Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


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-expertsSizeofint (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?

NO CONSENSUS
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. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?
Asked by Doc James (talk · contribs) [1]
  • 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. Example here Note below
MDMA contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine also known as ecstasy (shortened to "E", "X", or "XTC"), Mandy, Molly[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Luciano, Randy L.; Perazella, Mark A. (March 25, 2014). "Nephrotoxic effects of designer drugs: synthetic is not better!". Nature Reviews Nephrology. 10 (6): 314–324. doi:10.1038/nrneph.2014.44. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  2. ^ "DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy or Molly)". National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  • 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 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 adulterants. The UK term Mandy and the US term Molly colloquially refer to MDMA in a crystalline powder form thought to be free of adulterants.[1][2] "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.[8]

References

  1. ^ Luciano, Randy L.; Perazella, Mark A. (March 25, 2014). "Nephrotoxic effects of designer drugs: synthetic is not better!". Nature Reviews Nephrology. 10 (6): 314–324. doi:10.1038/nrneph.2014.44. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  2. ^ "DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy or Molly)". National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  3. ^ Secret, Mosi (August 31, 2014). "Safer Electric Zoo Festival Brings Serious Beats and Tight Security". The New York Times.
  4. ^ Italiano, Laura; Schram, Jamie; Babcock, Laurel (September 12, 2013). "Dealers' deadly trick: selling bath salts as Molly". New York Post.
  5. ^ Campo-Flores, Arian; Elinson, Zusha (September 24, 2013). "Club Drug Takes Deadly Toll". The Wall Street Journal.
  6. ^ http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/drug-molly-everything-but-the-girl
  7. ^ "DEA: Molly use akin to playing 'Russian roulette'". The Daily Progress. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  8. ^ [3][4][5][6][7]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per reason given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support simple version with the common names rather than longer version. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...
PermStrump(talk) 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Finetuning terminology can be done in the article body. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the sentence does have multiple street names. (so, you say don't even write 'XTC' in the opening line?). -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We list more street names in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Especially in the context of redirects and possible moves, 'Ecstacy' and other common names should be clearly visible at the top. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 2 (long)

*Support I prefer the format of the longer version. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support neither

  • Leave as is with no note at all e.g. [2] 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., but no strong preference as long as page is moved to align with other such "drugs with initials" articles (cf. below). If we do have an note I'd still favor keeping "(shortened to "E", "X", or "XTC")" in the lede and not in the note. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC) update version preferred 17:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC); strike & update 01:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 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. DePiep and Seppi333 below). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ Doc James -- OK I've looked at other articles and believe the right thing is to move the page; please see below. Whatever happens with the note is less of a big deal; will change my !vote accordingly. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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

    Take MDMA PO TID for desired recreational effect

    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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. “WarKosign” 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -Iamozy (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? Sizeofint (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the purpose in creating simple, easily translatable leads. I do also prefer the old lead though. Sizeofint (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 readding this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(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 Doc James, rephrase the quest? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DePiep not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the two proposals involved a number of different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A less cluttered lede is better. Too much names in the lede is a distraction to the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but don't expect me to do a four-way discussion from a two-example question. Best would be to rephrase the Q. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most meds / drugs have dozens of names and nicknames. The first paragraph does not need to list them all. A few is sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the current lede (Seppi33 revert 20:46, 2 April 2016) does: list only the most important. As you say there are lots of street names (here ca. two dozen): [3] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, not the current lede anymore. I mean this version. We shouldn't be editing the part of article pertaining to the RfC unless really necessary. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree everything in lede should be in body, though not necessarily verbatim. Per DePiep and Seppi333 prefer no note at all (cf. !vote above) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) struck 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"no "spin" intended :-); struck --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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." Sizeofint (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 theory; it is conjectured to be of relevance in the development of a proof of the 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. JonRichfield (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better formulation of the lead feel free to propose it. Sizeofint (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hang on -- shouldn't the page be moved to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine?

NOT MOVED
Consensus is not to move the article to the proposed title. Arguments against the move are mostly based on WP:COMMONNAME and the fact the the proposed title is ambiguous. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems to be Wikipedia convention to do it this way -- like this. Look at LSD and 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.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) + diff 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Weak support as nominator --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 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)[reply]
  • 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 fully disambiguated without the prefix "3,4-", but that probably doesn't really matter in this case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<*Oppose No one calls it "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". I would support moving it to "Ecstasy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ecstasy" (tablet form of MDMA) has largely been replaced by "Molly" (encapsulated powderized crystal form of MDMA) in North America. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But "no one" calls LSD, MDA or THC by any of their chemical names either. Actually, agree, that's truer of MDMA than of LSD or THC --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC) struck, revise 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)? Sizeofint (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally there are several naming discussions in the archives. Sizeofint (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is not the common name. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Roches (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Roches - But see THC -- by the exact same logic should that not also be changed? (Note how that article's lede handles other isomers) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was about to support, but then I read the past conversations. Galaxiaad made some really good points 9 years ago... "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.[4][5][6] (Note there is a difference between 1 and 2).
Another valid point by The Sceptical Chymist 6 year ago, "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: 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.
PermStrump(talk) 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Commonname and all that relates to it (mentioned above). -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per CHEMNAME, consistency with THC, LSD, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common name is obviously ecstasy. If there is going to be move it is going to be to ecstasy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a balance to be struck between OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an essay) and 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 !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). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per reasons given above (current article-title is best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move/keep at MDMA per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and the rest of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. This includes In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article and 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 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. Zad68 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Piggy backing on what 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. PermStrump(talk) 16:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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? Sizeofint (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. PermStrump(talk) 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I thought the article was saying this was an accepted chemical name of MDMA, but I guess it's something else. PermStrump(talk) 09:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 consistency, imo. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related but not decisive: what is the INN? -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. 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. PermStrump(talk) 11:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ask: what is the INN for MDMA? -DePiep (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. PermStrump(talk) 14:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I found too. I adjusted the infobox into |INN=none. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: 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:

