Talk:Organic compound

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

message: 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
HI ,
NAFISAH IS KOOOOOOL =D x  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.246.105 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  nucleic acid 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CF<sub>4</sub> (tetrafluoromethane) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section temporarily removed, until basic quality can be introduced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fluorocarbon question addressed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pb(CH3COO)2 — is this organic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biotechnology section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About my Persistency of my Organic Chemistry Definition Reply to User: Smokefoot and User: MaterialScientist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Well known methane 

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

message: 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.combritannica 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict between "Organic compound" & "Organic chemistry" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History of definition of organic compounds 

message: Explain organic compounds 182.185.67.69 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes. But "start to agree" means "discussed in reliable sources". DMacks (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemme try define 'organic compound', with rules instead of exceptions: