Even I had this question in my mind., while searching I found out that someone has already asked, it has got 11k views but no proper answer yet, so I decided to improve the question and add my points as Bounty,

But someone just edited the question in such a way that it changes the meaning of question and makes it fully confusing.

As Bounty is going to end soon and question is still in confusing state

Please help me out

  • $\begingroup$ I guess that has been dealt with now. If you are using the same book with the cited statement, could you also add a citation, please. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン May 29 '20 at 10:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Maybe I don't understand something, but original question was clear enough (and already received an answer), and judging from the diffs it was you who introduced a substantial edit in the first place. Then you claim that the edits of other users who were trying to clean up the formatting and wording afterwards "change the original question", which sounds a bit hypocritical. The fact that you "…added my Precious points as bounty" doesn't mean that you gain the sole control of the question. $\endgroup$ – andselisk May 29 '20 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ the original question didn't provide any argument why Mn+3 should be more stable and moreover the answer to the question is mostly restating the question and it doesn't provide any valuable insights . Also I agree with poor wording , but the reviewer actually changed the actual question itself throughout modification of my statements. I regret putting that"my precious.." in the comments. $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ @martin I avoided citing the source as soon as I mention "NCERT" some users gets triggered and down vote mentioning that book is bad. $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 18:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ NCERT might not be the best book ever, but I don't think it triggers people to down-vote an honest question being asked about a quote from it. For me, the mentioning of a textbook without a citation is a trigger, if I can't (= I don't have the chance to at least) verify the quote and its context, there is hardly ever anything gained from including it then. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン May 29 '20 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ @martin as per your suggestion I included the source, I'm just awaiting someone's approval of my edit $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 18:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I reviewed and skipped your "edit," for 2 reasons: (1) your edit contains text "NCERT INDIA" which is not linked to an actual citation; and (2) I don't really want to get involved with beating a dead horse. Sadly, I've come up short. $\endgroup$ – Todd Minehardt May 29 '20 at 18:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Chemist I saw your proposed edit: "NCERT INDIA". This is not a reference at all. A proper textbook citation must include author(s)/editor(s), complete title, edition, publisher, year, page number(s) and IDs (ISSN/ISBN/DOI). $\endgroup$ – andselisk May 29 '20 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ Done, I have added citation, I'm wating for someone to approve it $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 19:45

The main addition to the question was yours, and this could reasonably be said to have changed the question. If you had additional specifications (e.g. wanting to see crystal field theory calculations) then you can specify those in the bounty text, it doesn't have to be an edit to the question.

Honestly, the original wording which you added to the question was extremely difficult to understand. I would like to believe that I'm generally good at understanding what people are trying to ask, even when their English is not amazing. I have a reasonable amount of experience teaching people, both in real life and on here. And in this case, I can make a educated guess about what you meant, because it is a question I have seen (and answered) before.

But if I were to take the question at face value, i.e. not make any educated guesses, I really cannot understand what this is supposed to mean:

$\ce{Mn^3+}$ being oxidized to $\ce{Mn^4+}$, which would have half filled $\mathrm{t_{2g}}$ and empty $\mathrm{e_g}$. As oxidation and reduction takes place in aqueous medium, $\mathrm{t_{2g}}$ Which is $\ce{D^3}$ be more stable than $\ce{d^5}$ configuration In aqueous medium.

Similar observation is made in case of , $\ce{Fe^2+}$ and $\ce{Cr^2+}$, where it observed that $\ce{Cr^2+}$ is more powerful reducing agent than $\ce{Fe^2+}$.

I therefore cannot agree with the claim that the subsequent edits after yours have changed the meaning. If anything, they have at least tried to add some meaning to a text where there was effectively none. I can understand that scientific writing in English is difficult if English is not your first language, but unfortunately, we only use English on SE, so you need to be able to formulate thoughts in a way that is at least somewhat understandable.

Also, what does an aqueous medium have to do with any of this?

