Talk:Organometallic chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is currently undergoing peer review by WikiProject Chemistry. Please feel free to leave a comment.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Should Grubbs and Schrock be listed here?

Yes, definitely! Walkerma 03:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Should it be merged to organometallic chemistry? And what of the subject's duplicates?

I expanded it, with the informations I added, I believe it can be placed under organometallic chemistry.. Also there are stub duplicates like Organometallic Compound(without s), or organolithium compunds. Should they be deleted? Or how do we redirect from those pages?

23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) iSina

You must be new here. This is the talk page for the article Organometallic chemistry, which it appears you have never edited. You probably wanted Talk:Organometallic compounds, the talk page for the article Organometallic compounds. For redirects and merging, please read Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. I'll try to fix the organometallic situation later today, so if you can't figure it out, don't worry about it. Feel free to ask questions on my user talk page, User talk:Keenan Pepper. —Keenan Pepper 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• just one editor in favor of merge but it simply takes too long to get more replies: both contents were overlapping, therefore merge completed. V8rik 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mercurichrrome

what happened to mercurichrome? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CorvetteZ51 (talk • contribs).

You mean mercurochrome? DMacks 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"Organometallic chemistry is the study of chemical compounds containing bonds between carbon and a metal.[1]" This quote from Crabtree is taken out of context and is misleading. Most TM organometallic compounds do not contain C-M bonds. Hemoglobin, for example, has no Fe-C bonds, but noone would argue that it is not organometallic, and would be encompassed in the field of study known as organometallic chemistry. Thus the opening statement is wrong, even though the chemistry (chemistry is the reaction in this case and not a field of study) of these organometallic compounds does usually lead to a C-M intermediate at some point - but not always. A better def IMO would be that organometallic chemistry is the study of the interaction or the reaction of organic compounds and metals. Stating the obvious, but not open to misinterpretation. Endtothemeans (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing organometallic chemistry with coordination chemistry. --07:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Transition metals have a coordination sphere, and TMs can form organometalic compounds, when that coordination sphere contains organic compounds. TMs can also undergo organometallic reactions when they react with organic molecules (such as oxypalladation of an olefin). My main point here, however, is that organometallic compounds described in the article do not fit the definition on the page. The article even uses Hemoglobin as an examples. Major revisions are necessary and there is alot of room for expansion, but the first sentence (definition) must be changed first. I will work on expanding this article and finding better citations. Endtothemeans (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You raise two points, (1) a (fundamentalist?) view of the field of organometallic chem. and (2) the need for improving the article. Regarding #1, as Itub mentions, the difference between coordination chemistry and organometallics can be a little blurry but organometallic chemists do not consider myoglobin as organometallic nor do we consider acetylacetonates, even though a decent organometallic chemist knows a lot about these species. In my more fundamentalist moods, I dont even consider iron carbonyl to be organometallic because it contains no organic ligands. We held a similar argument about whether carbon tet is organic or not. But most practitioners accept the definition that there is a M-C bond and iron carbonyl is widely used to make things with C-H bonds. HbCO might be considered organometallic. This kind of definition game has been played out a zillion times - metal cyanides, metal hydrides, ... These debates have not proven very productive, and meanwhile the articles need content! Regarding your second point, indeed most of the chemistry articles merit attention and it seems that you have some ideas. In general, however, I recommend focusing your editing energies on contributing and explaining facts and principles rather than fussing over strict definitions. Readers are looking for information, not definitions.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but the content needs to be accurate (most chemistry related articles are appauling). I cannot expand on an article if I dont agree with what we are talking about. The bottom line is that the information in this article contradicts itself. Also, I never considered metalcarbonyls to be organometallic compounds, although they certainly can be used to effect organometallic chemistry, as can a multitude of other inorganic compounds. This is another reason why the definition is a very poor one, as it does, as you say, contain a M-C bond, but no organic ligand. How can something that contains a metal (inorganic) and carbon monoxide (inorganic) be organometallic? I will let sleeping dogs lie though Endtothemeans (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the number of critics that comment on the "appalling" state of these articles, but these same critics lack either the required knowledge or the public spirit to address these deficiencies in Wikipedia. The bottom line being that they let sleeping dogs lie and other cliches.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Endtothemeans is definitely confusing organometallics with coordination chemistry, a mistake often made by even some professionals. A compound that contains both metal and carbon may either be a metal salt, coordination compound or a true organometallic compound with a carbon-metal bond. Of course there must be fuzzy areas like with metallocenes and coordinated 1,5-cyclooctadiene, but that is to be expected. The main difference is that organometallic/organometallic coordination chemistry encompasses the chemistry of the interaction between carbon and metal, whereas salts and heteroatom-coordinated compounds (such as hemoglobin) involve the chemistry of metal interacting with a heteroatom, such as oxygen or nitrogen. The latter chemistry is related more to the chemistry of the heteroatom in question than organometallics per se. --Vuo (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A large portion of organometallic chemistry deals with coordination complexes - they are not exclusive. Endtothemeans (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the boundaries of field itself are fuzzy, so naturally any attempt to come up with a "perfect" definition is bound to fail. Every organometallic chemist will agree that Ferric chloride is not an organometallic compound but that ferrocene is, but not everyone would agree where to put iron pentacarbonyl. Likewise, the chemistry of M-Si bonds is very similar to that of M-C bonds, and these types of cmpds are generally studied by folks who call themselves organometallic chemists, but trisTMSsilyl lithium will never fit any definition of organometallics that rests on the presence of an M-C bond. In short, I think the current lead is great. Yilloslime (t) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This dispute bears resemblance with the dispute over the exact definition of organic chemistry. Actually, the current lead [1] of the aforementioned article is somewhat missing the point and should be rewritten. Organic chemistry is like pornography, I know it when I see it. Trying to come up with an exact definition inevitably leads to essentialist arguments. --Vuo (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)