Talk:Organic compound

useless article

This article is terrible. It starts off with a short text, and then there is a looong list of links, and then a short article with no substance. Seems that there is alot missing here. Sorry for naging. Seismic Boom 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you think is missing from the article? --Itub 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What are functions, uses and examples of carbohydrates?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates Seismic Boom 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a layman I have to disagree (that the article is "terrible") because it answered my fundamental questions. For example, I consider it useful to know that the distinction between organic and inorganic compounds is somewhat arbitrary. Please don't confuse volume with value.  :) And experts, please continue to keep the fundamental stuff at the top! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

nucleic acid

The first isolation of what we now refer to as DNA was accomplished by Johann Friedrich Miescher circa 1870. He reported finding a weakly acidic substance of unknown function in the nuclei of human white blood cells, and named this material "nuclein". A few years later, Miescher separated nuclein into protein and nucleic acid components. In the 1920's nucleic acids were found to be major components of chromosomes, small gene-carrying bodies in the nuclei of complex cells. Elemental analysis of nucleic acids showed the presence of phosphorus, in addition to the usual C, H, N & O. Unlike proteins, nucleic acids contained no sulfur. Complete hydrolysis of chromosomal nucleic acids gave inorganic phosphate, 2-deoxyribose (a previously unknown sugar) and four different heterocyclic bases (shown in the following diagram). To reflect the unusual sugar component, chromosomal nucleic acids are called deoxyribonucleic acids, abbreviated DNA. Analogous nucleic acids in which the sugar component is ribose are termed ribonucleic acids, abbreviated RNA. The acidic character of the nucleic acids was attributed to the phosphoric acid moiety.

The two monocyclic bases shown here are classified as pyrimidines, and the two bicyclic bases are purines. Each has at least one N-H site at which an organic substituent may be attached. They are all polyfunctional bases, and may exist in tautomeric forms. Base-catalyzed hydrolysis of DNA gave four nucleoside products, which proved to be N-glycosides of 2'-deoxyribose combined with the heterocyclic amines. Structures and names for these nucleosides will be displayed above by clicking on the heterocyclic base diagram. The base components are colored green, and the sugar is black. As noted in the 2'-deoxycytidine structure on the left, the numbering of the sugar carbons makes use of primed numbers to distinguish them from the heterocyclic base sites. The corresponding N-glycosides of the common sugar ribose are the building blocks of RNA, and are named adenosine, cytidine, guanosine and uridine (a thymidine analog missing the methyl group). From this evidence, nucleic acids may be formulated as alternating copolymers of phosphoric acid (P) and nucleosides (N), as shown: ~ P – N – P – N'– P – N– P – N'– P – N ~

At first the four nucleosides, distinguished by prime marks in this crude formula, were assumed to be present in equal amounts, resulting in a uniform structure, such as that of starch. However, a compound of this kind, presumably common to all organisms, was considered too simple to hold the hereditary information known to reside in the chromosomes. This view was challenged in 1944, when Oswald Avery and colleagues demonstrated that bacterial DNA was likely the genetic agent that carried information from one organism to another in a process called "transformation". He concluded that "nucleic acids must be regarded as possessing biological specificity, the chemical basis of which is as yet undetermined." Despite this finding, many scientists continued to believe that chromosomal proteins, which differ across species, between individuals, and even within a given organism, were the locus of an organism's genetic information. It should be noted that single celled organisms like bacteria do not have a well-defined nucleus. Instead, their single chromosome is associated with specific proteins in a region called a "nucleoid". Nevertheless, the DNA from bacteria has the same composition and general structure as that from multicellular organisms, including human beings.

Views about the role of DNA in inheritance changed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. By conducting a careful analysis of DNA from many sources, Erwin Chargaff found its composition to be species specific. In addition, he found that the amount of adenine (A) always equaled the amount of thymine (T), and the amount of guanine (G) always equaled the amount of cytosine (C), regardless of the DNA source. As set forth in the following table, the ratio of (A+T) to (C+G) varied from 2.70 to 0.35. The last two organisms are bacteria. Nucleoside Base Distribution in DNA

CF₄ (tetrafluoromethane)

according to your definition, tetrafluoromethane and teflon is not an organic compound as they don't have hydrogen atom. are they inorganic or organic compound?

See the third paragraph. They are in a gray area. Some chemists consider perfluorocarbons organic, and some don't. Personally, I think they should be special add-on's, since (as noted) the C-F bond confers physical properties in some (but not all) ways resembling the C-H bond. However, if you've ever seen a flask with a high MW perfluorocarbon liquid (like perfluorooctane) on the bottom, a layer of water above that, and a layer of pure hydrocarbon like benzene on top, you see three clearly different types of immiscible fluids. If you do enough of that, you begin to consider perfluorocarbons as perhaps needing a class of their own! They are very weird compounds. SBHarris 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of an organic compound

The general definition of organic compounds as those containing carbon-hydrogen bonds is in desperate need of revision. There are numerous instances of organic compounds that do not contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, the most pertinent of which being urea. This compound is widely known as the first organic compound to be successfully synthesized (as mentioned in the article), yet itself contains no carbon-hydrogen bonds! The gray-area of which the article speaks seems far too broad for this archaic definition to be used any longer.

Another is is the simplest dicarboxilic acid, oxalic acid HOOC-COOH. Surely organic if succinic is, since the chemistry is nearly identical. And the diamide of oxalic acid as well. And are mono and difluoroacetic acids to be considered organics, but trifluoacetic acid not? There is also a crystalline polymer HOOC-(CO)n-COOH which looks and feels awfully organic to me. There are also trifluormethyl versions of methyl methacrylate and methyl polyvinyl alcohol polymers which would be strange not to consider organic--- even odder than Teflon. So yes, I fully agree with the problem. Want to have a whack at solving it, perhaps in a subsidiary LEAD paragraph talking about a significant minority view? SBHarris 06:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been an organic chemist for over thirty years and have never seen a definition of "organic compound" as limiting as that used in this article. I could sit here all night and list compounds which almost any organic chemist would consider to be "organic" yet which contain no hydrogen. Carbon disulfide (which is produced anerobic decomposition of biomass and would even fit the classical definition of "organic"), carbon tetrachloride, decachlorobiphenyl (a PCB), mellitic anhydride (anhydride of benzene hexacarboxylic acid) are all inorganic by the definition used in this article. One definition says that a compound is organic if an organic chemist says it is (this works for me!). However, Morrison and Boyd, in one of the most used organic chemistry texts, simply state that organic chemisty is the study of the chemistry of carbon.

I put in the Morrison and Boyd reference for you. With that authority, it deserves mention. SBHarris 04:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Morrison and Boyd text never defines "organic compound." The book opens with "Organic chemistry is the chemistry of the compounds of carbon." However, on the first page they discuss the historic distinction between inorganic and organic compounds, and go on to say:

"The division between inorganic and organic compounds has been retained to this day. Today, although many compounds of carbon are still most conveniently isolated from plant and animal sources, most of them are synthesized. They are sometimes synthesized from inorganic substances like carbonates or cyanides, but more often from other organic compounds."

The authors clearly do not consider all compounds containing Carbon to be organic. I replaced the reference with [Citation needed], but I think the statement should be removed. --An anonymous chemistry student.

I suggest replacing "An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen; therefore, carbides, carbonates, carbon oxides and elementary carbon are not organic" with "An organic compound is one which contains carbon. Some simple compounds such as oxides (carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide), carbides (eg. tungsten carbide), small ionic salts (eg. cyanides, carbonates, cyanates etc) and allotropes of carbon (eg. diamond and graphite) are generally considered to be inorganic." This makes the article consistent with the one on inorganic compounds.Silverchemist 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Four Major classes

What are the four major classes of organic compounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.52.73 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC). i dont know, a need help!!!!!!!! i want to know if what are those classes of orgamic compounds.

Talk pages of Wikipedia articles are for discussing improvements to articles. They are not places to request help with your homework.

I expect your question relates to biochemistry, in which case the four main classes of biomolecules are carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. I don't think this information really belongs in an article on organic chemistry - it is already covered in biochemistry and biomolecule.

Next time, use Wikipedia:Reference desk, or just read your textbook, consult your notes, ask a teacher or a classmate. Don't rely on Wikipedia talk pages, that's not their purpose!

