This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Pharmacology B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs B‑class (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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Rave B‑class (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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Chemicals B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Autism B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The research section cites Andrew Parrott's 2014 paper. Of particular concern is the line "A review of the safety and efficacy of MDMA as a treatment for various disorders, particularly PTSD, indicated that MDMA has therapeutic efficacy in some patients;[18] however, it emphasized that MDMA is not a safe medical treatment due to lasting neurotoxic and cognition impairing effects in humans.[18]" The lasting neurotoxic and cognition impairing effects in humans was specifically addressed in Danforth et al 2015. It was shown that the literature Parrott cites takes data from users of street Ecstasy (not pure MDMA and not taken in controlled environments) who have used hundreds of times and then wrongfully applies the harms from this literature base to MDMA assisted psychotherapy (which it's only taken 6 times at most per the current literature base). Additionally, the street populations that he cites often "stack" doses which greatly increases harm and all are polysubstance abusers which confounds the source of harm found in these studies. This polysubstance abuse statistic comes from his own data, see Wu et al 2009 which he's one of the authors (full ref in Danforth paper). He curiously leaves this confound out of his 2014 paper even though he's an author on the study which overtly shows that essentially all ecstasy users are polysubstance abusers. Here's a copy and paste of the section I'm referring to from Danforth.

"The Ecstasy user literature base also contains multiple factors that limit the generalizability of naturalistic studies of street Ecstasy to clinical settings in which pure MDMA is administered from one to several times within a psychotherapy paradigm. The most substantial of these limitations are the high quantities of doses taken in nearly all publications on recreational Ecstasy users, often on the order of several hundreds of doses. Critics of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy use this data to suggest a higher level of risk than logically can be inferred from no more than six exposures reported in MDMA-assisted psychotherapy clinical trials (e.g., Parrott, 2014). Additionally, “Ecstasy” refers to MDMA obtained from street sources which currently is almost always cut with other drugs as seized shipments from 2007 show only 3% of tablets destined for North American markets containing pure MDMA (Hudson et al., 2014) (https://www.ecstasydata.org/stats.php). Authors commonly cite Ecstasy user data and use it to draw conclusions about MDMA without citing the above purity limitation (Grob, 2000). Furthermore, Ecstasy users are also almost always polysubstance abusers as indicated in the 2007 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (n = 43,093) ( Wu et al., 2009), and high polysubstance abuse rates confound nearly all of the Ecstasy correlations found in the medical literature to date. Other common notable hazards include adverse environmental conditions, polydrug use in dangerous combinations, and ingestion of high doses or stacking multiple doses to prolong drug effects. Therefore, research on recreational Ecstasy use has limited applicability to determining the safety of clinical investigations of MDMA-assisted therapy."

Please note that Meyer JS (2013) is a much better paper than Parrott (2014) but any data cited would still suffer from the same lack of generalizability to MDMA assisted psychotherapy research populations as nearly all of the research in humans we have showing cognitive or memory impairments is done with street users who've taken hundreds of doses and therefore suffers from the limitations above. Also, the term "neurotoxicity" is a vague term that seems to be used to hyperbolize risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.135.33.8 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this section needs to be updated. Personally, I think Parrot is rather biased, but then we all are and it is a reliable source. I'm working my way through the history section (albeit rather slowly) so I will eventually get to this. Feel free to take a stab at it yourself (unless you have a COI). Sizeofint (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Danforth et al 2015 Sizeofint (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot's paper is a review so technically it should be given higher weight than Danforth's. Are there any newer reviews? Sizeofint (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on MDMA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121017022821/http://www.drugabuse.gov/DirReports/DirRep500/DirectorReport5.html to http://www.drugabuse.gov/DirReports/DirRep500/DirectorReport5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150329143927/http://www.maps.org/research/ to http://www.maps.org/research/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120209142314/http://www.drugtext.org:80/library/articles/dillon.htm to http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/dillon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sizeofint (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The images of the highlighted brain and the dilated pupil seem calibrated more for anti-MDMA propaganda than encyclopedic description of MDMA. To be clear, I'm not saying whoever put them there did so in bad faith. But I think there is an understandable tendency to take drugs of abuse and present them in light that is more cautionary than encyclopedic. Like, normally images from government publications or educational materials are great for Wikipedia. However, when the publishing body has an interest in effecting behavior change, the neutrality of its output becomes questionable. School health textbooks, I think it's fair to say, include anatomical pictures to convey a sense of bodily harm. That is understandable and perhaps appropriate if you want schools or the government to inculcate healthful behaviors. But Wikipedia is not a medium for inculcating sentiment or effecting public health or public morality outcomes.

