Talk:2,5-Dimethoxyphenethylamine

Copyright?
The article reads like a huge copyright violation. Although I can't prove this, I would appreciate to see a confirmation that it isn't a blatant copy of some other non-wikipedia text. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

Found an original of a significant part of the article here and here. The text is probably directly lifted from Alexander Shulgin's book. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, it is clearly from Shulgin's book. Part two of PiHKAL (the chemistry section) includes the following copyright notice: "Part 2 of PiHKAL may be distributed for non-commerical reproduction provided that the introductory information, copyright notice, cautionary notice and ordering information remain attached."  I think it is clear that this article is in violation.  Further, there are factual errors in the article -- Shulgin doesn't report the compound as being active, for starters; rather it is a precursor to many others.  I will delete large portions of this article in the next few days unless anyone objects. Evand 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Planned edit: I plan to remove the entire "synthesis" section from this article, for several reasons.  First, at least part of it is blatant copyright violation; I imagine the rest is too but I haven't looked too carefully.  Second, WP doesn't normally give recipes for synthesis, merely the reactions (if that).  Finally, I don't think this chemical is important enough to warrant the quantity of information on its synthesis, especially as the syntheses given are recipe-style and don't describe the actual chemistry of the reactions.  The whole section is more appropriate to a clandestine chemistry site than it is to WP.  I will also rewrite the "Usage" section (the current section is also straight from Shulgin).  And finally, I can find no references to it being an active compound, and several (though most appear to be based on Shulgin) saying it isn't expected to be. As such I will remove the reference to it be hallucinogenic.  Since this is a rather large edit (basically gutting the article back to stub-quality), I wanted to announce my intentions before making the changes.  Please comment!  Evand 08:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes discussed above; I believe the article is now of neutral tone, and does not infringe copyright. Evand 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent copy-edit. Well worth to be part of Wikipedia now! Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

Duplicate
I hope I'm not seeing incorrectly, but there seems to be two Wikipedia articles on 2,5-Dimethoxy-phenethylamine. The other one is 2C-H. Hopefully between these two pages someone sorts this out. Thanks.--Astavats (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)