for the reader to understand what the term "ecstasy" generally refers to at the beginning. Studies often focus on ecstasy tablets rather than MDMA and the health effects can differ based on the presence of adulterants. Perhaps move the "Names" section up to before uses? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-* Allow me to oppose both. I think the question enters through the wrong door. I suggest we start with: "what should be in the opening line?" (the two examples vary really great in this, so the note-size is like not comparable). After that, the content of the note can be as large as needed. My main concern is that the opening sentence must ''invite'' any Reader. And The 5%(?) of them who actually click to the footnote, will know what they are doing and so can use much more info & links. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-* I also oppose both.  The lead was much better before Doc James came by and "simplified" (i.e. fucked up) the text ([[Special:permalink/712133073]]). There was no need to use a note OR a names section because the most notable alternate names were mentioned in the lead itself, as they're supposed to be. There are only 3, so I don't see the point in a names section.  I also don't think the note is necessary because the text in that note would fit well in the lead. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-::I understand the purpose in creating simple, easily translatable leads. I do also prefer the old lead though. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::I'm not particularly inclined to sacrifice text quality for ease of translation, especially since [[Simple:MDMA]] could be used for that purpose. Also, my bad for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&curid=10024&diff=713241266&oldid=713239739 readding this]. {{P|7}} [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-::(ec) I don't know what you mean by "the old lead" (another variant in play?). IMO the RfC is not helpful by having two different leads for the same comparative question. I suggest OP {{U|Doc James}}, rephrase the quest? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::[[User:DePiep]] not sure what you mean. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::{{@|Doc James}} I'll try to rephrase: 1. the question is about the footnote content only. But the note relates heavily to what is in the article's opening sentence. So I suggest that that sentence becomes part of the question. 2. The examples have different opening sentences (and more are mentioned). That makes comparing difficult. The notes would be better to compare and evaluate when their article sentences are similar. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::Yes the two proposals involved a number of different things. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 14:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::The old lead is the version in the permalink that I linked to above ([[Special:permalink/712133073]]).  The entire block of text that has been repeatedly moved back and forth between a note and a "Names" section was originally just the 2nd paragraph of the lead. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 21:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::A less cluttered lede is better. Too much names in the lede is a distraction to the readers. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 18:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::OK, but don't expect me to do a four-way discussion from a two-example question. Best would be to rephrase the Q. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::Most meds / drugs have dozens of names and nicknames. The first paragraph does not need to list them all. A few is sufficient. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::That's what the current lede ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=713239739 Seppi33 revert] <small>20:46, 2 April 2016</small>) does: list only the most important.  As you say there are lots of street names (here ca. two dozen): [http://www.newhealthadvisor.com/Street-Names-for-Ecstasy.html] --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Oops, not the current lede anymore.  I mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=714108204 this version]. We shouldn't be editing the part of article pertaining to the RfC unless really necessary. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Comment''' -  Agree everything in lede should be in body, though not necessarily verbatim. Per <s>DePiep and</s> Seppi333 prefer no note at all (cf. [[Talk:MDMA#Support_neither|!vote above]]) --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) <small>struck 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
-::You are free to read & use my arguments your way ;-), but my own conclusion from them is different: I can't decide between the options provided, not that I don't want any footnote at all. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::"no "spin" intended :-); struck --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Lead discussion===
-* '''Comment -- RETHINK!''' The point of the lede is NOT to supply a synopsis of the article. It is NOT to inflict the substance of the article on the passing surfer who wants to know whether to read the article. All that stuff can go into body of the article, some of it perhaps into an introduction section, headed "Introduction", reflected in the TOC, and distinct from the lede. There are all kinds of irrelevant, counter-functional  rules of thumb such as 25% of the article length, but ''all substantial article content'' should be ''inside the article''. The function of the lede is to inform the baffled searcher whether they have reached an article they want to read or not. It should fit into the pop-up one may see by hovering over a link. The reader should be in a position to say either "Oh '''that''', forget it!" or "Good grief.Let's see this..." Fail in that and you fail the user, and thereby fail WP. Now look at the current "lede": it deals with four distinct topics, ''three of which have no place in the lede''. It is arguable whether they even should be in an introductory section rather than in the main body sections. The first paragraph might suffice as it stands, or might be doctored a bit, perhaps by inserting after the first sentence something like: "As such it is a subject of public concern and controversy." The material in the other three belongs respectively in appropriate body sections. The lede is not a discussion section. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Per [[WP:LEAD]] "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 08:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-::re JonRichfield: I don't think that is the best description of a lead. We being an encyclopedia, the first sentence should simply answer: ''what is it?'' Then the Reader can decide to read a second sentence, or even click to read more of the article. I'm fine with that. From this, we could go into details. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::By all means offer a better definition, bearing always in mind that the "best" commonly is the enemy of the "good". As yet you do not make it clear in which way you differ with the proposed compact lede format. Consider for example that it is not always practicable, much less practical, for the first sentence simply to answer: ''what is it?'' As you rightly point out, WP is an encyclopedia; you might have added that as such it deals both with simple and simply definable topics and with complex topics that are not definable in anything like a useful lede. Where I said "The function of the lede is to inform the baffled searcher whether they have reached an article they want to read or not", that commonly indeed takes the form of defining the topic, even of only simplistically, but sometimes all one can do usefully is to indicate the field of relevance. For example: "The Donning-Vrede theorem is a lemma in n-dimensional [[Trellis (graph)|trellis theory]]; it is conjectured to be of relevance in the development of a proof of the [[Capacitance|anticapacitance]] conjecture." No one uninformed in the field is likely to understand more than a word or two, such as "theorem" and "lemma", but such readers will not generally have to read further to realise that they will be perfectly satisfied to abandon the topic forthwith, even though they still do not know what it is that they will not be reading about. Those who are concerned with recent advances in anticapacitance will need no more to alert them to the probable interest of the no doubt following, introductory section, which might well answer the ''what is it?'' question in a page or two, or alternatively explain why it is not (yet?) possible at all to say what it is. This even might apply in physical contexts, such as in defining  cosmological [[dark matter]], which also does not belong in the lede, as is well demonstrated in the current dark matter article, no doubt inadvertently. But none of this affects the question of what most of the material in this MDMA article's lede is doing in any lede at all. As I already have pointed out, the lede is not a discussion section, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate cogently that in making that assertion I have erred.  [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::If you have a better formulation of the lead feel free to propose it. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{archive bottom}}
-===Hang on -- shouldn't the page be moved to [[Methylenedioxymethamphetamine]]?===
