Talk:Cyanogen chloride

Hydrolysis
Sure that cyanogen chloride (and also cyanogen bromide) hydrolyzes in pure water to produce oxidant HOCl (or HOBr, respectively) and reductive HCN the same time? This would mean that the halogens act as electropositive partners in cyanogen halides. I can understand that iodine may act electropositive in cyanogen iodide, due to the similar electronegativity of C and I, and the strong inductive effect of the triple-bonded N on the carbon atom leading to secondary polarization of the C-I bond. But chlorine and bromine should be too electronegative for forming an "inversely" polarized bond to carbon.

Surely cyanogen halides may react to produce HCN (that is one of the reasons for their high toxicity), but I think it needs an additional reducing agent to make cyanogen halides into HCN with water... --79.243.239.89 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyanogen chloride
I reverted your edit on the above topic, primarily as you were incorrect. The presence of carbon does not automatically mean that a material is organic. Consider that carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide or carbonate salts, all which are considered to be inorganic.JSR (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit summary in your “correction” rhetorically asked “so hydrogen cyanide is an organic compound?” As a matter of fact, our very own article on hydrogen cyanide states that it is.


 * As our very own organic compound article states, “An organic compound is virtually any chemical compound that contains carbon”.


 * Moreover, the toxicity of cyanogen chloride is listed in Toxnet: Verschueren, K. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Volumes 1-2. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 2001, p. 610 **PEER REVIEWED**.


 * Please don't turn all of science on its head by declaring that the whole chemistry world is wrong about the nature of cyanogen chloride. I'm certainly no chemist (though I worked with a Ph.D. chemist for many years and have had my share of time in a wet lab), but I should think that a highly reactive chemical compound like cyanogen chloride with its triple carbon–nitrogen covalent bond would certainly fall into the broad catch-all meaning of “organic.” The compound exhibits all the rich complexity of organic chemistry and biochemistry. As our very own article on carbon-nitrogen bonds states:


 * A carbon–nitrogen bond is a covalent bond between carbon and nitrogen and is one of the most abundant bonds in organic chemistry and biochemistry.


 * Nonetheless…


 * From my reading of the subject matter, the term “organic compound” is not set in stone. For instance, this article from Quora states that “carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbides, cyanides and carbonates” are not considered to be organic. But then, Quora is not what I would regard as an RS; it is a blog. If cyanogen chloride ought not be considered as an organic compound, this issue should be resolved by the RSs. If there is inconsistency within the RSs on the issue, I submit that this article would do best to point out that fact; we could have verbiage here that reads something like this:


 * Cyanogen chloride is considered to be an organic compound by some sources and an inorganic compound by others. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think I found the key bit in our own article here at “Organic compound”. It reads as follows (my emphasis added):


 * Still, even the broadest definition (of "carbon-containing molecules" as organic) requires excluding alloys that contain carbon, including steel. Other 'excluded' materials are: compounds such as carbonates and carbonyls, simple oxides of carbon, simple carbon halides and sulfides, the allotropes of carbon, and cyanides not containing the −C≡N functional group—all which are considered inorganic.


 * So I'm quite sure that cyanogen chloride is considered as “organic” due precisely to that triple bond −C≡N functional group I keyed on. Greg L (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My impression that any editor that gets agitated about defining what exactly is organic vs whatever risks wasting their own and readers' time. There are more meaty editing chores to be undertaken.  My 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, Smokefoot! You must be one of those big thinker types who does only Truly Important Stuff™®️©️ on Wikipedia and doesn't worry about silly *details* like inorganic compounds vs. organic compounds. You sir, impress me much. Glibness aside, I wasn't agitated; you just imagined that as you flitted about trying to look important (because you apparently do “meaty chores”) as you taunt other editors over what they edit about and how they memorialize facts on talk pages (so the same error doesn't get reintroduced). Next time, you might consider keeping your two cents to yourself if you don't have anything constructive to add. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Each to his/her own devices, but when you review your own publications on organic and inorganic chemistry, did you really debate this kind of thing? Did you try to insult those that disagree that the distinction might not be a big deal because it is not very clearcut and not really on chemist's minds?--Smokefoot (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Get off your soapbox. The error is corrected. Hopefully, the error won't come back. End of discussion. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What was the "error" that was corrected? That is the question.  That you have some insight into the dividing line between organic and inorganic?   An experienced editor dives into an debate held with editors demonstrably more knowledgeable?  And about something many professionals view as inconsequential or unanswerable? —Smokefoot (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

JohnSRoberts99, I note these series of edits with an edit summary of “this is absolutely tru” (sic). Please, our very own article here at “Organic compound” is clear that cyanides containing the −C≡N functional group are organic compounds. It best serves our readership to include information that is complete and internally consistent with related articles. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)