  • $\begingroup$ I have clearly mentioned in the question, that reduction and oxidation usually takes place in aqueous medium, so while discussing about stability of ions CFT to be considered $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ Moreover the snipted which you have included is from the editor it doesn't make any sense that's why I asked for help $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I quite literally quoted what you added in: chemistry.stackexchange.com/posts/26837/revisions Your edit is #3. The subsequent edit is #4. Also, CFT has nothing to do with aqueous media; CFT deals with complexes. You're right that aquo complexes are typically formed in aqueous solution, but complexes are also very relevant in the solid state. So there isn't really a link there. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ Moreover that snipet is an argument as to , why Mn+4 would be more stable , and why Mn+3 should be a oxidising agent rather than reducing agent, and for the second half of the snippet "Similar observation is made in case of , Fe2+ and Cr2+, where it observed that Cr2+ is more powerful reducing agent than Fe2+." It means Cr+2 when it gets oxidised it converts into Cr+3 and Cr+3 has 3 electrons in 3d orbital, as reduction takes place in aqueous medium, the water acts as ligand ,when it approaches CFT takes place , so Cr+3 has half filled t2g orbital which adds to stability. $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ Please refer to first edit as I reasoned all of additional statement and significance $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ The link is that while discussing about oxidation and reduction capability of an ion we have to consider the fact that these reaction takes place in aqueous media(oxidation and reduction). $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ Moreover I haven't changed the question, I just added additional details and facts to make it more answerable and I agree with you that question is similar to one you have answered , I liked the answer , with some tweaks and additional facts, I request you to add that answer to bountied question $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 16:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A longer explanation is always helpful and welcome; that's something that needs to be brought over to main site, though. With regards to this meta question and our discussion here, you asked about the meaning of the question being changed, and I don't think any of this changes my answer. Also, I'm more inclined to close one as a duplicate of the other, instead of copy-pasting the same answer. Which way round remains to be decided later; possibly by somebody else, as I don't want to have unconscious bias in making that decision. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ But the question which you have quoted was asked in 2016 and one which I have bountied was asked in year 2015, technically 2016 is the duplicate one and moreover I feel that your answer still needs additional details which I have specified in the question itself. Also can we continue this discussion in the chat room $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 17:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll point you to this link again, which broadly summarises our stance on the topic. See, especially, Jan's answer which outlines criteria for choosing which to close as which. IMO, the older question expresses the same thoughts in a more succinct and understandable way, and IMO (if I may say so), I think my answer is better. The other factors, e.g. vote counts, are also in favour of the older question. For me to do that, though, feels a little narcissistic. I would rather somebody else make the decision. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ In the top answer I would like to quote this statement"Still, it's not like it has to be done. In theory it might bring even better answer, who knows? " I hoping for this to happen. Also I'm not completely satisfied with the answer in your link, I want additional details, as per my experience on se asking for additional details is acceptable $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ With regard to "additional details which you specified": I think the only thing my answer is missing is an explicit calculation using the relevant thermodynamic values (CFSE, ionisation energies, ...) But, it turns out that that specification wasn't even there in the original question: you're the one who added it... my answer would have answered the original question perfectly fine. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ Also can you tell me how to change the statement in the Bounty text. $\endgroup$ – Chemist May 29 '20 at 17:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, but there's very little left that I want to discuss. If my answer was good enough for the original question, but no longer is after you edited it, then you've changed the question; I don't think anybody would dispute that. As for the bounty, you will just have to let it run; we can't close the question while there is a bounty on it. As with any other bounty, if you get an answer, good; if not, too bad. But please learn from this experience and don't change a question substantially then place a bounty on it. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If your question is clearly different, i.e. you explicitly link to existing questions & explain why yours is different, then it should not be closed. Obviously, I cannot guarantee that such a question won't be closed, but I promise I would at the very least defend it against closure (I have done this on quite a few other occasions). Re. changing the question, I think I've already made my thoughts clear. Anything else I say is just me repeating myself. Of course you're allowed to disagree, even if it isn't exactly changing my mind. We just need more opinions. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol May 29 '20 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .