Talk:Electronegativity

message: I would love to see a few words relating electronegativity to the chemical potential.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.156.36 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone add a word about chemical potential? 

message: See http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Pauling_scale - this seems to be word-for-word the same as the Wiki article.  Who copied from whom?
Cbdorsett 10:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are a mirror of us. — Omegatron 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism somewhere 

message: I removed:
Electronegativity is a measure of the attraction that an atom has for the bonding pair of electrons in a covalent bond.
Replaced with:
Electronegativity is the ability of an atom or a molecule to attract shared electrons to itself.
This latter is a far more general, certainly more accurate definition. Electronegativity is a trait considered not only in covalent compounds, but in Ionic and polar covalent as well.
::So I see someone reverted my edit without even a discussion? The current definition is even more incorrect than it was...reverting edit of "195.194.86.166" 
* I'm afraid I am confused as to the definition of this word. Surely, although related, the ability of an atom to attract electrons and form anions is quantitively different to the attraction an atom may have to attract electrons in an already existing covalent bond? Obviously there is a strong positive correlation between the two, but they seem quite distinct to me. --postglock
* I am removing the part of the definition claiming electronegativity is the property of "functional groups". The IUPAC Gold Book given as reference directly contradicts this (incorrect) statement. There is a huge amount of chemical education literature (and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn chemical peer-reviewed/academic literature) which misuses the term to include atoms not in their ground state. This should probably be mentioned, but someone needs to find a source which at least acknowledges the broadened definition (if a consistent broader definition is possible, I know of none).75.91.117.103 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Does anyone know how the intermediate values of the Pauling scale were assigned? The current article sidesteps the issue. On the first read through, I got the impression the values were assigned relative to Fluorine & Francium, but on careful review, this doesn't seem to be the case. (At anyrate, it ignores how each atom was interpolated, anyway.) 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the Pauling Scale? 

message: The article here says that diamond is highly electronegative. Could someone confirm and then add it to the article? It would be useful to go into why diamond being electronegative would be a useful property. --ShaunMacPherson 02:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wets steel...  It's sabotaged by H2.  It really wants to bond with something else, if you know what I mean.  Diamonds aren't forever.lysdexia 04:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamond is electronegative? 

message: Atoms with similar electronegativities will constantly 'steal' an electron from each other (often misleadingly referred to as 'sharing')
:Uh...  how is that more misleading than saying they "steal"? — Omegatron 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropomorphism 

message: This article would benefit from a discussion of effective nuclear charge and how it determines electronegativity. I'm no chemist, so I hesitate to write it myself. Expert needed.JohnJohn 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective Nuclear Charge  

message: I must say, this article is very confusing for people who don't know what covalency and all that stuff is. I thought Electronegativity was how well something conducted electricity. Caesium is supposed to be a really good insulator, right?Madking 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those terms used in the article here, such as "covalent bond", are wiki-linked so you can learn exactly what they mean. Caesium, being a metal, would be expected to be a good conductor. DMacks 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh...?? 

message: --4.159.77.158 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Electronegativity vs Quantum Mechanics (& Critiscisms) 

message: Pauling didn't invent electronegativity, although he invented the most ubiquitous numerical electronegativity scale. The concept dates from the early 19th century, and a qualitative scale by Berzelius, from 1836, correlates surprisingly well with the Pauling scale. See Jensen, W. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 11-20. --Itub (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over a century of history missing! 

message: Does anyone think that electropositivity should be merged into this page? Very similar concept, much shorter article, and no need to have two distinct ones. 64.252.207.230 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. --Itub (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should merge with electropositivity? 

message: Very important that Sanderson electronegativity was introduced for inorganic chemistry. Classical Sanderson's method does not distinguish structural differences. Zefirov and others modified the method to calculate Sanderson electronegativity for every atom in organic molecule.--Tim32 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanderson electronegativity for organic compounds 

