Jump to content

Talk:LSD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jusdafax (talk | contribs) at 10:48, 12 March 2023 (→‎Requested move 3 March 2023: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleLSD is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 22, 2006Featured article reviewKept
January 29, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 16, 2004, April 16, 2005, April 16, 2006, November 16, 2008, and November 16, 2012.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022: LSD, the Counterculture, & MKULTRA

I would like to substantially modify the CIA history & counterculture paragraphs in the introduction to more accurately reflect political uses of the drug during the Cold War based on NYT journalist's Stephen Kinzer's "Poisoner in Chief" and the anecdotes told in "Acid Dreams" (Ctb. Leary, Huxley, Ginsberg, etc.).

I am a current undergraduate who completed an academic thesis on the history of "mind control" experiments. The topic of MKULTRA is, in my opinion, unambiguously central to the history of the drug. Given that the intellectual leaders of the counterculture movement (Leary, Ram Dass, Lennon, Huxley, Ginsberg, among many others) unanimously attribute the spread of psychedelics to the CIA, it may be worth expanding the "History" section with more detail as well. My edits and bibliography are lengthy enough that it would be easier to simply submit drafted edits to the Wikipedia team than request them through this format.

Given the renewed cultural interest in psychedelic art, recreational drug use, and psychedelic-assisted-therapy, it is essential to provide balanced, transparent information on the confusing, heavy, and paranoia-inducing history of LSD as a potential weapon tested for interstate conflict. Written skillfully, this information has the ability to substantially reduce the risk of a bad trip for amateur users careless in their information intake. I hope to provide Wikipedia with reputable scholarly information on a psychologically fraught topic in order to minimize potential harm. Gsalamander (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Though, since your changes appear to be intensive, I would recommend editing other parts of the encyclopedia to gain WP:AUTOCONFIRMED status, which you can get automatically after 4 days and 10 edits. casualdejekyll 00:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why LSD and not LAD

Makes no sense that it’s LSD and not LAD 2600:1000:B022:CEDD:25CC:1D15:2D62:12F9 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Modern Distribution" Subtopic

Under "Society and Culture" we have "Modern Distribution." The section opens with a claim about how LSD is produced, and then cites two sources that are both from >50 years ago. The section then goes on to speculate on DEA priorities, using citation 188. Full text of citation 188: "LSD: The Drug." No year, publisher, author, or additional context.

The rest of the section is well-cited, and should be the only text in the section. It *could* be consolidated into a single paragraph and rewritten but even as-is, it's much more relevant than the first two blurbs. 63.224.248.97 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2023

Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE: this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the abbreviation and LSD is the common name for the topic. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support COMMONNAME and ACROTITLE seem to cover it. It's already not a disambig page. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "LSD" is much more used. BhamBoi (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose: "Bike" is also more used than "Bicycle". This is not really a slang dictionary. The full name is quite recognizable. And I disagree it is primary topic (not in my world anyway - LSD means pounds-shilling-pence). Walrasiad (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my two cents, but I would have no idea that this was the full name for the common name of the drug. Everyone knows bike is short for bicycle, but not everyone knows LSD is short for this. Also, see COMMONNAME. BhamBoi (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've known it since I was in middle school. In central Africa, of all places, where the drug is practically non-existent. But well-meaning Western aid workers pushed these "don't do drugs" pamphlets on us, and there was this funky name that was very memorable. Walrasiad (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest problem is that LSD is not an acronym of lysergic acid diethylamide, which would be LAD. Instead of "acid" the common term for the substance is based on the German word. This is confusing. I also find it hard to believe you think more people recognize than "LSD". —DIYeditor (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was more recognizable. I said it was sufficiently recognizable. I don't see a reason to resort to acronyms or slang pointlessly. Walrasiad (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, which includes a similar example in aspirin. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - whilst "LSD" redirects to this article, there is nothing wrong with redirects. Besides, in the UK, LSD usually refers to the predecimal currency. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    £sd seems to be written in lowercase as "Lsd". There is nothing wrong with redirects but that sometimes causes problems with recognizability of the subject -- "LSD" is more recognizable than what appears to be "LAD" at first glance. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Previous move-requests for this same proposal:
DMacks (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If we choose to keep this article at its longform name, we might as well move "MDMA" to "3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine", but that's obviously just as ridiculous. Googol30 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Disclaimer: I was the one who probably sparked this RM by mentioning it at the Talk:Liquid-crystal display RM). But unlike "Liquid-crystal display", lysergic acid diethylamide is not a household name and fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE quite badly. Apart from above-mentioned MDMA, this is more comparable to DNA, which is not at "Deoxyribonucleic acid". No such user (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I almost felt comfortable closing this, but wanted to add instead that £sd is denoted with the symbol £ and not an L, so a hatnote to £sd should suffice for that (case notwithstanding). As well as that, a search of the article reveals the moniker "LSD" being used over 400 times, and the full name being used around 30. I know that's largely in the sake of brevity, but it could be argued that brevity is what likely leads to "LSD" being the common name. I don't necessarily oppose the actual title being the long name of the drug, it fits my preferences more closely, but the examples for MDMA and DNA seem to indicate a preference for accepting the most common name, so we may as well be consistent. (Interesting, though, how the community sentiment has changed since 2017, at least) ASUKITE 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - To be brief, the anacronym is unencyclopedic. Redirect LSD. If it ain't broke, dont try to fix it. Jusdafax (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it an unencyclopedic acronym? I get that the slang "acid" is unencyclopedic, but a lot of academic journals and books use LSD exclusively after the first instance -- some mention its full name once and never again.
    WP:AT's WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY are the policies here. The full name is only mentioned 16 times in the titles of the 249 currently listed sources -- that's ~6%, so it's clear that LSD is more recognizable and commonly used. I have yet to understand the difference between LSD and DNA or Aspirin. In fact, LSD is a German abbreviation that has become such integrated into English that it's confusing to see a title that appears to be "LAD" at first glance. Therefore I think the current title is broke and needs fixing. Besides, LSD art has existed for years and no concerns have been raised there. Best regards, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two previous move-requests, noted above, came to different conclusions, with the last being in 2017. I read both 2014 and 2017 requests carefully, and found a lot of good arguments made there, especially about the LSD redirect. So, the only difference is going to be LSD at the top of the article, instead of the proper chemical name lysergic acid diethylamide. And that's how I concluded the current name not only ain't broke, but that changing it is, in my view, unencyclopedic, despite the policies you cite. Perhaps all the previous participants should be pinged for their current views, so it isn't just a half dozen editors making this decision in, at this moment, a ten day time frame. Cheers. Jusdafax (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LSD&oldid=1144199134"