Ben 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I added the unreferenced template at the top of the article because there is no source for the claimed definition (compounds containing C-H bonds). This is an arbitrary definition; there are others that could be used. --Itub 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of an organic compound

I apologize for the anonymous "template" posted earlier bemoaning the injustice inherent in a definition of organic chemistry whose core tenet implies a relationship lacking in its foundational constituent (and far too many others, as was pointed out). I should have prefaced it with a contextual clue as to why anyone should even care, n'est ce pas? I just think that as scientists, it is our nature to strive constantly to maintain the most stringent definitions of our respective disciplines and of ourselves as their representatives. Admittedly, I am not an organic chemist by trade, but it troubles me to witness the persistence of such an archaic and, frankly, nonsensical definition of organic compounds as those containing C-H bonds. As a graduate student in genetics, it would bother me greatly to see a gene defined as "a segment of DNA encoding a protein". While this is true for the vast majority of genes, some gene transcripts (about 8% of those in humans) are not fated for translation into proteins (such as those emanating from rRNA and tRNA genes, whose intrinsic functions in the ribosome depend upon their remaining as RNA). Such a definition would be, in my mind, far too narrow and simply false.

I was always very fond of organic chemistry, and it saddened me to think that a science with such myriad and multifaceted molecular architectures could be so narrowly defined, especially in a growing general worldwide knowledge base frequented by millions. That is why I had to add my two cents' worth. As far as arriving at a solution, I would prefer to leave that to the real experts, i.e. the organic chemists.

Eganio 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the definition to the simpler and more accepted one of "carbon compounds minus a few traditional exceptions". I also removed the whole section about the "dispute". There is no dispute; it's just that there is no "official" definition and every textbook chooses its own wording, in ways that are not always identical. However, textbook authors with any sense always mention that the exact distinction is historical, not that important, and somewhat subjective. A good way of putting it is this one:

"Although this division into organic and inorganic is useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry, the division is somewhat arbitrary. For example, a compound that contains both carbon and a metal, such as chlorophyll or hemoglobin, may be considered either organic or inorganic, depending on the interest of the person who is studying it. It is equally difficult (and unnecessary) to draw a line separating organic chemistry and biochemistry." Organic Chemistry By Joseph M. Hornback; Published 2006 by Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Hope this helps. --Itub 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In January 2008 and unregistered user ignored the discussion on this page and changed the definition. I have gone back to the original, broader definition. Silverchemist (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was well aware of the discussion. What you call a "broader definition" is simply wrong. 87.183.98.229 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you change again, 87.183.98.229. You are acting against consensus. Your definition of organic compounds (compounds with C-H bonds) is not the only accepted definition, and you have not provided a reference.

Ben (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Ben. Making a change against consensus, with no rationale or references is bad form for anyone, especially a anonymous unregistered user. Morrison and Boyd's "Organic Chemistry" 3rd edition (one of the standard texts for university level chemistry courses) begins "Organic chemistry is the chemistry of compounds of carbon". Silverchemist (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon." This is the opening sentence in the article and it is false. Later qualifications are contradictory to this statement, and it should be removed. Also, it should be noted that in most major undergraduate and graduate level text books on organic chemistry define organic compounds as those compounds containing a C-H bond. Urea is not "organic" (contrary to the Urea article) and HCN is. Both of these articles(on organic compounds and carbon compounds that are inorganic) are in need of major revisions. I would suggest that this article be cleaned up by providing multiple definitions, the history behind them, and their pros and cons. The definition of what is organic in 1828 is not the same as the definitions we use today. It is no longer something produced by an organism, because we now know that we can make these compounds from inorganic starting materials and that organism produce plenty of inorganic compounds, sometimes from organic compounds. The entire C-H definition was adopted as a way to simplify things, as there are no exceptions. Endtothemeans (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Show us some reliable references that state explicitly that urea is not organic and HCN is. I would also be interested in seeing that majority of texbooks you refer to. --Itub (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Morrison and Boyd's standard text book (see above), there are almost 150 websites (most of them hosted by universities) which contain the sentence "Organic chemistry is the chemistry of compounds of carbon" (try a Google search with the quotation marks in place and omit "Adams" to avoid unnecessary duplication due to one much cited quotation). Cotton and Wilkinson in Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: a Comprehensive Text say "There are more known compounds of carbon than of any other element except hydrogen, most of them best regarded as organic chemicals." Websters New World Dictionary 2nd ed. defines "organic" (sense 4) as "designating or of any chemical compound containing carbon: some simple compounds of carbon, such as carbon dioxide are frequently classified as inorganic".