-{{tmbox|text=Past naming discussions: [[Talk:MDMA/Archive 2#Proposed Move|Archive 2#Proposed Move]] • [[Talk:MDMA/Archive 3#Moving to MDMA|Archive 3#Moving to MDMA]] • [[Talk:MDMA/Archive 4#Requested move|Archive 4#Requested move]]}}
-Seems to be Wikipedia convention to do it this way -- like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&diff=714158478&oldid=714158133 this]. Look at [[LSD]] and [[Methylenedioxyamphetamine|MDA]] (MDMA's parent drug) and [[THC]] -- those pages are named for the full, best-known chemical name ([[WP:CHEMNAME]]), with their abbreviations as redirects (where appropriate).  For consistency across the project should we not do that here?  That would resolve some of the problems in the RfC.  (Granted we don't do that for [[2C-I]] et. al. but that whole series of designer drugs is a lot more esoteric.) --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) <small>+ diff 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
-*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Weak support''' as nominator --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) -- changed to "weak support", because in MDMA's case the acronym appears to be used ''considerably'' more than the spelled-out form, moreso than is the case for LSD or THC. 13:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Weak support''' - no one really says "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" to refer to this drug outside of literature, but the expanded name is consistent with other articles.  The title isn't [http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/7/537.full.pdf fully disambiguated] without the prefix "3,4-", but that probably doesn't really matter in this case. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 03:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-<*'''Oppose''' No one calls it "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". I would support moving it to "Ecstasy" [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-::"Ecstasy" (tablet form of MDMA) has largely been replaced by "Molly" (encapsulated powderized crystal form of MDMA) in North America. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-::<s>But "no one" calls LSD, MDA or THC by any of their chemical names either.</s> Actually, agree, that's truer of MDMA than of LSD or THC  --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC) <small>struck, revise 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
-*'''Support''' per [[WP:CONSISTENCY]]. We don't abbreviate LSD or THC. I would not support calling this ecstasy because the meaning is less clear. (Is it MDMA or MDMA in tablet form or MDMA + adulterants or any pill sold as ecstasy)? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Incidentally there are several naming discussions in the archives. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Strong oppose''' Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is not the common name. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 03:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' The abbreviation is far more commonly used than the full name. Besides, as has been mentioned, there are other possible methylenedioxy derivatives of methamphetamine. The current title is the best option for the article. [[User:Roches|Roches]] ([[User talk:Roches|talk]]) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-::@ {{U|Roches}} - But see [[THC]] -- by the exact same logic should that not also be changed? (Note how that article's lede handles other isomers) --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Oppose'''. I was about to support, but then I read the past conversations. {{u|Galaxiaad}} made some really [[Talk:MDMA/Archive_3#Moving_to_MDMA|good points]] 9 years ago... {{tq|"the full name is almost comically unwieldy... There really isn't a convention that relates to this specifically, as far as I know, because there isn't an [[INN]] for MDMA. (Actually, heroin has the INN diacetylmorphine, but the page is at heroin. Go figure.) I think it would be *much* more helpful for readers, and no less accurate, to have this article at a less unwieldy title, either MDMA or ecstasy (drug)."}} Someone else also pointed out that if all drugs used their correct chemical name, [[fluoxetine]] (Prozac) would be "N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-propan-1-amine." Another reason for keeping MDMA is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency on the number of hyphens and capital Ns. Someone in a previous move discussion pointed out that there are at least 3 or 4 "accepted scientific" names in the various literature.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25990558][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572681/][https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasymolly] (Note there is a difference between 1 and 2).
-:Another valid point by {{u|The Sceptical Chymist}} 6 year ago, {{tq|"WP:MEDMOS recommends "where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.". Examples for drugs are are [[International Nonproprietary Name]] (INN) given by the World Health Organization or [[United States Adopted Names]] (USAN). Since there is no official INN or USAN for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, the most credible candidate for the name of the article is MDMA which is used by the World Health Organization, National Insitutes of Health (NIDA) and the US Government (DEA). Also the UN International Narcotics Control Board--lists MDMA as the "non-proprietary or trivial" name and "(±)-N,α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine" as the chemical name"}}
-:Also per [[WP:Naming conventions (chemistry)]]:
-:* '''General rule''': Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
-:* '''UPAC recommends'''[1] the use of non-systematic names for some organic compounds, and these recommendations should be followed in article titles. Examples: lysine not 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid
-:* '''Drug related articles''': [[WP:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Naming conventions|Pharmacology naming conventions]]. Where a compound has a WHO International Nonproprietary Name (INN), this should be used as the article title. Exceptions would be where the pharmaceutical use of a certain compound is secondary to other applications (commodity chemical, synthetic intermediate, etc., agriculture or industry).
-::* Wikipedia policy on naming convention states that, "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy.
-::* See also [[:Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title]]
-:* '''EXCEPTIONS''': Even with the best will in the world, no set of guidelines can cover every case. Some articles on Wikipedia have non-standard titles through consensus that this is the most commonly used name (in scientific circumstances) for the compound concerned, whatever IUPAC or the other rules suggest. For example: Wilkinson's catalyst not chlorotris(triphenylphosphane)rhodium; Vaska's complex not carbonylchlorobis(triphenylphosphane)iridium.
-:'''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Oppose'''. Per Commonname and all that relates to it (mentioned above). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Strong Support''' per CHEMNAME, consistency with THC, LSD, etc. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Strong Support''' for consistency reasons -- see the similar structure [[Methylenedioxyamphetamine]], which is more properly called 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, but nevertheless methylenedioxyamphetamine is the title. And of course there's [[Lysergic acid diethylamide]], [[Tetrahydrocannabinol]], etc... [[User:Garzfoth|Garzfoth]] ([[User talk:Garzfoth|talk]]) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-* The common name is obviously ecstasy. If there is going to be move it is going to be to ecstasy. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-**Keeping it as MDMA isn't bad, but changing it to "ecstasy" is a terrible idea.  "Ecstasy" is ambiguous (it can refer to mixtures) and hence a vio of [[WP:CHEMNAME]]. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 12:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Comment''': arguing that this page should follow "Lysergic acid diethylamide/LSD" is an example of [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST]]. In short, one can ''equally strong'' argue for the opposite direction: move the LSD article. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-**There's a balance to be struck between [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] (an essay) and [[WP:CONSISTENCY|CONSISTENCY]] (a policy, specifically relating to article names), and here the latter obviously weighs more.  Consistency in chemical naming is important, and I think it's good to avoid acronyms unless they're ''considerably'' more well-known than the full name (as with [[2C-I]] etc.).  But I now think that's actually the case for MDMA, hence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MDMA&diff=714891222&oldid=714890423 !vote change] above. And emember this is not a very big deal because of redirects (i.e., both [[Methylenedioxymethamphetamine]] and [[MDMA]] will get the reader to the same article no matter what its official name is). --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-***It's not the Otherstuff essay in itself that weighs, but the argument from it: on the other page, the argument is exactly mirrored and so the logical outcome is undecided.
-:::Now you invoke 'consistency'. Even with that, the arguments is mirrored ('let's change the other page for consistency' is equally valid). But here is an argument that does change the balance: [[WP:COMMONNAME]] favors one side. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''oppose''' per reasons given above (current article-title is best)--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Oppose move'''/keep at [[MDMA]] per [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]] and the rest of the [[WP:NAMINGCRITERIA]].  This includes {{tq|In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article}} and {{tq|Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)}} and {{tq|Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.}}  Also per [[WP:PRECISION]], I would not prefer ''Molly'' or ''Ecstasy'' as they refer to street preps of the drug in different forms while MDMA refers to the active ingredient alone, and is the simplest, most-concise and most-recognizable term that does so.  <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''': Piggy backing on what {{u|Zad68}} said, I realize the literature uses ecstasy and MDMA interchangeably a decent amount, but in my personal experience, kids these days (at least in my local area) rarely talk about using "ecstasy" anymore, only molly, and they genuinely don't think ecstasy is the same thing as MDMA. To them, ecstasy refers to a specific mix of MDMA with other drugs. I know that's anecdotal, but the part that's not anecdotal is that street names for drugs change all of the time and professionals are notoriously slow at catching up, so this might not be reflected in the literature for a while longer. There's good reason to think MDMA will have more staying power than ecstasy. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 16:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-====Discussion====
-:If this does not go through should we propose renaming [[Lysergic acid diethylamide]] to LSD and [[tetrahydrocannibinol]] to THC since that seems to be the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 07:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-::BTW did anyone of you guys ever notice there's a second article [[3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-hydroxy-N-methylamphetamine]]?? It's just a stub. But we should merge them regardless of what we call this one. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-:: Nevermind. I thought the article was saying this was an accepted chemical name of MDMA, but I guess it's something else. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 09:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-:* Maybe ... if so, we should publicize it pretty widely, and it might be good to have a general RfC on several compounds.  But it shouldn't become a time sink; we don't need to be too rigid about [[q:consistent|consistency]], imo.  --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 01:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-* Related but not decisive: what is the INN? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-:* The INN for THC is dronabinol and for LSD, it's lysergide (according to their wikipedia articles. Some people might be interested in this past discussion of moving that page to THC. [[Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol#Move request: Tetrahydrocannabinol .E2.86.92 THC|Move request: Tetrahydrocannabinol→THC]]. No one really made any good arguments. They basically just gave brief one sentence opinions. I think dronabinol vs THC and lysergide vs LSD either of those make more sense than how those articles are currently titled, but I don't feel that strongly about it. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 11:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-::[[User:Sizeofint]], no, I don't think so. I think those articles have been in the "right" place for a long time now. Even if we keep this one as-is, that is ''not'' a referendum on [[WP:CHEMNAME]]. If you really want to see THC and LSD moved, then  I think the best place to raise that is at [[WP:CHEMNAME]] talk page or at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide#Naming_conventions]].  [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::I meant to ask: what is the INN for MDMA? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Oh. Sorry hehe. I wanted to know the other answers I guess. Apparently MDMA doesn't have one, according to the  previous renaming discussions. Mr Google doesn't turn up any results, so I guess that's the case. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 14:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::Is what I found too. I adjusted the infobox into {{para|INN|none}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-==Treatment of medical uses of MDMA in lead==
-I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&diff=713728471&oldid=713726200 updated] the last paragraph of the lead to (A) more accurately reflect the sources that were already cited and (B) comply with [[WP:FRINGE]]. It was in two separate edits, so here's what it said earlier before I made any changes: {{tq|MDMA may have benefits in certain mental disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and substance abuse. More research is needed to determine if its usefulness outweighs the risk of harm.[11][18]}} Both sources are very clear that recent research using MDMA has been on its use as a therapeutic aid in the treatment of a single disorder (PTSD) in a specific population (patients with chronic, severe, treatment-resistant PTSD). The references to other disorders are in the context of, "If we could do more research, we could find out if it would help for other things too, like depression, etc." It's also important to be clear that individuals are being treated with MDMA in a clinical setting on a limited number of occasions. The purpose is believed to be that it helps the person tolerate more in-depth discussion of past traumatic events DURING THERAPY and therefore allows the therapeutic techniques to be more effective. They are very clear that they're talking about a limited number of MDMA treatments at very low doses. I'd be fine with taking it out of the lead completely, but if it's going to be there, the wording ''must'' make all of the above clear and also that this is not a mainstream belief or it violates [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:DUE]]. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 16:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-: Also, given the lack of support from the broader community about its effectiveness, it's irresponsible to name any specific disorders in the lead (including PTSD). '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-: I'm not sure about mainstream here. For example, if we take this review paper, it has a full section about this discussion:
-:* ''Parrott A. C.'' Human psychobiology of MDMA or 'Ecstasy': an overview of 25 years of empirical research // Human psychopharmacology. — 2013. — Vol. 28, no. 4. — P. 289—307. — ISSN 1099-1077. — DOI:10.1002/hup.2318. — PMID 23881877.
-: Another recent review of MDMA by Meyer, used in the text, again discusses this problem in a separate section. There is a specialized review of the points raised and some discussion papers:
-:* ''Patel R., Titheradge D.'' MDMA for the treatment of mood disorder: all talk no substance? // Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology. — 2015. — Vol. 5, no. 3. — P. 179—88. — DOI:10.1177/2045125315583786. — PMID 26199721.
-:* ''Sessa B., Nutt D.'' Making a medicine out of MDMA // The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. — 2015. — Vol. 206, no. 1. — P. 4—6. — ISSN 1472-1465. — DOI:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.152751. — PMID 25561485.
-:* ''Rick Doblin, George Greer, Julie Holland, Lisa Jerome, Michael C. Mithoefer'' A reconsideration and response to Parrott AC (2013) “Human psychobiology of MDMA or ‘Ecstasy’: an overview of 25 years of empirical research” // Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental. — 2014-03-01. — Vol. 29, no. 2. — P. 105-108. — ISSN 1099-1077. — DOI:10.1002/hup.2389.
-:So I'm not sure that [[WP:FRINGE]] is applicable here. In my PoV it is a discussion with more or less equal sides. But current formulation is OK. --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 00:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-== Pronunciation in infobox ==
-The infobox gives the IPA pronunciation for "methylenedioxymethamphetamine", a name which appears nowhere in the infobox, nor even in the lead or body of the article, though it is common in the titles of the sources cited. This can't be right. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-:@ {{U|Maproom}} - That's because "methylenedioxymethamphetamine" is currently buried in a "note".  (Am referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&oldid=714075381 this version].  Confusingly it keeps changing because editors are revert-warring even while in the middle of an RfC.) --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-: P.S. @ {{U|Maproom}} - actually this is easily solved... cf. [[Talk:MDMA#Hang_on_--_shouldn.27t_the_page_be_moved_to_Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.3F|above]] --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] &#124; [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 00:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Technically, it is in the infobox, although you'd need to put your cursor over the abbreviated text ({{abbr|3,4-MDMA|3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine}}) to see it. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 03:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::{{U|Maproom}}, sure a bad situation. For now, I'll add the name right with the pronunciation key (which might introduce a repetition). MAybe the lead-RfC discussion might end up somewhere else.
