Talk:Bismuthyl

derivatives of bismuthanes

The article says "derivatives of bismuthanes, BiR₃, such as the diphenylbismuthyl group, Ph₂Bi–, found in the ion [Ph₂Bi−(Ge₉)−BiPh₂]²⁻". This seems questionable after consulting

Angel Ugrinov, Slavi C. Sevov: [Ph₂Bi−(Ge₉)−BiPh₂]²⁻: A Deltahedral Zintl Ion Functionalized by Exo-Bonded Ligands, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11, 2442–2443. [1]

who wrote "The anion is a monocapped square antiprism of Ge9 with two diphenylbismuth ligands exo-bonded to opposite vertexes of the open face of the cluster." The bismuthyl group (-yl ending meaning a combination with oxygen as in Uranyl, Nitryl, Sulfonyl, etc.) is lacking in this case. Gunnar (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging former authors: Benjah-bmm27, Auntof6, Axiosaurus, MarkErbo, Namesnik. Bismutyl seems to be an (deprecated) term for the BiO-ion. With the example [Ph₂Bi−(Ge₉)−BiPh₂]²⁻ given above, there is no Bimuthoxide group nor cathion. Gunnar (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a complete encyclopedia. It can and should provide readers with articles not only about existing, but also about outdated terms. The article Bismuthyl (ion) is just one example out of thousands. --Namesnik (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but calling [Ph₂Bi−(Ge₉)−BiPh₂]²⁻ bismuthyl is not outdated, but seems to be simply wrong. I am perfectly fine with having a bismuthyl explanation in Wikipedia, so Wikipedia readers are able to interpret older literature, but even the outdated parts should be correct. BTW, if the IUPAC rules say: no, you cannot call anorganic BiO-compounds bismuthyl anymore, because no single BiO groups can be identified in the crystal lattice, these are layers of Bi and O atoms – whats about anorganic chemistry? Is there the BiO group a uniquely identifiable item? --Gunnar (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: in deWikistan there was a request for deletion for an disambiguation page on bismuthyl, and I argued to keep it which resulted in this little stub on de:Bismutyl. Use https://www.deepl.com/translator (better language feeling than Google translate) to read the content and the references. Gunnar (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.198007231 for an example of the term diphenylbismuthyl. And as for BiO⁺, sometimes it’s useful to retain older terminology like this. I agree that Wikipedia should describe the meaning even if the term is no longer widely used. Ben (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to keep an Wikipedia entry for an outdated term, so readers of old literature can use Wikipedia to understand old literature. Regarding the "Diphenylbismuthyl Group" (Ph2Bi) where is the oxygen in the -yl group (BiO) as in Uranyl or Nitryl? Isn't it possible that this paper from 1980 made a mistake in its nomenclature? Gunnar (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every chemical term ending in -yl contains oxygen. The examples you give are the exception rather than the rule. More typical is methyl, silyl, stannyl. There is zero possibility the 1980 paper made a mistake. Ben (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the bismuthyl radical, BiO, and bismuthyl ion, BiO⁺, exist in the gas phase. The CRC Handbook (97th edition, 2017) gives the bond length of BiO as 1.934 Å, as determined by UV spectroscopy, and its bond dissociation energy as 337.2 ± 12.6 kJ/mol. For BiO⁺, the bond dissociation energy is 174 kJ/mol. Ben (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuthyl ion in water

This diatomic ion is not now believed to exist. Unlike other inorganic radicals such as hydroxyl, carbonyl, chromyl, uranyl or vanadyl, according to the current IUPAC rules, names such as bismuthyl and antimonyl (stibil) for BiO+ and SbO+ are not recommended, since individual molecules of these groups do not actually contain, and their presence in compounds preferably should be referred to as oxides. However, the latter position remains controversial. For example, to this day the Russian school of inorganic chemistry still operates with bismuthyl and stibil (antimonyl) cations as actually existing radicals." as written in Bismuthyl (ion).

Do we have some quotes on the academic dispute if the bismuthyl ion exists or not? What is the alternative if not a BiO-ion, if there is an aqueous solution of BiO-compounds? Who believes what and how does the experimental evidence look like. Can somebody cite some references from the Russian school of inorganic chemistry? --Gunnar (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC is not God. Already 1001 times in the history of science, conventional or officially accepted scientific theories have been refuted, and then refuted again. If at the beginning of the article it is said that IUPAC does not recognize bismuthyl, that is enough. In the Russian article I wrote about this three times in different places, but even there it was not enough for some people. This article is not about chemistry, but about the history of chemistry (like this), which has no end and continues to this day. There, at the end of the article, I even put a corresponding category (″history of chemistry″). Bismuthil has existed in the history of science for more than a hundred years. Is it necessary today to admit that he did not exist and erase all mentions of him? Thank you for the work you have done. --MarkErbo (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IUPAC is a strong voice, which is setting current rules. Therefore it is fair to say that in certain applications the use of the term bismuthyl is outdated. The article may be about the use of the term "Bismuthyl" during the history of chemistry including now which is a different topic than the "bismuthyl (ion)". But today its wording does not indicate such an historical overview: "Bismuthyl means a chemical species formally derived from the element bismuth ..." Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of dispute here. I completely agree with you, Gunnar. The article says, more than once, that bismuthil is considered obsolete. And non-existent. If this doesn’t seem enough to you, write again. Or two. Or even ten times. I don't have a single objection. You just need to write this in the article, and not here. --MarkErbo (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All references (to books from the beginning of the twentieth century to 2022) are given throughout the text of the article in different sections next to the corresponding formulas and chemical equations discussing bismuthyl as an existing ion. I see no point in duplicating them again here. I have already mentioned once (for you personally) a book where organic bismuthyl is present in full. This is not just a book, but a German-Russian chemical dictionary: Deutsch-Russisches chemisch-technologisches Wörterbuch. Allgemeine Ausgabe von Prof. B. N. Rutovsky. — Moskau: Gostekhizdat, 1949, 462 S. (Diphenyl bismuthyl: s.69) — German-Russian chemical-technological dictionary. General ed. prof. B. N. Rutovsky. - Moscow: Gostekhizdat, 1949. — 462 с. (Diphenyl bismuthyl: p.69). I think that's enough. --MarkErbo (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is enough. The reference you gave is an entry in a dictionary, but what I had expected to read was a little bit more why one side says: that exists, and the other side says, no it doesn't exist. In the meantime I learned that the term bismuthyl is not used in anorganic chemistry, because crystals do not form with single BiO-units, but rater layers of B and O atoms, therefore the current nomenclature rules not to call this Bismuthyl but bismuth oxide. This rule may not apply in organic chemistry, if there is a BiO group and also not if the BiO cation exists in water.

A.F. Wiberg, E. und N. Wiberg: Holleman/Wiberg. Anorganische Chemie. Band 1: Grundlagen und Hauptgruppenelemente. 103. Ausgabe, De Gruyter, 2016. S. 976: Cation Bi₆O₄(OH)₄⁶⁺ · aq has been named »bismuthyl ion« BiO⁺ in the past. Therefore my question if this is the reason for the scientific debate? One group says there is a bismutyl ion, and the other says, no it is not BiO+ alone, there are always 2 water molecules and 6 BiO+ forming a cluster? Gunnar (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true here, Gunnar. 1. I provided a link to the dictionary regarding organic bismuthyl (B. N. Rutovsky (1949) ″Diphenyl bismuthyl″: s.69). This has nothing to do with the ion. There is no article about organic bismuthyl. And now it won't. 2. The text of the article about bismuthyl contains links to books of the 21st century (Nikitina, Khakhanina (2010). Analytical chemistry. — Molodkin, Esina (2018). Chemistry of elements IA-VIIIA: textbook for chemical specialties of universities. — Tomina, Rosin (2023). General and inorganic chemistry in 3 volumes. Volume 3. Chemistry of p-elements.) These are not just books. This is an officially approved textbook for chemists by the ministry. They contain sections with descriptions, formulas and equations devoted to bismuthyl. All this is in the test articles. What other ″discussion″? 3. Bismuthyl is recognized as an oxide. This is stated in the preamble of the article. «Unlike other inorganic radicals such as hydroxyl, carbonyl, chromyl, uranyl or vanadyl, according to the current IUPAC rules, names such as bismuthyl and antimonyl (stibil) for BiO+ and SbO+ are not recommended, since individual molecules of these groups do not actually contain, and their presence in compounds preferably should be referred to as oxides». I repeat, this is written in the preamble of the article. In the most important place. If this is not enough for you, write again. Or twice. Or write an entire section. I'll be glad. Just write about it in the article, not here. This makes a lot more sense. I'm not saying that bismuthyl exists. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just stating a fact: he was. And now it is declared non-existent. 4. The article is called bismuthyl (ion) because it is written about bismuthyl (ion). The one that was. And one that exists today in one place, but does not exist in another place. --MarkErbo (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]