This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Could you be more clear about the defining difference between what is considered the organic and the inorganic chemistry of carbon, please? -- The Anome
I don't think there is a defining distinction, but it probably covers carbon compounds not including chains of carbon. [unsigned]
But there needs to be some kind of motivation or at least descriptive characterization, even if there are several competing versions. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't the study of allotropes of carbon be "organic chemistry" instead of "inorganic chemistry"? Because all three forms of allotropes contain chains of carbon. Wilsonbond 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
What I learned is that a compound is considered organic if it contains at least one C-C or C-H covalent bond. Indianopilot (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Aren't the bonds in graphite and diamond covalent? I guess they become organic then, and it's fine, the definition is really just supposed to be suggestive. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I notice that the carbon halides, the carboranes, and the use in metal alloys are given separate sections, not under inorganic compunds. Does this mean that they are considered neither organic nor inorganic? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)