message: Using mostly wikipedia data, it is apparent that some values are missing on this related page which is just a list of various electronegativities with little or no commentary.  By calculating the Mulliken electronegativities from other data, I see 26 instances where the tabulated value is not the same as the calculated one, and 29 instances where this fills in data.  A couple of the 26 look to be typos, and who knows what radius to use with carbon.  The difference between calculated and tabulated looks too large for Oxygen, Fluorine and Bromine, and possibly large for Iodine and Indium.  A person can calculate the effective nuclear
charge for about half the periodic table based on data largely within wikipedia sites.  I have never actually used this data before, I just thought it would come in handy for some data mining I was thinking of doing at some point.
Is this data of interest? If so, any preferences on column order and formatting.  Fortran (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Value of "effective nuclear charge" depends on used model! It is not "real charge", but it is model only!--Tim32 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to List_of_various_electronegativities and Effective Charge 

message: Has anyone thought about why electronegativity has no units?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.240.75 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronegativity unts 

message: I have a doubt regarding the symbol for electronegativity. The symbol should be the letter chi. it looks like an X with curvy ends. But in the article it is given the symbol X. Which is correct and can someone please rectify it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamp (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many papers and books, where for electronegativity by Pauling used "P" symbol, for electronegativity by Sanderson used "S" symbol etc. It is not problem for this article.--Tim32 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbol

message: -- Socob (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from [[Electropositivity]] 

message: I do not think that
"...only ...for an element for which the electron affinity is known"
is a proper wording - I think the affinity is not always "known" because it is undefined for many elements -- not each element can form a negatively-charged ion. (This is because binding to an already electrically neutral atom can be only via an interaction that falls off faster than 1/r^2 with the distance, which in quantum mechanics may or may not have a bound state.) Not being an expert, I'm not changing it yet in case someone disagrees. 128.97.82.220 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  electron affinity and Mulliken electronegativity 

message: The electronegativity graphic at the top is good but it doesn't have a scale. I know that oxygen is very electro negative and electro negativity increases from left to right, but people shouldn't need to know that to understand the graphic. It should have a scale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.250.253 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The color-coded periodic table in the "Electronegativities of the elements" section? The caption-line right below it reads "Periodic table of electronegativity using the Pauling scale". Even for readers that don't know what this scale actually means numerically, right above the table is a note about the trend "→ Electronegativity increases →". If you have any ideas for more clear ways of stating these notes or making them more obvious, we're obviously open to suggestions. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale for graphic 

message: The recent addition of Zhang Ionocovalent Electronegativity, which also mentions a scale by Noorizadeh and Shakerzadeh, is starting to make me wonder about the criteria for inclusion of various scales in this article. These two are referenced solely on fairly recent articles by the scale-names' authors. Contrast that with others like Pauling and Allen and Sanderson and other scales, which are well-established in the literature and cited in review articles or other secondary sources. Is this article becoming starting to rely too much on primary sources (not necessarily reliable)? DMacks (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Futhermore, two recent deletions in zhwp, :zh:张永和 huilin and :zh:Yonghe Zhang, claim that the theory created by Zhang "can also explain the mechanisms of life, universe, society, economy and politics." (my translation of the text). Is this a majority point of view? --Mys 721tx (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion of new theories 

message: From
"Debate with Pauling on Electronegativity"
Yonghe Zhang
American Huilin Institute
 
Pauling defined electronegativity in 1932 as the power of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself [1]. The concept could be considered as an approximation of intuitively understanding the chemical bond strengths. However, the definition is not an unambiguous for the valence states [2-8]. And Pauling electronegativity scales, which based on much less a direct way of description by spectroscopy, unconditionally used and extended the limited situation of the linear difference of the thermochemical energy of two elements (H and Cl) to the all elements. And so that would inevitably mislead to the opposite wrong results [9-11].  Over the years, the attempts to derive a comprehensive quantitative scale of electronegativity have been disappointed because the lack of correlation between the experimental quantities and scale over a wide range of the electron quant configurations.
In 1981-1982, on the basis of Bohr energy model,
E = - Z2me4/8n2h2ɛ02 = - RZ2/n2
Author obtained the effective principal quantum number n* and the effective quantum nuclear charge Z* from the ionization energy [2,3]: 
 
Z*=n*(Iz/R)½
Then the first scale of electronegativity in different valence states on spectroscopy corresponding quantum electron configurations of the orbital from 1s to nf  was proposed [2,3]:
Xz = 0.241 n*( Iz /R) ½rc-2 + 0.775
where Iz is the ultimate ionization energy for outer electrons of the s, p, d and f orbital of the atom. R is the Rydberg constant, R = 22µ42e4/h2 = 13.6 eV, h is Planck’s constant and Z*=n*(Iz/R)½ is the effective nuclear charge Z* felt by the valence electron at the  covalent boundary r.
 