Like, take the brain pic. It provides little information the text does not. If the article contained details about how MDMA acts on different regions of the brain, this might be a useful adjunct. But as it is, it is basically just This is your brain on drugs with rave-like coloring. Articles on other psychoactive drugs, even potentially harmful ones like haloperidol and methylphenidate do not include such imagery, and I think they'd be strictly worse if they did.

Or take the dilated pupil. Lots of things cause dilated pupils. There is nothing different about pupils dilated by MDMA, and certainly nothing that picture shows that tells you anything more than the text. Again, it has a "look at what drugs do to you" flavor that is decidedly un-encyclopedic.

I'm totally pro images that show the negative consequences of an action like the tooth decay in paan or meth mouth. But the images should be narrowly tailored to convey information, not a general "look at what drugs do to you." The overall presentation and aesthetic should have the same dispassionate, scientific flavor as articles on more respectable substances. I think this is a pervasive problem on article on illegal drugs, and one that maybe should be addressed more comprehensively. Acone (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put the dilated pupil image there following the lead of the Spanish Wikipedia (see es:MDMA). The image of brain I found while searching for some appropriately licensed content for the article. I thought it provided a convenient visual summary of the content. I personally don't perceive their presence as putting MDMA in a negative light, but then I have been working on this article for a while so I may be overexposed. I am neutral on the matter. If you see this as a POV issue feel free to remove them. Sizeofint (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the "Medical" section and an expand template in the medical section. Sizeofint (talk · contribs) and Seppi333 (talk · contribs) noted that current medical consensus does not indicate MDMA, and respectively removed the new text and the expand template.

I understand how it is important to separate established clinical practice from speculative research. But the term "medical" does not necessarily connote "scientific consensus among medical researchers and approved by regulators." For example, trazodone has many off-label uses, some with much evidence (like insomnia), some with very little (like OCD). The article clearly distinguishes the consensus uses from the investigational ones. This seems more natural and fairer than if they had banished the other uses to a "research" or "investigational use" section at the bottom of the article.