The simplistic C-H requirement for an organic chemical leads to some ludicrous situations. For example in the reaction sequence CH₂=CH₂ --> CH₂CL=CH₂CL --> CCl₂=CCl₂ --> CHCl₂-CCl₂F the carbon-containing material is organic, organic, inorganic and then organic again. Also, PTFE (Teflon) would be inorganic while Tefzel ETFE would be an organic polymer, even though both are fluoropolymers. Including hydrogen cyanide as an organic compound raises another issue since that C-H bond is very much more polar (almost to the extent of being ionic) than a normal covalent C-H bond. Simplicity doesn't imply accuracy. The exclusive, no exceptions allowed, C-H definition creates more problems than it solves. Silverchemist (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What I was taught is that a compound is considered organic if it contains at least one C-C or C-H covalent bond. That would resolve the problems you show above since the C-C bonds would mean that all these compounds are organic. Indianopilot (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any arbitrary declaration would "resolve the problem", but "I heard it somewhere" is a totally invalid reason for accepting one from among the various ideas. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of an organic compound

A precise definition of an organic compound is indeed unclear, but IMHO, we should not turn this general purpose article into a forum for debating whether carbon tet is organic or not. Yes, a handful of inorganic carbon compounds exist of the type that [User:Jorge Stolfi] has so ably expanded on, but their numbers are microscopic compared to the mass of organic chemistry. So my recommendation is to indicate that there are some "borderline compounds" but to serve the readers by focusing on the bulk of the area - things with C-H bonds. The organometallic community similarly endures such semantic analyses, for example, since metal carbonyls are really inorganic not organometallic in some sense. Similarly for organophosporus, where OP(OR)₃ things are not really organophosphorus, because they lack P-C bonds. I agree that definitions like "we know one (an organic cmpd) when we see one" are dissatisfying, but the readership seeks an overview of millions of compounds not arguments by specialists over esoterica (although I enjoy such esoterica too).--Smokefoot (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the definition that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic with a few exceptions (as noted in the lead paragraph). This eliminates the issue with things like oxalic acid and urea, which are the most problematic exclusions in a "C-H" only definition. Note that IUPAC lists both compounds in its "Blue Book" on organic chemistry. It is far easier to note the few exceptions in the former case than to list the greater number of exceptions to the latter. The "C-H" only rule leads to situations like Teflon being inorganic but Tefzel being organic and half of the Halons being organic while the rest are organic. These exceptions are not esoterica. Silverchemist (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and good points. You might put that definition in the article. I couldnt find an official definition, that is the reason I defaulted to IUPAC's "organyl." I am fine with it. My angle was to not quibble about what is an isn't organic and just get into the topic focused on broad sweep of the area. By "esoterica," I was referring to Jorge's and my particular fascination with oxocarbons, etc. Many editors, given the right circumstances, would fill an article quibbling over definitions (e.g. are C₂F₄ and urea really, really organic etc) when all the poor reader seeks is the big picture, not some hand-wringing essay.

Is it not most consistent with early conceptions of the term to be defined as:

"Any carbon compound that does not occur in nature except where it has been influenced by organisms?"

Section temporarily removed, until basic quality can be introduced

The classification section was removed, until someone can edit it to be comparable in quality to the referenced similar section (whose cross-reference was left in place). The major issue with the section is its failure to present the major, structural bases for organic classification (cf. the cross-referenced section), and its presenting in their place a deeply flawed notion of an encompassing, fundamental distinction between natural and synthetic. To those who re-write, I would suggest wrestling with the following: Is azadirachtin natural or synthetic? If ascorbic acid is isolated and synthesized by competing chemical firms, and produced to the same release specifications (chemical form, purity criteria, etc.), how do we describe the difference between the two products, chemically? The best answers are that azadirachtin is a natural product product that has been synthesized, i.e., it is both natural and synthetic, depending on the specific preparation being discussed (and hence is not fundamentally either one). And we cannot tell the difference between the vitamin C batches, if the isolated and the synthesized are indeed prepared to the same specifications. This is why the common misconception / dichotomy of natural as good, and synthetic as bad is such nonsense (see aflatoxins, at one time the most potent known family of carcinogens). And why, historically the French dye industry (and very nearly, the entire French economy), which were based and dependent on the madder root-derived dye alizarin, collapsed at about the time of the American Civil War, when German and English synthetic chemists discovered how to synthesize the same dye molecule very inexpensively, from a component of coal-tar -- hence pulling the proverbial rug out (a "rose madder" rug?) from under the competing industry. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fluorocarbon question addressed

