Talk:Organic chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Organic chemistry:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Add images to beautify article (see Inorganic chemistry for an excellent example). Add a brief section on how organic formulae are drawn, and on organic synthesis. Expand the section on reactions.
  • Verify : Much greater use of inline citation is needed along with a wider source of references
  • Wikify : Add some "Main" templates, more use of summary style
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


In OrgNom.png, I think there is an issue. If the formula is C5H4NCOOH, shouldn't there be 6 carbon atoms in the molecule? In it's first depiction I only see 5. Am i just a noob, or is this wrong (note, I am a chem noob, I might be wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No error. There are 6 carbon atoms in the picture, 5 in the ring and one more in the chain between the two oxygen atoms, chemists are lazy and not always bother to actually show a carbon atom. V8rik (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This style is even explained in the "Structural drawings" subsection of the same "Nomenclature" section where this image is used. Skeletal formula is the main article on this style. DMacks (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think has a valid concern. The first structure depicted in File:OrgNom.png is an odd mix of skeletal and non-skeletal styles. Why show all atoms explicitly except for the one carbon of the carbonyl? This is destined to cause the confusion expressed here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially in this case, may as well be fairly explicit with the first since its whole role seems to be to compare/contrast/explain with the (completely implicit) second one. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I created a new version of the image in which the first structure is fully non-skeletal and the second one is fully skeletal. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! V8rik (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that there is an error in the statement "In contrast to many inorganic materials, organic compounds typically melt and many boil." While a few inorganic compounds sublimate, the vast majority do in fact melt, though most require much more than room temperature to do so. It may still be true, however, that most do not exhibit the "boiling" typical of water, nevertheless, all will be converted from liquid to gaseous phase at sufficiently high temperatures. User: NormDrez 7 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

lead definition thoroughly edited, by a chem prof[edit]

The following changes were made in this edit, based on my research and teaching experience:

1. The definition is now opened with a standard "structure, properties, and reactions" phraseology, with ACS and other citations added to the lead. The meaning of this trio is then expanded upon using the text that was already in place, or with added text as need be.

2. Modern and renowned Clayden et al. is added as a reference, and the existing sophomore-level text references were proofed and tightened up as to style and consistency.

3. References to carbon compounds was broadened to include the obvious attention being paid in modern organic chemistry to organics that are materials rather than discreet compounds.

4. The comma-separated original series that included composition, structure, properties, preparation (by synthesis or by other means), and reactions was edited and reordered to reflect the foregoing hierarchy given in point 1, then edited to include: structure, being defined both as composition and constitution, these appearing before properties (also clarified), these appearing before reaction, which now includes preparation before reactivity. I.e., the elements of the original series are expanded to reflect some sense of completeness, and now appear in a structured array (rather than the somewhat unstructured ordering, as prior).

5. The phrase "of carbon-containing compounds and their derivatives." was changed to "of carbon-containing compounds...". The term "derivatives" belongs somewhere, but not here. If a derivative still contains carbon, it is covered by the expression "of carbon-containing". If it does not, it's chemistry is ostensibly not organic chemistry.

6. Biochemicals as a subset of organic chemicals are mentioned explicitly, as an object of study in organic chemistry, and other subjects of specialization in modern chemistry are indicated through the mention of their atoms (boron, silicon, metals, etc.).

7. More generally, various nuances relating to modern organic chemistry as it is actually done (as opposed to how it is described in textbooks) are added—organics as including both compounds and materials; organic properties as both physical and chemical, and how they are determined; reactions as studied both in laboratory and in silico (using theory); objects of study as being as broad as the periodic table, almost; etc.

8. Some subsumed and overlapping chemistry fields occupied by organic chemists are listed.

The final paragraph of the lead remains unedited and in need of attention. It currently has no references, and sounds non-encyclopedic.

[ I was the one who wrote this, seemingly years ago. Le Prof ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another call for attention to this article.[edit]

After having been away for some time, I look to see that there has been essentially no substantial progress on this seminal OChem article.

How does one argue for all OChem contributors to stop other work, and get the seminal article into shape, then proceed in some orderly fashion with the rest?

The article is "not ready for prime time". It needs serious, focused work. How cn one spur the attention? LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have mentioned in the preceding, that point that drew me to comment was the section on nomenclature, which conflates OChem representation with nomenclature. See Roald Hoffmann in Diogenes and Angewandte Chemie:
Hoffmann, R. and Laszlo, P.: 1989, ‘Representation in Chemistry’, Diogenes, 147, 23-50; Hoffmann, R. and Laszlo, P.: 1991, ‘Representation in Chemistry’, Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 30, 1-16. (
as a start to the former. On nomenclature see:
LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the oseltamivir total synthesis image in the Org Synth section[edit]

First, if oseltamivir is chosen as the example to be given for org synth (which is questionable on pedagogic, historical, and other levels), then the currently used commercial synthesis of this agent should appear rather than one of many academic syntheses (however clearly estimable Prof Corey and however clever his particular design). Second, this particular scheme should not appear in a layman's article—the lowest level entry point in the encyclopedia to understanding ochem and org synth. It is laced with unexplained conventions, has no valid legend to speak of, and presents unanswered questions to lay readers as a result (what do colors mean? what are little numbers, and letters above arrows?).

