This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The IUPAC definition is quite confusing. In my opinion, the essence is separation of charges, which causes dipoles (the whole compound being neutral). This also explaines the term. The separation of charges may be due to delocalized electrons, which can be expressed by a resonance formula. The existence of canonical descriptions is not essential, which follows from the IUPAC definition: "In most dipolar compounds the charges are delocalized; however the term is also applied to species where this is not the case.". Here is a contradiction. If there are no delocalized charges, we will, most likely, not need canonical descriptions.

A simplified definition is sufficient to distinct 1,2- and 1,3-dipolar compounds: "separation of charges" on adjacent atoms and "separation of charges" over three atoms, respectively.
--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "dipolar compound" is only useful when applied to zwitterions with delocalized electrons, refering to most 1,2-dipols, 1,3-dipols, 1,4-dipols, etcetera (not to those without delocalized electrons). Otherwise the term zwitterion would suffice. However, that would neglect the semantic meaning of "dipolar" and the fact that compounds like amino acids also have a dipole moment.

The better solution would be to restrict the term to its semantic meaning.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]