Built-up the various quantum parameters of the atomic orbital Iz(s,p,d,f), n*,Z*, rc , rc-1 , n*rc-1 , based on spectroscopy, the electronegativity  Xz formed a Method of the multiple-functional prediction, which can explain chemical observations of elements of all orbital electron configurations from 1s to nf, including the σ-bond, the linear or nonlinear combinations of ionic bond and covalent bond, the orbital spatial overlaps and the orbital spatial crosslinks. Therefore, this is what have been expected orbital ionization energy electronegativity that best meets Bergmann-Hinze criterion [5] and the Cherkasov conclusion [6].
 
After the above electronegativity published the author received hundreds of appreciation cards and letters. Henry Taube, Nobel Laureate, wrote in his letter: "Electronegativity continue to be a useful concept, and becomes even more useful when it is treated as a function of oxidation state." [12}. Mackay et al. pointed out that the major difficulty in Pauling's electronegativity is that the attraction for an electron is clearly not expected to be the same for different valencies of an element [8] and they encompassed in their university textbook the Zhang electronegativity in valencies.
 
But Pauling was still in confusion and continued to maintain his ambiguous valence state [13]: “I must say that I am not able to form a reliable opinion about the value of your work. I note that for a number of the elements your calculated values are close to my values of the electronegativity, and also that for other elements there is a considerable deviation. I suggest that you might discuss some property of the elements, in various compounds, and in different valence states, in order to find out whether or not your values are helpful in understanding the properties”.
 
To reply Pauling's concerns, the author published two papers “Electronegativities of elements in valence states and their applications” and “A scale for strengths of Lewis acids” [14], wherein 126 metal ion Lewis acids, in various compounds, and in different valence states, are calculated from a basic ionocovalent model established: 
 
Z = z/r2 - 0.77 Xz + 8.0
Where Xz is Zhang electronegativity in valence states and z is the charge number of the atomic core (the number of valence electron). Z is Lewis acid strength. The Z values give a quantitative scale of the relative Pearson hardness or softness for various Lewis acids and agree fairly well with the Pearson classification [15] and the previous work [16-18]. 
From which Zhang ionocovalent theory is established [4,7]. The Zhang Lewis acid strengths Z, the Brown Lewis acid strength Sa, Portier ICP, Lenglet’s RP Relationship, “Electron-acceptor-Strength”, Scattering Cross Section Q and more applications are derived from Zhang electronegativity which has been widely quantitatively used over 30 years, forming an ionocovalency international schools [19]
 
The new papers not only satisfactorily replied Pauling’s concerns, but also give the author the conditions to develop the new ionocovalent theory that everything exists in Ionocovalency, the ionic energy harmonized with the covalent environment, that correlates with quantum potential and spectroscopy [9]: 
 
I(Z*)(n*rc-1) = Ze2/r = n*(Iz/R)½ rc-1
  
There was no Pauling’s any review again and don’t know if Pauling had no more confusions? But someone is still in confusion.
References
[1] Pauling, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1932, 54, 3570.
[2] Zhang, Y. J. Molecular Science 1 (1981) 125.
[3] Zhang, Y. Inorg Chem. 21 (1982) 3886.
[4] Portier, J.; Campet, G.; Etoumeau, J. and Tanguy, B. Alloys Comp.,1994a, 209, 59-64.
[5] D. Bergmann and J. Hinze. Angew, Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1996, 35, 150-163.
[6] A.R.Cherkasov, V.I.Galkin, E.M.Zueva, R.A.Cherkasov. Russian Chemical Reviews,67,5(1998)  375.
[7] Lenglet, M. Act. Passive Elec. Comp. 2004, 27, 1–60.
[8] Mackay, K. M.; Mackay, R. A.; Henderson W.,6th ed., Nelson Thomes, United Kingdom,2002,54.
[9] Zhang, Y. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 4381-4406
 
[10] Villesuzanne, A.; Elissalde, C.; Pouchard, M. and Ravez, J. J.Eur.Phy.J.B. 6 (1998) 307.
[11] Ravez,J.; Pouchard,M.; Hagenmuller,P., Eur.J.Solid State Inorg.Chem.,1991, 25, 1107.
[12] Taube, H. a personal letter to Zhang, October 3, 1984.
[13] Pauling, L. a personal letter to Zhang, February 6, 1981.
[14] Zhang, Y. Inorg Chem. 21 (1982) 3889.
[15] Pearson, R. G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85, 3533; J. Chem. Educ.,1968, 45, 581.
[16] Klopman, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 223.
[17] Yingst, A. and McDaniel, D. H. Inorg. Chem.1967, 6, 1076.
[18] Aharland, S. Chem. Phys. Lett., 1968, 2, 303; Struct. Bond., 1, 207.
[19] International Ionocovalency Schools - References:
 1. Portier, J.; Campet, G.; Etoumeau, J. and Tanguy, B. Alloys Comp.,1994a, 209, 59-64.
 2. Portier, J.; Campet, G.; Etoumeau, J. and Tanguy, B. Alloys Comp.,1994b, 209, 285.
 3. Portier, J.; Campet, G. J. of the Korean Chem.Soc., 1997, 41, 8, 427-436.
 4. Lenglet, M. Materials Research Bulletin, 2000, Vol. 35 (4) pp. 531-543.
 5. Lenglet, M. Iono-covalent character of the metal-oxygen bonds in oxides: A comparison of
    experimental and theoretical data. Act. Passive Electron. Compon. 2004, 27, 1–60.
 6. Wen,S.J.;Campet,G.;Portier,J.and J.Goodenough,Mat.Sci.and Eng.,B (accepted 1992)
 7. Wen, S. J., doctoral thesis, University of Bordeaux I, 1992.
 8. S.J.Wen,G.Campet,and J.P.Manaud,（1993) Active and Passive Elec.Comp., 1993, 15, 67-74  
 9. Wen,S.J.;Campet,G.and Manaud,J.P.Active and Passive Elec.Comp.,1993, Vol. 15, 67
 10.Marcel,C.;Salardenne,J.;Huuang,S.Y.;Campet,G.and Portier,J.Active and Passive Elec.Comp.
    1997,19,217-223                 
 11. Wu.Changzheng,Li.Tanwei,Lei.Lanyu,Hu.Shuangquan,Liu.Yi and Xie.Yi,NewJ.Chem.,2005,29,1610.
 12. Mathew,T.“Synthesis and characterization of mixed oxides containing cobalt,copper and iron
     and study of their catalytic activity”, Doctor thesis, University of Pune, Oct. 2002.
 14. Z. Qu, S. Zhou, W. Wu, C. Li, and X. Bao, Catalysis Letters, 2005, 101,1-2, 21-26.
 15. Brown, I. D. Phys.Chem Minerals, 1987, 15, 30-34.
 16. Brown, I. D.  Acta Cryst. B, 44, 545-553, 1988
 17. Park Mi-Hyae and ShinYu-Ju,Journal of the Korean Chemical Society,2004,Vol.48, 
     No.1, 94-98.
 18. J.L.G.Fierro editor, “Metal Oxides: chemistry and applications”, CRC Press,Boca Raton,
     Fla., USA, 2005, pag. 247-318.
 19. Bih,L.;Allali,N.;Yacoubi,A.;Nadiri,A.;Boudlich,D.;Haddad,M.;Levasseur,A.Phys.Chem.Glasses,
     1999, 40,229.
 20. Bih,L.;El Omari,M.;Reau,J.M.;Nadiri,A.;Yacoubi,A.;Haddad,M.Materials Letters,2001,50,308-
     317.
 21. Bih, L.; Nadiri, A.; Aride, J. J. Therm. Anal. Col., 2002, 68, 965-972.
 22. Abbas,L.;Bih,L.;Nadiri,A.;El Amraoui,Y.;Khemakhem,H.and Mezzane,D.J.Therm.Anal.Col.,2007,
     90,453-458.
 23. Bih,L.;Abbas,L.;Nadiri,A.;Khemakhem,H.and Elouadi,B.J.MolecularStructure.2007,872,1-9.
 24. Abbas,L.;Bih,L.;Nadiri,A.;El Amraoui,Y.;Mezzane,D.and Elouadi,B.J.Molecular Structure.
     2008,876,194-198.
 25. A.S.Ilyushin,L.Shi,L.I.Leonyuk,B.M.Mustafa,I.A.Nikanorova,.S.V.Red’ko,Y.Jia,A.G.Vetkin,G.
     Zhou,I.V.Zubov,J.Mater.Res.,1993,Vol.8,No.8,Aug,1791-1797.
 26. Maarten B.Dinger,William Henderson，Journal of Organometallic Chemistry,547 (1977) 243-252 
 27. Chu Tianwei,J.Nei Meng Normal University (Natural Science Ed.),1983,2,22.
 28. C.-K Kuei, J.-F Lee, and M.-D Lee,Chem. Eng. Comm. 1991, 101, pp 77-92
 29. B.Wang and M. Greenblatt,Chem. Mater., 1992, 4, 657-661
 30. A. Villesuzanne, C. Elissalde, M. Pouchard, and J.Ravez, Eur . Phy. J. B., 1998, 6, 30
 31. XL.Xu and QL.Liu J. China University of Science and technology 1991, 21, 2, 183-189.
 32. K. M. Mackay, R. A. Mackay, W. Henderson, Introduction to Modern Inorganic Chemistry, 6th
     ed., Nelson Thornes, United Kingdom, 2002, p. 53-55   .
 33. R Martinez-Garcia,L Reguera,M Knobel and E Reguera,J.Phys.:Condens.Matter19 (2007) 056202
     (11pp)
 34. E. Reguera,J.F.Bertran,J.Miranda,C.Portilla,J.Radioanal.Nucl.Chem.,letters,165(3)(1992)
     191.
 35. E.Reguera,J.Rodriguez-Hernandez,A.Champi,J.G.Duque,E.Granado and C.Rettori,Zeitschrift für
     physikalische chemie, 220, 12 (2006) 1609-1619
 36. Reguera,E.Bertran,J.F.,Miranda,J.,Portilla,C.“J.Radioanal.Nucl.Chem.,letters” 165 (3)
     191-201，1992
 37. E.Reguera,J.Rodriguez-Hernandez,A.Champi,J.G.Duque,E.Granado and C.Rettori,Zeitschrift für
     physikalische chemie, 2006, 220, 12, 1609-1619
 38. Martinez-Garcia,R.;Rodriguez,E.;Balmaseda,J.and Roque,J.,Powder Diffraction,September,
     2004,19(3),255.
 39. Martinez-Garcia,R.;Reguera,L.;Knobel,M.and Reguera,E.J.Phys.:Condens.Matter 2007,19,
     056202 (11pp).
 40. Li, K. and Xue, D. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 11332.
 41. Li, K. and Xue, D. Phys. Stat. Sol. (b), 2007, 244, 6, 1982.
 42. Yu, D. J. Chongqing Normal University (Natural Science Ed.), 2006, 23, 3, 1-4.
 43. Feng, C.-J. Chemical Researches., 1999, 10, 2, 57-63.
 44. Feng, C.-J. Chinese Journal of Inorg, Chem., 1999, 15, 3, 1-9.
 45. Feng, C.-J. Chinese Journal of Inorg, Chem., 1999, 15, 6, 835-839.
 46. Feng, C.-J. Chinese Journal of Inorg, Chem., 2000, 16, 5, 715-720
Fenhmm (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The English in the above is not adequate, and not effective.  Please find someone who speaks your language and is fluent in English and ask him/her to correct this post.  Also, there seems to be no point to it.  If you have an alternative electronegativity scale, then provide clear references to it and also provide clear documentation that it is being used outside a few small groups.  Thanks!72.172.11.222 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on Pauling Electronegativity 

message: The Pauling definition of electronegativity defines it for an atom. The reference cited in a feeble attempt to justify its use for groups, the IUPAC Gold book (on-line), contains three separate relevant entries: 1. Electronegativity - and as I already said defines it as an atomic property (to clarify: the property of an atom in a molecule, group, ion, etc.) 2. Group electronegativity which redirects to Substituent electronegativity and finally 3. Substituent electronegativity which is left undefined.  I therefore challenge the definition as written here.  In addition, there are NO references in the Group Electronegativity section.  The link to the article on Hammett equation seems irrelevant at best.  It describes the effect of substituents on the reaction of benzoic acid, and DOES NOT mention electronegativity at all. That is, it is not a general property defined for "groups"  ------ It would also be nice if the article discussed the concepts real and profound inadequacies: including a complete inability to address stereochemical (directional) issues, the use of it in various contradictory ways in organic functional group discussions, and its near-complete inability to deal with the real valence charges as opposed to table entries.  It is not a group property, in my opinion.  If someone wants to claim it is, give us a good source.72.172.11.222 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the section on Group Electronegativity needs rewriting with proper sources. Two possible starting points which mention group electronegativity and cite several other references:
# M.A. Davis, J. Organic Chem. 1967, 32 (4), pp 1161–1163 Group electronegativity and polar substituent constants
# J.E. Huheey, Inorganic Chemistry (3rd ed. Harper and Row 1983) p.156-157 Group electronegativity.  Dirac66 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge to the definition of Electronegativity 

message: Firstly there is a misunderstanding in the article- Pauling specifically ignored the contribution of ionic canonicals in his derivation of electronegativity. This was because the ionic contributuon in H2 as calculated by Coolidge et al was small.  Pauling made the assumption, not an unreasonable one, that this would be true for all homonuclear bonds. The covalent bond energy of A-B was taken as the geometric mean of the actual bond energies of A-A and B-B. The difference between actual bond energy of A-B and the calculated geometric mean was the "ionic contribution" which was taken to be due to the difference between the electronegativities of A and B.  Secondly when he first introduced it the units were eV ( the units he used for bond energies). I do not know when the scale was arbitrarily made dimensionless.Axiosaurus (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On looking at the formulas it would seem that Pauling EN should be (ev)1/2 if it is not made dimensionless. Mulliken EN on the other hand should be (eV), and Allred-Rochow EN should be electron/pm2 (or electron/Å2 in older units). This variety of units is of course possible because EN is not a directly measurable or well-defined quantity. Perhaps the scale was arbitrarily made dimensionless because people threw up their hands and decided to forget about units when dealing with EN. Dirac66 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauling electronegativity - misunderstanding 

message: Amhuilin.com
The main disadvantage of Pauling electronegativity [1-10] is not considered the different valence of element and can not be used to the quantitative applications. Zhang proposed a electronegativity in valence states, for which Pauling failed to issue a reliable opinion. Pauling proposed[11]to discuss the properties of compounds of elements of different valence to illustrate if the Zhang electronegativity is useful. Over decades, let us see what is the result.
The following examples are cited to release Pauling’s confusion. Many chemical phenomena which involved the different valence state can be satisfactorily explained by Zhang electronegativity or ionocovalency, but Pauling electronegativity demonstrated incompetence, it can not be used for quantitative applications and even draw the wrong conclusions.
Carbon, Sulphur, P-elements and Hydrogen
There are some arguments about the values of electronegativities of carbon, sulphur, selenium, tellurium, iodine and hydrogen [12]. The Chart 1 shows IC values in the order: 
Se2+ (3.146) > S2+ (3.121) > C2+ (2.998) > Te2+ (2.832) > I+ (2.530) > H+ (2.297)
The results are consistent with the observations that hydrides H2Se, H2S, H2C, H2Te and HI form H3O+ ions in water [13] .
As Thomas reviewed, the electronegativity of carbon and sulphur in most of the scale are almost identical. The key point, however, so far as their role as poisons is concerned, is that they differ markedly in the distance at which they sit on the nickel overlayers [14]. The calculations for these locations show that sulphur is very much stronger than carbon as a poison.
The results are also consistent with the experiment data of the dipole moment which indicates that the electron clouds on the C-S and C-I bond in the molecules CS2 and CI4 are close to the sulphur end and the iodine end, respectively [15]. From IC model data (IonocovalencyChart) we can see that S6+ has a greater ionicity than that of C4+: Iav (S6+ = 46.077, C4+ = 37.015), although they have the close spatial covalency, n*rc-1 (C4+ = 2.618, S6+ = 2.805) (Ionocovalency Parameters).
Retrieve of Pauling Erroneous Covalency Results
In study on the role of covalency in ferroelectric niobates and tantalites Villesuzanne et al. [7], the fact that Ta5+-O bonds are more covalent than Nb5+-O bonds is due to a larger radial expansion of Ta 5d orbitals, leading to a greater overlap with oxygen 2p orbitals. This effect is not accounted for in Pauling electronegativity scales [16], which give information on the energy difference between valence orbitals, not on their spatial overlap. The arguments led to the opposite assumption of reference [17]  concerning the covalency of Ta5+-O and Nb5+-O bonds from Pauling electronegativity Xp: Ta(1.5) < Nb(1.6).
In their later paper, they proposed that the explicit calculation of the electronic structure give a larger covalency for Ta5+-O bonds than for Nb5+-O bonds. This result is retrieved in Zhang electronegativity scales for ions [1,8]. The results can be fairly well accounted in IC model [10]: The energies of Ta  5d and Nb 4d atomic orbitals are the same in EHTB parameters due to they have similar atomic ionicity Iav of  24.89 and 27.02 respectively (Ionocovalency Parameters). The bond lengths are equal due to they have similar linear covalency rc-1 of 0.745 and 0.745 respectively. The big difference is the spatial covalency, n*rc-1, in I(Iav )C(n*rc-1) = n*(Iav/R)½rc-1. The Ta 5d orbitals, compared to Nb 4d orbitals, involved the greater spatial covalency, n*rc-1, (Ta5+ = 3.246, Nb5+ = 2.869), leading to a greater overlap with oxygen 2p orbitals and a greater IC: Ta5+ (4.393) > Nb5+ (4.043) and XIC: Ta5+ (2.197) > Nb5+ ( 2.053). 
Mössbauer Parameters δ and Δ
As the IC model, n*(Iav/R)½rc-1. is defined as ionocovalent density of the effective nuclear charges at covalent boundary, it strongly related with the Mössbauer parameters δ and Δ. [18.19]. The value of the isomer shift,δ, depends particularly on the density of s electrons at the nucleus. Therefore, in iron-57 an increase in electron density causes a negative isomer shift; since d electrons tend to shield the nucleus slightly from the s electrons the value of δ falls as the number of d electrons in the iron atom falls. Mean values of δ [20], Z* and IC for some oxidation states of iron are shown in Table 1:
Table 1. IC, Z* and δ for Iron-57.
Iron-57         	FeI  	FeII 	FeIII	FeIV 	FeV
δ/mm s-1        	2.3  	1.5  	0.7  	0.2  	-0.6
Z*= n*(Iav/R)½  	2.624	3.245	3.997	4.896	5.684
IC=n*(Iav/R)½rc1	2.253	2.786	3.431	4.203	4.879
Inert Pair Effect (6s2 Elements)
The IC model based on the VB approximation intuitively appealing and determined by covalent radius and ionization energy is in accord with the relativistic effects with which contributions to the unusual chemistry of the heavier elements are two principal consequences. First, the s orbitals become more stable. The second, d and f orbitals expand and their energies are less.
For the inert pair effect in Tl(I), Pb(II), and Bi(III), the Relativistic effects can give a qualitative verbalize: “The s orbitals of the heavier elements become more stable than otherwise expected” [21]. In IC model, as shown in Table 2, the effect is attributable to the fact that the bond property in this case is controlled by the ionic function I(Iz, Iav). They are more stable in ionic compounds than in the entirely covalent form. Their IEs for forming higher covalent bonds are too much higher to form a stable hybridizing ionicity Iav: 
Table 2. Atomic Parameters of Tl, Pb and Bi.
Cations	Tl+ 	Tl2+ 	Tl3+ 	Pb2+ 	Pb3+ 	Pb4+ 	Bi3+ 	Bi4+ 	Bi5+
Iz     	6.11	20.4 	29.8 	15   	32   	42.3 	25.6 	45.3 	56
Iav    	6.11	13.26	18.77	11.21	18.14	24.18	16.63	23.72	30.18
XIC    	1.16	1.59 	1.75 	1.45 	1.74 	1.94 	1.69 	1.95 	2.15
IC     	1.89	2.92 	3.31 	2.68 	3.44 	3.78 	3.16 	3.81 	4.27
REFERENCE
[1] Zhang, Y. J. MolecularScience 1 (1981) 125.
[2] Zhang, Y. Inorg Chem. 21 (1982) 3886.
[3] A. R. Cherkasov, V. I. Galkin, E.M. Zueva, R. A. Cherkasov, Russian Chemical Reviews, 67, 5(1998) 375-392.
[4] Datta,D. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences - Chemical Sciences  Volume 100, 6 (1988) 549-557
[5] Portier, J.; Campet, G.; Etoumeau, J. and Tanguy, B. Alloys Comp.,1994a, 209, 59-64.
[6] D. Bergmann and J. Hinze. Angew,Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1996, 35, 150-163.
[7] Villesuzanne, A.; Elissalde, C.;Pouchard, M. and Ravez, J. J. Eur. Phy. J. B. 6 (1998) 307.
[8] Mackay, K. M.; Mackay, R. A.;Henderson W. "Introduction to Modern Inorganic Chemistry",6th ed., Nelson Thornes, United Kingdom, 2002, pp 53-54.
[9] Lenglet, M. Iono-covalent character of the metal-oxygen bonds inoxides: A comparison of experimental and theoretical data. Act.Passive Electron. Compon.2004, 27, 1–60.
[10] Zhang, Y. Ionocovalency and Applications 1. Ionocovalency Model andOrbital Hybrid Scales.Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010,11,4381-4406
[11] Pauling, L. A personal letter to Zhang, February 6, 1981.
  
[12] Li, Z.-H.; Dai, Y.-M.; Wen, S.-N.; Nie, C.-M.; Zhou, C.-Y. Relationship between atom valence    shell electron quantum topological indices and electronegativity of elements. Acta Chimica. Sinica. 2005, 14, 1348.
[13] Dalian Technology Institute. Inorg. Chem. (in Chinese); 3rd ed.; High Education Press: Beijing, China, 1990; pp. 638, 804.
[14] Thomas, J.M. Principles and Practice of Heterogeneous Catalysis; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1996; p. 448.
[15] Xu, G.-X. Material Structure (in Chinise); People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 1961; p. 160.
[16] Pauling, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1932, 54, 3570.
[17] Ravez, J.; Pouchard, M.; Hagenmuller, P., Eur. J.Solid State Inorg. Chem., 1991, 25, 1107.
[18] Reguera, E.; Bertran, J.F.; Miranda, J.; Portilla, C. Study of the dependence of Mossbauer parameters on the outer cation in nitroprussides. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Lett. 1992, 3, 191–201.
[19] Reguera, E.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Champi, A.; Duque, J.G.; Granado, E.; Rettori, C. Unique
[20] Heslop, R.B. Jones, K. Inorganic Chemistry; Elsevier Scientific Publishing: Amsterdam, Netherland, 1976; p. 31.
[21] Pyykkö, P. Relativistic Effects in Structural Chemistry. Chem. Rev. 2002, 3, 563–594.
Thanks! Fenhmm (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauling's Electronegativity Problem and Zhang's Improvement  

message: Two more references to the sources of Allen electronegativity have been added these cover the main group and d-block elements. The values for three elements have been corrected old values in parenthesis: Se 2.424 (2.434), Ne 4.787 (4.789), Pd 1.58 (1.59)[1],[2]Mcardlep (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen Electronegativity 

message: Can we get an electronegativity chart/list on this page? All of the websites that I used to go to for that kind of thing have been sabotaged. The right charts even been removed from the wayback machine...
This page has a good description, but we really need all the values. In case you wanted to double check the correct order, including noble gasses, is fluorine, krypton, chlorine, Nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. Titanium is the most electronegative metal, and if I recall correctly, caesium is the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.250.254 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What? But I do not think anybody used Revdel on this Wikipedia page to remove changes whatsover. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:1897:AD08:91F5:A091 (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the comment was nonsense. There are actually 3 large charts of all the values now: Pauling scale, Allen scale and a new Tantardini-Oganov scale. And the order of elements in the comment is wrong: oxygen is more electronegative that carbon and nitrogen, and many metals are more electronegative than Ti, including Cu, Ag and Au. Dirac66 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by IP

message: Is there any relation?  It seems they are both involved the attraction of electrons.  Chris2crawford (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  relation to Electrode Potential 

message: 1. Go to https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/#view=table&property=GroupBlock.</br>
2. Download in .csv (or format of choice), save to .xlsx, and plot a simple line graph for 'Electronegativity' and 'ElectronAffinity'.</br> 
3. You'll see maybe a slight negative correlation for the lower values but for most, higher values it's pretty evident that it's a positive correlation. Also, Excel '=CORREL()' function passing in as input the 2 arrays gives 0.712925965, which is a pretty strong positive correlation! If I'm missing something, please revert my change. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouArePhenomenal (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 'electronegativity...negatively correlated with the electron affinity' should be 'positively correlated'