Finally, as I have noted at the WikiMedia page for this image, the image appears—in laziness or inexperience, there, and in other places—without a (i) a reference indicating the source of the information used to generate the scheme (which is not common knowledge), and (ii) as indicated above, without the legend needed to make clear the conventions used (letters, tied to specified reagents for each step, explanation of colour, etc.). Hence, the image, at its source, and here, is incomplete, unverifiable original research (WP:VERIFY, WP:OR); it is only fully understandable to specialists via the source (not provided), and to others the image is so much specialist technical jargon (WP:Jargon) that cannot be readily comprehended at all [1].

As I have said at the WikiMedia image, I say here: As it stands, for lack of due care, the image is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, however colorful the presentation and societally relevant the target. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the oseltamivir total synthesis image is probably not ideal, but these articles together by a collection of small steps and missteps. But you probably want to avoid stating that implies the image's author is dumb and you are insightful. That's just unhelpful. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Smoke, thanks for the direct language. You, like me, believe that those that wish to improve at things, want to know of how they misstep. I take your point, but view this more as an arena where I am talking to myself rather than to anyone else. (Who else has been here, except you and I, anytime lately?) So, I will rant and work, and if anyone cares to be active enough here to deserve and demand respect, I will certainly step back and give it. But otherwise, am not going to worry greatly about hurt feelings of people who fly-by, and drop in bits of text, or images, especially when they do so without appropriate referencing as demanded by WP policy. Now, if it was you that I offended, say so, and I will make amends. Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement of intention to begin revising History section[edit]

I have reviewed history material at Britannica and other sources, and am near to beginning a revision of the History section of this article. If anyone has anything they would wish to see included, please drop a note of whatever length here. Outstanding secondary sources always welcome. As noted above, I am a fan of Clayden as a basic text, of Roald Hoffman on many things historical. Look forward to any input people wish to give. Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are an academic organic chemist, a challenge will be to resist what one might call the Woodwardarian valuation scale and the associated sycophancy to a pantheon of luminaries ("KC","EJ" ...). As it impacts our readership, organic chemistry is mainly practiced in industry and in biology. Industrial organic deviates often strongly from the "pretty-boy" approach promoted in our classrooms. Amines are made from alcohols/NH3 over zeolites, not by phthalimide reagents, carboxylic acids are made by oxidizing hydrocarbons with air using cobalt naphthenates, not using KMNO4. So while the traditional high-value-added academic pharma approach is needed, it should be balanced with other aspects. Scale of production is one obvious measure of importance of a compound or a process, but it is not the only one, I realize. It is really great to see the emphasis on secondary sources, but in such an overview, tertiary sources (reviews of reviews = textbooks) might be welcome also. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, industrial chemistry should be prominent. Also, I would not like to see a bunch of snippets from other pages, no need to create copied content, the same goes for citations, the specialised topic should contain the citations, no need for duplication. Some fresh citations with fresh content would be welcome as well V8rik (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Moessbauer and XRF are not very relevant, etc[edit]

I reverted a comment that organic chemistry is somehow distinguished by its non-use of "Mössbauer spectroscopy ...X-ray fluorescence) .." These techniques are rather specialized and it would be dopey to define organic by the non-use of these methods. Can you imagine a lecture of a textbook that emphasizes these non-used techniques? --Smokefoot (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Periodic table of elements of relevance to orgo[edit]

File:OrgChem MainGrp Metals of InterestDPSderived.png is included as "Periodic table of elements of interest in organic chemistry. The table illustrates all elements of current interest in modern organic and organometallic chemistry" and using color to identify standard periodic-table blocks. The only "illustration" I see that highlights certain elements is that carbon is outlined in bold, whereas nothing else is. If that's the key idea, then the caption should explicitly state that (help readers know what to look for, which is the whole reason this image would exist). Or if all elements are relevant ("illustrating" that the whole table is in play), then is the block differentiation a relevant detail for this purpose? If not, the colors are distracting from what is important in context. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

organic chemistry[edit]

I learnt that organic chemistry is the part of chemistry that deals with carbon and its compond,why is only carbon that made up the organic chemistry? Christian.odiase (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Carey and Sundberg[edit]

I highly recommend editors to consider consulting the two books produced by Francis A. Carey and Richard J. Sundberg about Advanced Organic Chemsitry. The two books are split into two parts "Part A: Structure and Mechanisms" and "Part B: Reactions and Synthesis". Zyvov 02:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)