There is a such things as medical scientific consensus, and it does matter, but it does not monopolize the concept of "medical" to the point that anything less can't go in the same section. I would like to add a section for unsanctioned uses. Such a section would describe (and cite!) how MDMA is in fact used psychotherapeutically, even if not in an above-board clinical setting. It would not describe clinical research into that matter, which is, I agree, better reported in a separated section. Acone (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the material that is supposed to go in the medical uses section, see MOS:PHARM#Sections. MDMA has no current medical indications and no regulatory approval in any country, hence nothing else should go in that section.
There's no "off-label" for MDMA because MDMA doesn't have a "label" to begin with (again, because it lacks a medical indication). At the moment, MDMA is an experimental drug, which basically just means it's a compound that is/can be used in research. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seppi333 (talk · contribs) MOS:PHARM#Sections doesn't state that there needs to be a scientific consensus or regulatory approval for a drug to be described there. If someone uses the drug for something clinical, that is a clinical use, and from my reading of it, nothing in that guideline says it can't there. Whether MDMA is "indicated" is an interpretive judgment. There may not be a scientific consensus or regulatory approval stating that something is "indicated"—and that is important and should be noted—but if it is routinely used to treat a medical problem, well, then those people think it's "indicated." I don't think Wikipedia should be a platform for a given paradigm to assert its monopoly on the right to categorize something as medical. Acone (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Seppi333 (talk · contribs), my proposal was to add a new section. Unsanctioned medical uses are still uses, and even forgetting my view that "medical" is the right section, they are certainly not "research," "recreational," or "spiritual" uses. When vets or rape victims take MDMA to address their PTSD, this fits into none of those sections. If I can't put that information in the medical section, why not add another one? For example, Mitragyna speciosa simply has a "Uses" section, with subsections describing how it is in fact used (regardless of whether there is scientific consensus about the clinical validity). How would you feel about adding a comparable section here? Acone (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: "Medical uses" is basically just a more layman friendly section title for "Indications". When pharmaceuticals get approved, they've been evaluated for an indication as well as for contraindications: these terms basically just mean "a medical reason to use / not use the drug" respectively. Has any medical research been done in this area? Are we just going to ignore it if not, even though the list is probably extensive like it is for this drug? I have no idea how to go about writing those two sections in a manner that's not half-assed for drugs without a label. In any event, if a research section only covers clinical trials, then just rename it "Clinical research" like Lisdexamfetamine#Clinical research; otherwise, cover clinical and preclinical there in subsections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add a section called "Underground psychiatric use" to "Society and culture". I think this use should be discussed somewhere in the article. I also think we need to be consistent in what we call "Medical uses". This might be a topic to raise at WP:Medicine. I don't think we have a guideline for handling unapproved medical uses of drugs that lack indications. Ibogaine suffers from the same problem and we lump everything under "Medical uses". Sizeofint (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add there is a blurry line between "Research" and "Unapproved medical use". We'd have to discuss how to differentiate between the two. Sizeofint (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeofint (talk · contribs) I like the header underground therapeutic use because I think it correctly communicates what is going on. The user understands the use as therapeutic (some would say medical or psychiatric, others might reject that). And I prefer "underground" to "unapproved" because the matter is not just one of regulatory approval, but clinical and cultural acceptability. As for where it should go, I say under "uses" not "society and culture." If we want to talk about the societal or cultural contexts in which various use occurs, then sure, society and culture. But not the how and wherefore of the use itself. Personally, I do not find the line between "Research" and "Unapproved/Underground Medical/Therapeutic Use"' blurry. Research is about efforts to learn more, their methods, and their results. If a notable underground use is being researched, it may be a appropriate to discuss it in both sections. For example. people use MDMA to treat their PTSD. Sometimes they do this in the context of a research study. Use in the context of a study should go in "research," while use that is not in such context should be noted in "Uses," even if such use is itself the subject of research. I take your point about Ibogaine and general policy in re WP:Medicine. For now, I'd like to just settle on what makes maximal sense here. Acone (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think unless we get a general guideline at WP:PHARM or WP:MED this will wind up in an edit war. I wouldn't revert you if you add it, but after so many days or weeks a medical editor is going to come by and delete the content. I note this article is in the scope of WP:Alternative medicine. What about adding a subsection in "Uses" called "Alternative medicine" and placing it there? The content might find better reception in that setup. Sizeofint (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, "Alternative medicine" is the probably most appropriate heading for a section covering this content, so I'm happy with the current layout. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine has a clear meaning that isn't really the same as implied by the section. I have changed it to something more neutral, although we can argue over whether "therapeutic" would be better than "medical." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine states "It consists of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, ranging from being biologically plausible but not well tested, to being directly contradicted by evidence and science, or even harmful or toxic." To me, this seems to fit with our use of the term in this article. Yes, we have a handful of pilot studies and it seems probable that MDMA has medical applications, however currently MDMA is not well tested. Sizeofint (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big blocks of content should not be hidden in "note" but placed in the body of the article IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opposite opinion in this case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sizeofint (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this is also done at amfepramone. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sasata's featured articles (see [1]). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Plantdrew (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text should not be in the lead only. Thus we need a section on names in th body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asked by Doc James (talk · contribs) [2]

• 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]

• 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]

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 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. [3] 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): [4] --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]

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

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.[5][6][7] (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]

• 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... Garzfoth (talk) 19:03, 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]
• oppose per reasons given above (current article-title is best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've 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: 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. PermStrump(talk) 16:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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). PermStrump(talk) 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Maproom - That's because "methylenedioxymethamphetamine" is currently buried in a "note". (Am referring to this version. Confusingly it keeps changing because editors are revert-warring even while in the middle of an RfC.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @ Maproom - actually this is easily solved... cf. above --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is in the infobox, although you'd need to put your cursor over the abbreviated text (3,4-MDMA) to see it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 here, buried in multiple discussions aboutnames. For example, see the image in there about the various name types the infobox has to cover.

-DePiep (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. CFCF 💌 📧 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, I noticed that someone moved this sentence, "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 CFCF.) PermStrump(talk) 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]