Talk:Inorganic compound

message: I am going to flag the statement "Inorganic compounds are not covalently bonded they have more of ionic character than covalent character.". This is not grammatically correct, and I somehow doubt all inorganic compounds are non-covalent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronSphere97 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Needed

message: Somehow this page was upside down - it defined Inorganic compounds as though they were organic (carbon containing)
Checking the history I see that it was me that wrote the original. Must have mentally slid between talking organic and inorganic compounds.
i'm such a dumb ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.231.18 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :This line isn't quite right 
::"Inorganic compounds can be formally defined with reference to what they are not organic compounds" but not sure what the preferred correction is.  what-->that ? still seems a bit clunky. or should there just be a dash or colon between not and organic? Nrjank (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor grammar fix request

message: Is this a hard & fast rule?  I can believe that ALL compounds with a C-H bond are organic, but I do not believe that ALL compounds WITHOUT a C-H bond are inorganic.  For example, oxalic acid, even uric acid would be under this definition be inorganic!  I subscribe to the view given in the inorganic chemistry page that organics are defined as "based on carbon", but the division between the two fields is not absolute.  I'd like to get others' views before I edit this page further. Walkerma 00:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: C-H bond definition for organics

message: The first sentence of this section says: "Many compounds that contain carbon are considered organic; for example, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonates ..."  Shouldn't that be "inorganic"?  
Dcbrc2 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Switched inorganic/organic in the "Inorganic Carbon Compounds" section

message: And so, because the lede and definitions portions of this article remain unsettled since the discussion taking place in 2011, I have added a "dispute" tag and an "expert needed" tag. The aim is to resolve the fact that the current definitions and content rely on limited sources and so may not be accurate, scholarly, or encyclopedic. The work appearing above, in the preceding Talk sections, is far better than the current simplistic, and outdated definition-as-negation and geologic discussion that opens the current article. Finally, the analysis of texts that do and do not provide definitions is WP:OR (and failed OR at that, because those texts do contain inherent definitions, even if not easily gleaned). Help, Inorg chemists!  Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs expert attention

message: Adding an image of the periodic table, and adding a new opening sentence to the lede, and integrating it, so that it is consistent with the IOChem article and with real chemical practice.  All I can do today.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a translation of the German article on the same subject, for review:  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal first changes in the right direction

message: The bulky periodic table has got to go! It takes up way too much space for what it contributes (showing that most elements aren't carbon), and distracts from the main message by its size. A link would suffice. 
I noticed a periodic table of a more suitable style at Compounds_of_carbon#Organic_compounds. Unfortunately, that one illustrates the opposite concept -- namely organic compounds. 
89.217.9.26 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Periodic table obstructs

message: The article is incoherent scraps. While I understand there are several fuzzy overlapping definitions, it would be useful if they were crisply presented and contrasted -- and cleaned up a bit in the process! Unfortunately it seems that the needed synthesis does not appear as a coherent presentation out in the literature, so we get this hodgepodge instead. 
In general, I liked the discussion of organic versus inorganic compounds (of carbon) in the Compounds of carbon article better than the one here. 
Since (evidently) all sources agree that an organic compound must contain carbon, the discussion in the carbon article has the potential to provide a complete answer to the question. 89.217.9.26 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing article

message: Magnetite, which is an inorganic compound, is found in brain of birds and human, and also in some (magnetotactic) bacteria. Calcite, aragonite, vaterite - all are inorganic and precipitated by organism in shells for a purpose.Eudialytos (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  BioINorganic chemistry does exist.Eudialytos (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong criterion

message: What??? I'm here reading about it so it is of particular interest. Seriously ... what kind of a statement is that? Not of particular interest to who? Where are the details of the poll which determined it is of no particulr interest? Etc. I think this should be removed? FillsHerTease (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the scope statement by the journal "Inorganic Chemistry": "Inorganic Chemistry publishes fundamental studies, both experimental and theoretical, in all phases of inorganic chemistry, including the related fields of catalysis, metalloprotein and bioinorganic chemistry, energy and photochemistry research, organometallic chemistry, and solid-state, materials, and nanoscale chemistry. Emphasis is placed on the synthesis, structure, thermodynamics, reactivity, spectroscopy, and bonding properties of significant new and known compounds." --Smokefoot (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you added that? At any rate, it proves my point, not to mention the fact that having an article about a "...distinction [that] is not defined or even of particular interest..." makes no sense at all. So can I remove it now please? FillsHerTease (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, it was a bright-line distinction based on puttative origin. Now we know that is a false distinction. Later, people tried to cobble together distinctions based on structure or composition, but there is no consistent definition. And that basis (even if there was one people agreed on) is just an arbitrary word...no actual relevance to the chemicals' orgins, biological/physical/chemical-reactivity nature, etc. That is, there is a lot of gray area among "organic" vs "inorganic", and while we can make some generalizations about those that are clearly one or the other, there is not a strong reason to use that classification in science. From the textbooks I have seen, it's a good example of teaching a bright-line distinction first (you have to start somewhere) and then shade the meaning later (see Lie-to-children). We're not an intro textbook here, so we can't lie. But we're also not just a advanced scholarly resource, so we can't omit what is notable in other sources. (DMacks (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I quite agree with FillsHerTease's concerns re the words "not... even of particular interest". (good grief!) Which is why I just rewrote the lede for the article. I think it should now be acceptable to all concerned. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "...But the distinction is not defined or even of particular interest:.

message: The companion article on Wöhler synthesis declares this story an absolute myth. — MaxEnt 19:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitalism myth