Talk:Phenyl group

Formula of phenyl group

The formula in the image contains R, which is a little confusing because the R really does not belong to the phenyl group. The open sign "-" without R would be better.--145.64.134.224 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electron donor or electron acceptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophy123 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.could you please tell me is phenyl group electron donor or electron acceptor?

Aromaticity

Have you read the aromaticity article? It is a misleading name, but as a chemical term, a phenyl group does give aromaticity. Please explain why you believe it doesn't or I will put the statement back. Luminaux (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you, User:Rifleman 82, have no doubt read the article, as you have edited it. So please, do me and the community a favor and teach us why specifically phenyl groups don't give aromaticity to a molecule. I believe it is an important relation that should be clarified, and definitely needs mention in this article. Luminaux (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement was taken from the aromaticity article: "The first known use of the word "aromatic" as a chemical term—namely, to apply to compounds that contain the phenyl radical—occurs in an article by August Wilhelm Hofmann in 1855." So shouldn't the term aromaticity be in this article with its own wiki-link, at very least? Luminaux (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phenyl rings are aromatic, and compounds containing aryl groups are aromatic. To say that the presence of phenyl rings makes a compound aromatic may not be incorrect, but this is a trivial statement which obscures the bigger question about what makes a compound aromatic: Hückel's rule. For example, do we think of phenylalanine as primarily an aromatic compound? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luminaux: you need to learn some elementary chemistry before you engage in this kind of condescension. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my statement came off as condescending, that wasn't my intention. To say that I don't know elementary chemistry because I would like to inspire better understanding of a quantum chemistry topic seems rather condescending. I don't believe sharing the knowledge that a poorly chosen term such as aromaticity refers to the presence of a benzene-like ring is trivial. Nomenclature is the major stumbling block which keeps science out of the hands of the masses. Wikipedia is meant to be a tool to help the masses gain better understanding. If you believe Hückel's rule is essential to sharing the knowledge of the unique properties of these benzene-like rings, please add a statement in the article with the wiki-link. But to delete a statement I add in an attempt to help clarify nomenclature just because you disagree about the importance seems counterproductive towards the overall goal of this website. Luminaux (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine are all considered aromatic amino acids. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort640c/aromat/ar00008.htm Luminaux (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to say it in a different way. Please do not revert or delete. Editing, fact-checking, and corrections always welcome. Luminaux (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think aromaticity is a horrible term to use, since it relates a false impression of meaning to any Greek or Latin based language speakers (which is why I used the term "chemically aromatic"). I look forward to the scientific community choosing a new term for this property, but until then, it is an important aspect of chemistry that should be highlighted where-ever and when-ever applicable, especially due to the inaccuracy of the nomenclature. Maybe someday science will actually choose systematic nomenclature related to common languages, as it would allow a greater scientific understanding throughout humanity, and it would be a wonderful contrast to current scientific nomenclature... which often just makes the information more confusing and difficult to comprehend than it should be... Luminaux (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice contributions. I tweaked the writing a little. It is a common for people say that xyz group is highly stable, but the phrase is very difficult to define precisely and is best avoided, IMHO. Stable with respect to what etc. In terms of aromaticity being "horrible" not much we can do about it. The term give idle people something to get anxious about. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]