-:::Still, in general the pronunciation placement has a problem in itself. First: of course it should pertain to the title (there can be exceptional cases; such as when infobox title differs from article title). This established, the question is where exactly to position the pronunciation data in the infobox. Ideally, the pronunciation is directly with the word itself (like in the in opening sentence).  As it is now, it is disconnected from the word it describes!
-:::This issue has not been solved in the infobox. The problem is discussed [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug#about_Names_2|here]], buried in multiple discussions aboutnames. For example, see the image in there about the various name types the infobox has to cover.
--[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-== Alternative psychology needs sources ==
-I deleted the section on alternative uses in psychology/counseling because the sources were very low quality. I'd like a decent source to state they are alternative medicine — otherwise its simply like listing malpractice use. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">CFCF</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-: On a similar note, I noticed that someone moved this sentence, {{tq|"As of 2016, MDMA has no accepted medical uses,"}} to the first paragraph of the lead. It used to be at the very end in the paragraph that talks about ongoing research. I'm torn about the better placement because on the one hand, it's important enough that it belongs in the first paragraph. On the other hand, I feel like the last paragraph needs more balance with the predominant perspective. Maybe there's an alternate solution I haven't though of. Any ideas? (This is to anyone, not just {{u|CFCF}}.) '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-: Hmm, what about [https://books.google.com/books?id=OTAlolM3XlwC&q=legal%20risks%20surrounding&f=false page 152] of
-:* ''Freye E., Levy J.V.'' Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs: A comprehensive review on their mode of action, treatment of abuse and intoxication. — Springer Netherlands, 2009. — (Biomedical and Life Sciences). — ISBN 9789048124480.
-: as a source? --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 00:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-::That should work. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 02:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-== Section "Long-term" ==
-The section [[MDMA#Long-term]] is written very badly. It consistently uses term "MDMA" instead of right term "ecstasy" for most human studies of damage. Problem of attribution of damage discovered on ecstasy users to MDMA is widely recognized in the literature on the subject. It should be checked against the sources and corrected. --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-:I found one that warranted change. Any others? The ones with reference quotes seem fine. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 02:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-:: If you take Carvalho paper, it appears that he uses much more careful language for MDMA, see p. 1193. Further, «''MDMA also produces persistent cognitive impairments in human users.''» — Parrot uses Ecstasy/MDMA, Meyer uses MDMA/ecstasy. Another problem is «''In addition, long-term exposure to MDMA in humans has been shown to produce marked neurotoxicity in serotonergic axon terminals.''» — if you take review of Meyer, or even better specialized reviews [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25731754], [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892199], you will find much more careful statements. --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 15:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-:: And I think it should be mentioned that these proven impairments in cognitive functions are small enough to be clinically insignificant and—possibly—that they are not specific to ecstasy, but other recreational drugs also produce similar results, including alcohol. Refs:
-::* Rogers G., Elston J., Garside R., Roome C., Taylor R., Younger P., Zawada A., Somerville M. The harmful health effects of recreational ecstasy: a systematic review of observational evidence // Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). — 2009. — Vol. 13, no. 6. — P. iii—iv, ix-xii, 1-315. — ISSN 2046-4924. — DOI:10.3310/hta13050. — PMID 19195429.
-::* Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090217162919/http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/mdma-report?view=Binary MDMA (‘ecstasy’): A review of its harms and classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.] — Home Office of UK, 2009.
-::* Cole J. C. MDMA and the "ecstasy paradigm" // Journal of psychoactive drugs. — 2014. — Vol. 46, no. 1. — P. 44—56. — DOI:10.1080/02791072.2014.878148. — PMID 24830185.
-:: Something like this. --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 16:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-:: Another problem here: «''Evidence in animals and humans has shown that, at high doses, MDMA induces a neuroimmune response which, through several mechanisms, increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, thereby making the brain more susceptible to environmental toxins and pathogens.''» In [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3386512/ the first source] there is no human studies at all. Second source need clarification. --[[User:Melirius|Melirius]] ([[User talk:Melirius|talk]]) 16:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-::*Changing "MDMA" to "MDMA or ecstasy" when refs use the term "Ecstasy/MDMA" seems fine, although it's fairly redundant since ecstasy exposure is correlated with MDMA exposure.  Ecstasy adulterants and polydrug use with MDMA are not necessarily neurotoxic or neuroprotective.<ref name="Abstinent MDMA fMRI review" />  Feel free to make this change where appropriate though.
-::*{{tq|MDMA also produces persistent cognitive impairments in human users.}} is just a generalized topic sentence for the paragraph on cognitive deficits; the subsequent sentences in that paragraph are more specific.
-::*{{tq|In addition, long-term exposure to MDMA in humans has been shown to produce marked neurotoxicity in serotonergic axon terminals.}} I've added the regions where this phenomenon has been observed in humans and included the review (<ref name="Abstinent MDMA fMRI review">{{cite journal | vauthors = Garg A, Kapoor S, Goel M, Chopra S, Chopra M, Kapoor A, McCann UD, Behera C | title = Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Abstinent MDMA Users: A Review | journal = Curr. Drug Abuse Rev. | volume = 8 | issue = 1 | pages = 15–25 | date = 2015 | pmid = 25731754 | doi = | quote = <br />• Chronic MDMA use results in serotonergic toxicity, thereby altering the regional cerebral blood flow that can be studied using fMRI.<br />• The effects of chronic MDMA use have been analysed in various neurocognitive domains such as working memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, visual stimulation, motor function and impulsivity.&nbsp;...<br /> Structural neuroimaging in MDMA users has shown reduction in brain 5-HT transporter (5-HTT) [18-21] and 5- HT2a receptor levels [22-24] using positron emission tomography (PET) or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and reduced grey matter density in various brain regions using voxel based morphometry method (VBM) [25]. Chemical Neuroimaging, assaying the levels of myoinositol (MI) and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) in the brains of MDMA users using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), has not revealed any consistent results [17, 26-29]. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have shown task evoked differences in regional brain activation, measured as blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal intensity and/or spatial extent of activation, in MDMA users and controls [30-33].&nbsp;... Neurocognitive studies, in MDMA users, have consistently revealed dose related memory and learning problems [35-38]&nbsp;... Serotonergic innervation is known to regulate the cerebral microvasculature. Chronic MDMA use results in serotonin toxicity, therefore MDMA users are expected to have altered regional blood flow detectable in fMRI [17].&nbsp;... Animal data has suggested that MDMA is selectively more toxic to the axons more distal to the brainstem cell bodies, that is, those present mainly in the occipital cortex [54, 55]. Also, human PET and SPECT studies have revealed significant reductions in serotonin transporter binding, most evident in the occipital cortex [18, 20]&nbsp;... The effects of poly-drug exposure may result in additive neurotoxicity or mutual neuro-protection. MDMA is known to induce hyperthermia which is a prooxidant neurotoxic condition [65]. Hyperthermia is known to accentuate the neurotoxic potential of MDMA as well as methamphetamine [66, 67]. On the other hand, lowering of the core body temperature has been shown to have a neuroprotective effect.}}</ref>) you listed that wasn't cited in the article.
-::*{{tq|<s>Evidence in animals and humans has shown that,</s> at high doses, MDMA induces a neuroimmune response which, through several mechanisms, increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, thereby making the brain more susceptible to environmental toxins and pathogens.}}  The human BBB and BCSF barrier both exhibit increased permeability as a result of protracted (e.g., 1+ hours) and excessive core/brain hyperthermia, which is a symptom<ref name="Abstinent MDMA fMRI review" /> of MDMA overdose; hyperthermia-induced BBB permeability is not unique to MDMA  ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22hyperthermia%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+%22brain+barrier%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+%22permeability%22%5BAll+Fields%5D)+AND+%22humans%22%5BMeSH+Terms%5D]). It might be worth mentioning this at some point, but for now I've simply cut the struckout text in this quote.
-::*I've also cut some outdated/primary-sourced content from the section. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 21:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::Using both is unnecessary IMO as we say they more or less mean the same in the first sentence. I have no strong feeling on which is used. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-:::::I think we should normally use MDMA and explicitly mention adulteration is the author intends to discuss only adulterated MDMA. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-::::::Agree with [[User:Sizeofint]]. We should use the term that is the name of this article. If people wish to use ecstasy instead we should move the article first. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-{{reflist talk}}
-== Chirality and drug classes ==
-{{Ping|CFCF}} Where in MOS:MED does it say that we don't cover chirality or drug classes in the lead? I might be missing something, but [[MOS:MED]] says<blockquote>{{tq|The lead should highlight the name of the treatment product as per normal guidelines.<br />In the case of drugs, this would include the International Nonproprietary Name, while the BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned with title words in bold. The initial brand name(s) and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. '''Indicate the drug class''' and family and the main indications.}}</blockquote> while [[MOS:PHARM]] states<blockquote>{{tq|The article title and the first name to mention in the lead should be the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of the drug; see below. The British Approved Name (BAN) or United States Adopted Name (USAN) variant may also be mentioned. The initial brand name(s) and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. All drug names should be in boldface per WP:BOLDTITLE. '''Indicate the drug class''' and family and the main therapeutic uses.}}</blockquote>I can't find anything about chemical properties in these guidelines. This article is also subject to [[MOS:CHEM/Chemicals]] since it's tagged as part of [[WP:CHEM]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-:Per [[MOS:CHEM/Chemicals]]<blockquote>{{tq|Introductory paragraph should classify the compound either generally (organic compound vs inorganic compound) or more specifically (e.g., organometallic compound or organoarsenic compound). A few properties should be described, assuming STP, and noteworthy features should be mentioned (e.g. extreme toxicity, odor, hygroscopicity). For simpler organic compounds, the main functional group is mentioned, whereas for complex molecules, a parent molecule should be mentioned.}}</blockquote> This seems to explicitly ask for the content. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::IMO chirality is not sufficiently important to be in the lead. Belongs in the body. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]])
-::::{{Ping|Doc James}} I think the thing that annoys me most about editing Wikipedia is what's happening here.  If someone were to push this article through FA, it would never pass without it conforming to every project MOS and comprehensively covering every major aspect of the compound in every significant topical area, both in the lead as a summary and in the article body in detail.  That includes content that some editors don't care about having in an article, like in this case.  You are a doctor, not a chemist, so naturally you care much more about the clinical aspects as opposed to the structural properties of drugs. The current lead covers pretty much every major area covered in the article - clinical, recreational, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, historical, and cultural - except chemical.
-::::The only slightly relevant chemistry statement is saying "It is structurally similar to methamphetamine"; however, that's a rather vague statement because it doesn't specify ''how'' it's related (meth is a parent compound of MDMA).  It's also not anywhere near as notable as the fact that the term "MDMA" refers to 1:1 mixture of (''S'')-MDMA and (''R'')-MDMA. It blows my mind that I have to actually argue about including a statement about how MDMA refers to 2 different molecules in the lead; {{highlight|if an article topic refers to 2 different things instead of just 1 thing, you'd think that's something worth stating in like the first or second sentence of the first paragraph.}}  Unfortunately, that's a chemistry statement in this case, and not a medical statement, so medical editors won't really give a shit unless it has significant medical relevance.  For example, I'm sure medical editors would care if 1 enantioner was largely responsible for the toxicity of MDMA while the other enantiomer was FDA-approved for something or available OTC (e.g., methamphetamine). But, in cases where enantiomers are more or less the same pharmacological entities or where there's a lack of research on pharmacological differences between enantiomers, medical editors don't really seem to give a shit.  [[WP:CHEM]] does though, which is why they've explicitly stated that notable features of a compound be mentioned in the lead in their MOS. I've asked for their input though - [[WT:CHEM#Question]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 21:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-*I think my position ought to be pretty clear, but to elaborate — our primary concern must be the reader — and the reader interested in chemical properties of MDMA is vastly outnumbered by those to whom it does not matte the leastest. There are examples where chirality of drugs is important enough to merit mention in the lede — such as [[Thalidomide]] and [[Escitalopram]], but it is not important enough here as it bears little importance beyond synthesis of the drug, and hardly even there. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-::It has bearing on the pharmacology as well. The two forms are metabolized at different rates and have different effects. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 21:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-::So, you're essentially saying that we should systematically ignore [[MOS:CHEM]] for all WP:MED-tagged articles because we ''suppose'' that most people don't go to a drug article to read anything about its chemical properties, classification, or synthesis.  Did I misinterpret?  We basically have 3 options here: mention chirality in the lead, mention a different chemical property of MDMA in the lead (I might be okay with that), or completely ignore a project MOS.  Right now, we seem to be going with the last option based upon this discussion; that seems like a decent precedent to ignore MOS:MED as well. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::This is a medication first and foremost. So yes we should not necessarily follow MOS:CHEM. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::No, first and foremost this is a recreational drug. No government or major NGO has recommended MDMA for medical use yet. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 18:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Drugs and medicines fall under the pharmaceutical project not the chemistry one IMO. But regardless we go by consensus here.  [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 20:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::In that case per [[MOS:PHARM]] we should include information about the drug class in the lede. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::Doesn't seem to be a consensus because no one seems interested in compromise. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 21:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::Do we need another RFC? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::::That's really up to CFCF and Doc James. Adding the drug class and chirality statements to the lead really just boil down to MOS compliance, although I personally think these are important statements to mention regardless. Even so, I'm willing to explore another option for a chemistry-related statement and drug class. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 00:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::::Sure lets have another RfC. Most biologically active molecules exist in at least two forms. It has little specific importance and therefore is undue weight in the lead. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-== RFC: Chirality and drug class in lead {{anchor|Chirality and drug class in lead}}==
-There has been an unresolved discussion about what content to include in the second paragraph of the lead (see above). The content of discussion is highlighted below:
-<blockquote>Adverse effects of MDMA use include [[addiction]], memory problems, [[paranoia]], difficulty sleeping, [[bruxism|teeth grinding]], blurred vision, sweating, and a [[tachycardia|rapid heartbeat]].<!-- <ref name=Drugs2014/> --> Use may also lead to depression and fatigue.<!-- <ref name=Drugs2014/> --> Deaths have been reported due to increased body temperature and dehydration.<ref name=Drugs2014/> MDMA [[Serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agent|increases the release]] and [[Serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor|slows the reuptake]] of the [[neurotransmitters]] [[serotonin]], [[dopamine]], and [[norepinephrine]] in parts of the brain — and has [[stimulant]] and [[psychedelic drug|psychedelic]] effects.<ref name=palmer/><ref name=nhtsa>{{citation|title=Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy)|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/methylenedioxymethamphetamine.htm|publisher=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration|accessdate=5 April 2016}}</ref> The initial increase is followed by a short-term decrease in the neurotransmitters.<ref name=NIH2016>{{cite web|title=DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy/Molly)|url=https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasymolly|website=National Institute on Drug Abuse|accessdate=30 March 2016|date=February 2016}}</ref><ref name=Drugs2014/><!-- <ref name=nhtsa/><ref name=palmer/> --> {{highlight|MDMA belongs to the [[substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamine]] and [[substituted amphetamine]] [[drug class]]es.}} It is structurally similar to [[methamphetamine]], but it has more in common with the [[pharmacological]] effects of [[amphetamine]] and [[hallucinogen]]s.<ref name=NIH2016/><ref name=nhtsa/> {{highlight|MDMA has [[enantiomer|two forms that are mirror images of each other]] which have different effects and metabolisms.}}</blockquote>
-{{U|Seppi333}} and I support the inclusion of this content. As Seppi333 argues above, [[WP:MEDMOS]] and [[WP:PHARMMOS]] both ask for information about the drug class in the lead. We believe the information about chirality is a noteworthy feature that should be included in the lead per [[MOS:CHEM/Chemicals]] and that it is important to tell the reader that MDMA refers to two different molecules, (R)-MDMA and (S)-MDMA. Seppi333 also argues that without conforming to these style manuals this article fail any FA-nomination (progress toward which should ideally be the goal of editors of this article).
-{{U|Doc James}} and {{U|CFCF}} believe this content is not important enough to the general reader to warrant inclusion in the lead ([[WP:UNDUE]] for the lead). You can read their arguments in the section above.
-Should the proposed content, part of the proposed content, a modified form of the proposed content, or none of the proposed content be included in the lead? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-===Support===
-*'''Support''' per above [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' per above. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' per above and this is not [[Simple English Wikipedia]]. --[[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 23:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-::<small>Simple English Wikipedia should be treated as if it did not exist, it has no readership. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 11:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
-*'''Support''' per the above. The article on [[methamphetamine]] mentions the enantiomers and chemical classes of the subject in a similar fashion. ~ [[User:Erick Shepherd|<font color="#000000" face="Brush Script MT">Erick Shepherd</font>]] • ([[User talk:Erick Shepherd#top|<font color="#000000" face="Times">Talk</font>]]) • 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' including drug class. The 4 paragraph lead has extensive detail on what it does (effects) and social aspects (history, legality), but next to nothing on what it ''is''. Drug class provides context on what it is. Not sure about including enantiomers; most biologically active compounds have enantiomers that differ in activity. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 15:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' including drug class, per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals #Introductory paragraph]]. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' per above Sizeofint, and at least the image could show it. -[[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' including drug classes, but I don't see the relevance of the chirality note in lede. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-===Oppose===
-*'''oppose''' while i can see why one would ''support'' (chemically),... in this case it is not due...IMO--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 00:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' Many medications exist in two forms / enantiomer. It is not really special. Belongs best in the body of the text and not the lead. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' agree that it is not due. There's a lot of great info in this article. If you were to summarize it all in a few paragraphs at the top, I don't think the enantiomers would merit mention.[[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' Pigeonholing statements into the lede with realistically very little bearing on anything whatsoever is pointless. It is not due, nor is it relevant for pretty much any purpose beyond synthesis - which should not belong in the lede. There are cases where enantionmers are important enough to merit lede-placement, such as; [[thalidomide]] or [[escitalopram]] - but for the most part it is unnecessary bloat. As for the drug class, the wording above is unnecessarily detailed. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 11:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' inclusion of enantiomers in lead of this article. Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals #Introductory paragraph]], I don't see anything that makes chirality a "noteworthy feature" in this case. Are there other chemical properties or features that might be worthy of mention? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' I'm not sure this is even really a question of style - it is just one of relavance: unless there is some point related to stereochemistry to be made subsequently, the statement is true but does not actually provide a reader with any more useful information than can be gleaned from the structure - I'd argue that the image showing both enantiomers is also unnecessary really. --[[User:The chemistds|The chemistds]] ([[User talk:The chemistds|talk]])
-===Discussion===
-For those opposed to the inclusion of drug class information, why should we ignore MEDMOS and PHARMMOS in this case? Do we need to modify the manuals of style? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 01:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Which wording supports the inclusion of the enantiomer? I am fine with the drug class but were is it mentioned the other stuff needs to be included in the lead? [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::That portion is not required by a MOS. CHEMMOS can be read to support including the enantiomer information as a "noteworthy feature", though it does not require it. I'm more of the view that the enantiomer information should be included because the reader <s>needs to</s> should be aware MDMA is two different molecules with different effects. Also, our GA and FA articles on amphetamines ([[Methamphetamine]] and [[Amphetamine]]) all do this in the lead. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 07:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::Many meds and drugs are two different molecules. If they were both notable individually, like [[omeprazole]] and [[esoomeprazole]], than yes maybe. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::{{U|Sizeofint}}, why does the reader "'''need'''" to be aware that MDMA is chiral? It has seemingly no bearing on anything an average reader would do, or that there ever are any standard methods to separate out the enantiomers? Do you have any source showing any non-trivial differences (as in beyond a t½ which is slightly different, minor differences in receptor-affinity etc.)? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 15:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::Non-cathinone substituted amphetamines are stereoselective agonists at [[hTAAR1]], which reflects their enantiomeric potency in vivo - PMID 22037049. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::My view is less about the chances of encountering non-racemic MDMA and more about an understanding of what MDMA ''is''. At the fundamental molecular level, MDMA ''is'' two structurally different molecules. Does it make a practical difference to the average person? No. Is it essential to scientifically understanding MDMA? I believe so. It's difference between pure science and applied science. I think our differences on this matter come from fundamental differences in what information we value and we believe readers value. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::: PMID 22037049 is a primary study in primates and is not cited in this article. The article doesn't discuss the stereochemistry of MDMA, because it's no different from the chemistry of most enantiomers as far as I can see. Without substance in the body, it doesn't belong in the lead. The pharmaceutical properties of MDMA's enantiomers are indeed discussed, but that is an argument for compliance with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide]] (a project-specific guideline) and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles]] (the project-wide guideline). I'm a long way from being convinced that even [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals #Introductory paragraph]] supports the inclusion of a discussion of chirality, because I can see no evidence that it is a "noteworthy feature" of MDMA. It makes sense to summarise the key points of [[MDMA #Physical and chemical properties]] in the lead, of course, but what's in that section that's worth calling a "key point". The insolubility of the free base? the solubility of the hydrochloride salt? the principal means of synthesis? - those are what the article covers. In short, without something substantial in the body of the article describing a feature, it is very difficult to make a case for including it in the lead. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 14:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-::::::::: PMID 22037049 repeatedly mentions hTAAR1, hence why I said hTAAR1.  hTAAR1 is the human TAAR1 receptor, not the rhesus monkey TAAR1 receptor nor the TAAR1 receptor for any other mammal. The fact that this is a primary source doesn't really matter because the statement I made isn't a medical claim, it's a molecular neurobiology statement. It also covers both (S)- and (R)-MDMA. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 10:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-{{reflist talk}}
-==Ecstacy or MDMA==
-These terms mean more or less the same thing? Not sure why both are listed more than half a dozen times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&type=revision&diff=718334683&oldid=718332889]?