The chemistry of fluorocarbons such as tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) is indeed a part of organic chemistry, a specialty very tellingly known as "organofluorine chemistry". Google it, and you'll find it as a Wiley title (and as an article in Wikipedia, I imagine). The highly polarized C-F bond does indeed impart unique properties to molecules, and this has been used to great advantage through the fluorination of methylenes and aryl rings and the introduction of trifluoromethyl groups in pharmaceuticals. When fluorinated olefins such as TFE were polymerized to form PTFE (another Google-worthy term), the organoflourine and polymer chemistry disciplines shared the preparatory headaches (and eventual glories). Prof D. Meduban (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pb(CH3COO)2 — is this organic?

Lead (II) acetate. Could it be considered as organic compound? I think it's organic, because it has atoms of carbon and hydrogen and I think it has C — H bonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.81.126 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Biotechnology section

The section on biotechnology states, without reference: '...Sometimes the biotechnologically engineered compounds were never present in nature in the first place....' . Some examples and a reference would be great, and probably a reasonable minimum requirement for keeping such a claim in the article. 68.13.205.169 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)BGriffin

Legacy problems and “complex organic molecules”

I landed here while looking for clarity on what makes a “complex organic molecule” organic and/or complex. From the article it seems to me that the attempt to define the terms organic/inorganic founders on the circularity arising from the retention of the legacy classification of alchemy that the terms are part of. In addition to the problems listed under Organic_compound#Modern_classification I understand the term is also used differently in astonomy. It seems to follow that not only is there no consensus currently on what the terms mean but that no firm definition is actually even ever possible. Notwithstanding this the legacy classification is being retained, so the seemingly obvious question is why, what is their utility? If their utility is only particular to the specific areas or contexts in which it is used then would the article benefit from being constructed from this standpoint rather than from attempting to square the circle of alchemy and arrive at a modern scientific definition? (fwiw my interest in complex organic molecules is via paleobiology) LookingGlass (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I have stumbled across an answer to my own question .. if carbon is the defining feature of organic compounds it would be possible to use the word carbon instead of organic so that organic compounds could be called carbon compounds however the term carbon could not be substituted in the term organic molecules as that would presumably mean molecules made of only carbon atoms .. ?

LookingGlass (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

About my Persistency of my Organic Chemistry Definition Reply to User: Smokefoot and User: MaterialScientist

Reply at User: Materialscientist

Sorry, but I must insist on that definition that there must be at least one carbon and one hydrogen because as you can see when that hydrogen is substituted to a halide it became unstable due to the violation of octet rule.

Reply at User: Smokefoot
Sorry but can you please explain it to me the statement about you are saying at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DaneGil1996 which is read as:
"The definition of an organic compound is complicated and we try to avoid being too rigid here. For those reasons I removed the previous edit and will do so again. Also, organic chemistry involves more than "molecules". Did you want to discuss the matter? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)"
What I want you to clarify is that what do you mean by saying " involves more that molecules
Author: DaneGil1996 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, when you say "Sorry, but I must insist on that definition ..." then I know that you are probably insufficiently knowledgeable to discuss this matter. Please talk to your parents or your teacher and then get back to us. Your comments are silly.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well known methane

Restore the graphic of 'well known' methane—which is among the better known (to the lay public) of chemical 'stuff'. Plus the line-angle diagram that illustrates the structure of the compound and its chemical formula. It (the caption) clearly admits the problem of multiple definitions of 'organic compounds'. The ball-and-stick graphic of L-isoleucine is also good to keep, but much better if the scale is large enough to actually see the double bond between carbon and oxygen. The old caption is too long for a thumbnail column at the top of the article, but it works easily into the adjacent text-narrative.(See graphic and text at #Modern classification). {Charlie Clearwater} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.130 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Request clarification

Is this line stated correctly? The current statement (see #Modern classn, para 5): ..most sources believe that C-H compounds are only a subset of "organic" compounds. IS THIS LINE intended to mean (1) that "all C-H compounds.." are the subset? (---which doesn't make sense to me.)

Or, (2), is the envisioned subset those "non-bonded C-H" compounds only? that is, they are seen as a special subset of "organic" compounds.