Adverse effects of MDMA use include addiction, memory problems, paranoia, difficulty sleeping, teeth grinding, blurred vision, sweating, and a rapid heartbeat. Use may also lead to depression and fatigue. Deaths have been reported due to increased body temperature and dehydration.[1] MDMA increases the release and slows the reuptake of the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in parts of the brain — and has stimulant and psychedelic effects.[2][3] The initial increase is followed by a short-term decrease in the neurotransmitters.[4][1] MDMA belongs to the substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamine and substituted amphetamine drug classes. It is structurally similar to methamphetamine, but it has more in common with the pharmacological effects of amphetamine and hallucinogens.[4][3] MDMA has two forms that are mirror images of each other which have different effects and metabolisms.

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).

Doc James and 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? Sizeofint (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Simple English Wikipedia should be treated as if it did not exist, it has no readership. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 11:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above. The article on methamphetamine mentions the enantiomers and chemical classes of the subject in a similar fashion. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Plantdrew (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including drug class, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals #Introductory paragraph. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above Sizeofint, and at least the image could show it. -Christian75 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including drug classes, but I don't see the relevance of the chirality note in lede. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • oppose while i can see why one would support (chemically),... in this case it is not due...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.Ajpolino (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 11:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --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? Sizeofint (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 needs to 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. Sizeofint (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many meds and drugs are two different molecules. If they were both notable individually, like omeprazole and esoomeprazole, than yes maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.)? Carl Fredik 💌 📧 15:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-cathinone substituted amphetamines are stereoselective agonists at hTAAR1, which reflects their enantiomeric potency in vivo - PMID 22037049. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sizeofint (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Drugs2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference palmer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, retrieved 5 April 2016
  4. ^ a b "DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy/Molly)". National Institute on Drug Abuse. February 2016. Retrieved 30 March 2016.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. "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 "Novel psychopharmacological therapies for psychiatric disorders: psilocybin and MDMA." (secondary source, full text available free with registration at The Lancet.) — Box73 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this proposed wording. Sizeofint (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should say massage therapy. lol. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie.rose614 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sizeofint (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parrott, A.C.; Sisk, E.; Turner, J.J.D. (1 July 2000). "Psychobiological problems in heavy 'ecstasy' (MDMA) polydrug users". Drug & Alcohol Dependence. doi:10.1016/S0376-8716(00)80013-7.

New age seekers paragraph

This:

MDMA has been used as an adjunct to New Age spiritual practices.

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...) Exercisephys (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [7], 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. Sizeofint (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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? Exercisephys (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine by me. Sizeofint (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global sassafras oil shortage

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.

Are we sure this is a reasonable thing to include? Which source describes this? The following seems more conservative and accurate to me:

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.

Exercisephys (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sizeofint (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll do that. Exercisephys (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered in the first 60 seconds of this link, particularly this sentence.
Also covered in 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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of molly/Molly

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? Exercisephys (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case should be fine. Sizeofint (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mild hallucations" vs. more realistic phrasing

MDMA only extremely rarely causes classic elaborate hallucinations 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.

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.

Thoughts? Exercisephys (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have thought that as well. I think it can't hurt to be more specific as long as the sourcing stays MEDRS. Sizeofint (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"MDMA is often considered the drug of choice within the rave culture and is also used at clubs, festivals and house parties".

This sounds more like the mediacreated hype, who ofcourse sold more, if "E" was an item, and similary is marketing for drugs.

Reality was not this however. Maybe in English culture we see more referances to "E", at the time. This usually is simpler music though. And a few years earlier, commercialized hallucinogenic substances were typical at "Gabber" parties in The Netherlands, due to being "legal" there. The tech-trance music though, was electronic music refined to more advancedness, where producers could not use drugs, often were even under 18, and made the defining elements, that later was known as "trance". So in that sense, actually completely straight activity is what defined it, and was the driving factor. Probably why it was so popular with athletics early on aswell.

It seems more like the media made it into a drug associated thing, and also rumours about "DJS using speed" to manage doing long sets. However that they also said speed still was not a partydrug, but rather made them calm, newspapers did not mention.

Many places and houseparties actually were mostly like club activity many places, where they drank beer, and even "pot" would be considered illegal, and unwanted.

But the hype witnesses of a phenomena, that should be identified and named something. "The drug-hype phenomena: Media-drug hype for newspaper sales attracts users to parties". To the point that "houseparties" themselves are probably not so relevant, as drugs are expected, and destructive to any people and economy around it.

The same really happened to "the hippies". Once they were worn down from drugs, the salestotem simply changed, to pastell colours, and some other group was the target. Obviously some 80s group, probably with wild hair, and later obviously "houseparty"-goers later. Where many "shroomers" then, and now indeed ended up in psychiatric wards.

There really is no such culture, and sensible people should rather prefer the more mainstream alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a reliable source WP:RS to change this. Sizeofint (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical indications

@Jbottero: It's not appropriate to remove adequately referenced material without reasonable policy justification. It's not at all apparent as to why a statement referenced by the EMCDDA would be NPOV, since that's quite an authoritative source from an EU governmental organization. Do you have any medical/governmental references supporting your assertion that this statement is not entirely true? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MDMA&oldid=732787990

Leave a Reply