-[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-:[[#Section "Long-term"]] [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-::Thanks replied in that section. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-== Lead desired effects, MDMA and meth but..., and, Did Parrott warn of neurotoxicity in psychotherapy use? ==
-* Aren't happiness and pleasure the same? OED defines happy: feeling or showing pleasure; and, pleasure: a feeling of happy satisfaction. Isn't listing either one or the other appropriate in the lead?
-* Re McElrath and sex, scratch her own research but simply look at her review of the literature. She says, '''"Most of this research suggests that feelings of sensuality, openness, and collective empathy take precedence over sexual pursuits."''' This part qualifies as a secondary source. I will find others. But that statement grasps the sex effect better than papers that just provide a list. There's a phenomenological aspect to this drug that gets lost in reducing effects to symptoms, so to speak.
-:I'll find secondary sources. "Empathy" is a compressed word for the effects. The empathy isn't just outward but inward. That's the intimacy, introspection and insight; the utility in psychotherapy. This evades reductionist thinking and isn't important in material written for ER doctors. I will find secondary sources to better describe the 'flavor' of this drug.
-:Lookit, when MDMA was made a C-I drug, it halted research of medical (psych) use and benefits. Meanwhile NIDA funded and facilitated research toward toxicity and against use; rewarded those who presented what was desired. There were/are no govt funds going to current psychotherapy research. A bias already exists. The desired effects described come from recreational use. Imagine if this were the case with other drugs with medical utility.
-* '''"It is structurally similar to methamphetamine, but it has more in common with the pharmacological effects of amphetamine''' and hallucinogens." What is the significance of this statement? It isn't explained in the article. ''It isn't supported in the cited refs.'' Generally, the effects of methamphetamine and amphetamine are the same. MDMA is a milder stimulant than either. And a number of amphetamines have hallucinogenic effects. Wouldn't it be more apt to say "MDMA is structurally similar to methamphetamine, but has milder psychostimulant effects" <s>and possibly add, "and produces mild psychedelic effects as well." or similar?</s>
-* Lastly, in research: '''"A review ... emphasized that MDMA is not a safe medical treatment due to lasting neurotoxic and cognition impairing effects in humans."''' That ''not'' what Parrott said. Unless I missed something, he attributed lasting neurotoxic/cognitive effects to ''regular use''. Rather he warned of possible adverse psychological effects or a desire to use the drug again, in limited administration in psychotherapy. — [[User:Box73|Box73]] ([[User talk:Box73|talk]]) 11:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (emphasis + added) — [[User:Box73|Box73]] ([[User talk:Box73|talk]]) 19:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-::Per the first one agree and trimmed one. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-:::I agree that McElrath's paper is a secondary source for the statement it was supporting. It's somewhat on the old side, although I doubt reasons for use would have changed substantially in ten years. I deleted the sentence on similarity since it misstates the source and what the source does actually say about similarity is extremely vague. I've altered the statement in the research section to more accurately reflect the conclusions of the source. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 22:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-==Sense of time==
-Ref says "producing an energizing effect, as well as distortions in time and perception and enhanced enjoyment from tactile experiences"
-This was summarized as "altered sense of time". Not sure the issue? [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-:Do people use MDMA because they want to achieve an "altered sense of time"? "Desired effects", in the lead, alludes to common reasons people do this drug. Why isn't temporal distortions mentioned routinely in other secondary sources? (It exists the NIDA presentation, last.) The energizing effect and tactile delight are much more important, much more central to users. List those in the lead and move temporal distortions into the body. — [[User:Box73|Box73]] ([[User talk:Box73|talk]]) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (added NIDA comment) — [[User:Box73|Box73]] ([[User talk:Box73|talk]]) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-::Yes, per this doesn't seem to have enough weight in the literature to justify inclusion in the lead. Most reviews I have read don't list this as a significant reason for MDMA use. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-:::I guess the question is how does one break down effects versus desired effects. Might be simpler to concentrate on effects. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-== limited use in therapy ==
-In §Uses, Medical: '''"Previously, it saw limited use in therapy."''' This is a well written, concise sentence, ''if'' you know what it means, ''possibly'' misleading if you don't.
-#Does therapy mean massage therapy, hydrotherapy, chemotherapy? (MDMA apoptosis may provide a new chemotherapy.) Also medical therapy is sometimes distinguished from psychotherapy. It needs to say psychotherapy.
-#Does limited use mean limited indications or limited number of practitioners? It needs to say that it was used by a limited number of psychotherapists (~4000, i.e., several thousand, see below).
-#"Previously" and "limited use" tend to be misleading because it can infer that MDMA was tried, found generally ineffective ("limited use") and rejected ("previously"). Rather MDMA wasn't Rx, wasn't FDA approved or Pharma promoted; it was used/spread informally by psych practitioners, and use ended not by lack of utility but by the DEA reacting to tragic recreational use.
-The following sentence is less eloquent but also less vague and misleading: '''Before it became illegal, several thousand practitioners employed it in psychotherapy.''' Or similar.