Which is it?---or is it something else entirely? Request someone knowledgeable pls clarify, and thanks. {Charlie Clearwater} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.157.50 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

First, thanks for catching that screwy languange. I deleted most of it. Second, regarding your question: "Which is it?" Who cares? Chemists dont lawyer over this demarcation. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Thanks,.. : but CF₄ is a fluoromethane, not a fluoroethane—and it (fluoromethane) won't serve the argument being made here. Isn't the correct formula = CH₂CF₄—per the link you provided?——or CH₂FCF₃ (per Structural formula #Condensed formulas); both of which show a C-H bond but still are considered "inorganic". {C.C.}.

If the definition is based on "C–H bond", then tetrafluoroethane is organic; and our article on that compound says it's organic. So it is not different than the trifluoromethane example. Instead, the point stated is one of "arbitrary division". That is, following the sequence "CH4 CH3F CH2F2 CHF3 CF4", why should one of those steps, which are all chemically analogous and on the same core structure, suddenly switch the fundamental identity from organic to inorganic? Clearly our article needs to have a correct formula/name, so the formula of "tetrafluoroethane" is not "₄". But the recent change to "CF₂FCF" is not correct for that name either (would be "tetrafluoroethene"). I changed it to the consistent pair "tetrafluoromethane" "₄" (fixed name for previous formula), since that is the closest analog to CF3H with which it is constrasted. Switching between ...meth... and ...eth... (and maybe even ...ane and ...ene?) invokes ideas of C–C bonding, whereas C–H is the topic.DMacks (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal rationale: "The word organic is historical, dating to the 1st century"

All words are historical. Like most words in English, the root of "organic" in fact goes back to Proto-Indo-European, about 3500 BCE, not the 1st century CE. However the earliest attestation of the word "organic" is in the 1510s, where it refers to instruments or engines, and the earliest use of the word referring to organised living beings is 1778. 14.201.246.185 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between "Organic compound" & "Organic chemistry"

In this article, we have: "For historical reasons discussed below, a few types of carbon-containing compounds, such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (for example, CO and CO2), and cyanides are considered inorganic. Allotropes of carbon, such as diamond, graphite, fullerenes, and carbon nanotubes[3] are also excluded because they are simple substances composed of only a single element and therefore are not generally considered to be chemical compounds."

So according to this, fullerenes are NOT organic compounds.

Yet in the "Organic chemistry" article there is a sub-section of "Classification of organic compounds" entitled "Fullerenes". And it doesn't say anything like, "Fullerenes are not organic compounds."

Britannica.com defines organic compound as: "Organic compound, any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements . . . " Hedles (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This dispute consumes a lot of energy and seemingly even emotions. Practitioners of organic chemistry dont give a damn, and that tells you that this definition is not filled with meaning or substance. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

History of definition of organic compounds

The History section does not actually contain any history per se beyond 19th century vitalism. I would very much like to see a discussion of when the various exceptions were first brought up, and how chemists over the years have attempted to give a definitive definition of organicness.Barnyard fowl (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that most professional chemists are almost totally bored by or oblivious to the definition of organic (or inorganic, etc). The definitions seem mainly of interest to those that don't practice chemistry. Such definitions are often not in agreement, it seems. Even IUPAC is not helpful, see https://beta.goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/O04329. So my point is that your quest is unlikely to be very satisfying. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is quite understandable that chemists wouldn't care much about it at this point. However I wonder if philosophers of science have thought about this issue in the last 150 years or so.Barnyard fowl (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Lemme try define 'organic compound', with rules instead of exceptions:

I propose, if a carbon compound satisfies any of these conditions:

• has a CC bond regardless of bond order and one of the C atom is unionised, or
• has an unionisable C-H (pKa>=14) bond, or
• has a C atom connected to another C atom with any number of other atoms and only true covalent bonds (not dative covalent, like in Metal canbonyl complexes) between them, or
• the compound is a simple molecular carbide,

then it is organic, so:

HCN, CCl4, COCl2, urea, guanidine, La2(CO3)3, Ni(CO)4, CaC2, SiC are inorganic, while oxalic acid, diphosgene and allenide are organic.

How are these rules? 捍粵者 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

While it's interesting to try to write new rules and figure this all out, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. See WP:OR. DMacks (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Understandable. If someone found my proposal, share it and people start to agree, is this still OR? 捍粵者 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But "start to agree" means "discussed in reliable sources". DMacks (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)