-Mithoefer et.al. say, ''"...in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before MDMA became an illegal Schedule 1 compound, it was used in conjunction with psychotherapy by an estimated 4000 psychiatrists and psychologists."'' in [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27067625 "Novel psychopharmacological therapies for psychiatric disorders: psilocybin and MDMA."] (secondary source, full text available free with registration at ''The Lancet''.) — [[User:Box73|Box73]] ([[User talk:Box73|talk]]) 00:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-:I have no problem with this proposed wording. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 02:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-:We should say massage therapy. lol. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 05:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-== Comparing ecstasy users ==
-Heavy ecstasy users showed symptoms of paranoid ideation, psychoticism, somatization, obsessionality, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, altered appetite and restless sleep. Lighter users showed results of significantly higher scores than controls on two factors and significantly lower scores than heavy ecstasy users on another two.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Parrott|first1=A.C.|last2=Sisk|first2=E.|last3=Turner|first3=J.J.D.|title=Psychobiological problems in heavy ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA) polydrug users|url=http://www.drugandalcoholdependence.com/article/S0376-8716(00)80013-7/abstract?cc=y=|website=Drug & Alcohol Dependence|language=English|doi=10.1016/S0376-8716(00)80013-7|date=1 July 2000}}</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Katie.rose614|Katie.rose614]] ([[User talk:Katie.rose614|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Katie.rose614|contribs]]) 05:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
-:Thanks but this is a rather old study (with a small sample size) and it is a primary source. We have much better sources in the article now. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-== New age seekers paragraph ==
-This:
+== The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed ==
-<blockquote>
-MDMA has been used as an adjunct to New Age spiritual practices.
-</blockquote>
+The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. [[Special:Contributions/209.6.225.254|209.6.225.254]] ([[User talk:209.6.225.254|talk]]) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
-Seems like a strangely specific fringe group to mention in a very concise section of this article. Also, it's supported with a rather iffy source from 1991. Does anyone want to keep it? If so, can someone find a better source? (That might not be easy...) [[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 01:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+== Is MDMA a psychedelic or not? ==
-:Originally it was a in subsection for spiritual use. I believe CFCF merged this into the recreational use section because it was short. It was also originally referenced to ''Pursuit of Ecstasy'' by Beck and Rosenbaum [https://books.google.com/books?id=SwdedK36bVMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false], which is a highly cited work on MDMA use in the 1980s. Another editor switched the references for some reason. I think it is worth keeping as a stub for a spiritual uses section. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 04:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy.
-::I don't think that's sufficient reason to keep it, honestly. Someone can start a spiritual uses section whenever, but right now this ref is used in a one-sentence paragraph that has nothing to do with the paragraph and probably isn't encyclopedia-quality information. Maybe we can leave it in a comment? [[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
-:::Sure, fine by me. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one.
-== Global sassafras oil shortage ==
+I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D]] ([[User talk:2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|talk]]) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
-<blockquote>
-However, in part due to the global supply shortage of sassafras oil, substances that are sold as "Molly" frequently contain no MDMA and instead contain methylone, ethylone, MDPV, mephedrone, or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.
-</blockquote>
+:MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a ''classic psychedelic'', meaning that it cannot be directly compared to [[LSD]], [[psilocybin]], or even [[mescaline]], but it ''is'' somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as [[cannabis]], [[ketamine]], [[salvia divinorum]], and even [[muscimol]]. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it ''is'' a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has ''minor psychedelic properties'', it is not technically a psychedelic. [[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
-Are we sure this is a reasonable thing to include? Which source describes this? The following seems more conservative and accurate to me:
+== Bruxism → Chewing Gum? ==
-<blockquote>
-However, because alternatives are sometimes less expensive and because sassafras oil can be difficult to obtain, substances that are sold as "Molly" frequently contain no MDMA and instead contain methylone, ethylone, MDPV, mephedrone, or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.
-</blockquote>
+Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). [[User:Niplav|Niplav]] ([[User talk:Niplav|talk]]) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
-[[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
-:I'd just cut out the reasons why other substances are substituted in; none of the print sources appear to discuss the motivations of producers to use other substances. I can't check the Drugs Inc. sources. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 04:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+== The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug ==
-::Good point, I'll do that. [[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+I have a proposition to add some text regarding [[Danny Leclère]] who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC.  Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about [[Danny Leclère]]. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. [[User:Ino mart|Ino mart]] ([[User talk:Ino mart|talk]]) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
-:::It's covered in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9JGy6ypxg&feature=youtu.be&t=27m6s the first 60 seconds of this link], particularly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9JGy6ypxg&feature=youtu.be&t=27m20s this sentence].
-:::Also covered in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngw0vPy39RQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6m9s the first 3 minutes of this link], which covers the limited sassafras oil supply in more detail.
-:::You'll have to deal with the shitty video quality - sorry.  The previous links were higher quality. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
+:is "pure XTC" MDMA? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
-== Capitalization of molly/Molly ==
+::According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine.
+== Section on medical use outdated, US-centric, and wrong ==
-This article usually (but not always) capitalizes molly/Molly like a proper noun. However, despite it being a name, people very rarely capitalize it in the outside world. I'm in favor of treating it like a common noun. Any objections? [[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 01:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
-:Lower case should be fine. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 04:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+The section incorrectly reads "As of 2017, MDMA has no accepted medical indications.[where?] Before it was widely banned, it saw limited use in psychotherapy. In 2017 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved limited research on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with some preliminary evidence that MDMA may facilitate psychotherapy efficacy for PTSD.".
-== "Mild hallucations" vs. more realistic phrasing ==
+MDMA has been approved for the treatment of PTSD in Australia (https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/change-classification-psilocybin-and-mdma-enable-prescribing-authorised-psychiatrists). The accepted medical indication in this case is thus PTSD.
-MDMA only extremely rarely causes classic elaborate [[hallucination]]s at normal doses. However, medical literature has a long history of over-using that term, conflating minor perceptual alterations with strong hallucinations. Some sources like "Gender differences in the subjective effects of MDMA" recognize this - that paper uses the terms "visual (pseudo)-hallucinations" and "hallucinogen-like perceptual alterations", and "elementary hallucinations". Other sources use the term "hallucination" without qualifying it.
+Additionally, the paragraph is very US-centric, in a way that does not fit Wikipedia.
-Of course, we have to avoid [[WP:SYNTH]] here. However, we list "Mild hallucination" as an effect now, and I think we can phrase that better. Maybe a brief list of common visual effects (color changes, trailers) taken from MEDRS sources would help.
+Suggestion to edit the paragraph to:
-Thoughts? [[User:Exercisephys|Exercisephys]] ([[User talk:Exercisephys|talk]]) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
+"In 2023, MDMA was approved for the treatment of PTSD in Australia[https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/change-classification-psilocybin-and-mdma-enable-prescribing-authorised-psychiatrists]. As of June 2024, it is currently not approved for medical use in other countries." [[Special:Contributions/158.174.187.29|158.174.187.29]] ([[User talk:158.174.187.29|talk]]) 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
-:Yes, I have thought that as well. I think it can't hurt to be more specific as long as the sourcing stays MEDRS. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)