text:
Talk:Kerosene

The description of a Mantle
The Mantle is described as being above the wick so the heat of the flame heats the mantle. Perhaps there are lamps like this but it sounds very doubtful. What is being (badly) described is the pressure lantern, where the mantle completely replaces the wick and glows due to super-heated gases burning at the surface of the mantle. I think the use and operation of the Pressure Lantern is of sufficient interest to warrants its own page. Gutta Percha (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article lacking in physical/chemical properties
Melting point, boiling point, vapor pressure for starters. Viscosity, solubility (and solving properties) would be really important. Perhaps mention the properties of some of the components, like decane etc. 213.243.137.56 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even though this is three years later. It's hard to do homework when there is barely enough information on the website of choice. --121.219.254.230 (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chemical property questions
What is the generated heat (J/kg) obtained by the burning of kerosene in air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damas (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 March 2002
 * Answer - Energy Density depends on the grade and source.. Should be similar to these figures

Diesel	 10942Wh/l 	13762Wh/kg Gasoline 9,700 Wh/l 	12,200 Wh/kg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

What is the use of mixing kerosene and styrene and heat for 45 - 60 minutes at 150 degree celcius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) think. Gaviidae 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the toxic inhalation level of Kerosene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

In "Properties and grades," the phrases "Premium" and "Standard" kerosene are used without definition. What is meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.73.2 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Kitab al-Asrar
This section seemed too speculative and open to argument to include. No doubt al-Razi distilled something from petroleum, but to conclude that it was kerosene and not one of the multitude of other petroleum distillates is perhaps going too far.

 * Kerosene was first described by al-Razi (Rhazes) as a distillation of petroleum in 9th-century Baghdad. In his Kitab al-Asrar (Book of Secrets), he described two methods for the production of kerosene. One method involved using clay as an absorbent, whereas the other method involved using ammonium chloride (sal ammoniac). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.44.35 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 * What's the problem with this being "speculative", given that it's also referenced by something we can reasonably take as WP:RS? In the absence of some positive indication to the contrary, I fail to see why we should question it. Petroleum distillates are cited in several texts of this period (usually for warfare) and we know that distillation was practised in Baghdad of this period. Now the "naptha" or "kerosene" produced isn't of a precisely known grade, but kerosene has always been a broad term and there's no reason to assume this falls outside it.

The article itself defines kerosene specifically: "Kerosene is a thin, clear liquid formed from hydrocarbons, with density of 0.78-0.81g/cm3. Kerosene is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum between 150 °C and 275 °C, resulting in a mixture of carbon chains containing 12 to 15 carbon atoms." My question is, is there any evidence that al-Razi's distillate was this particular one, rather than some other petroleum distillate? If not, it would be more accurate to say that al-Razi developed petroleum distillates, rather than that he discovered or "described" kerosene.156.34.35.27 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Usage questions

 * The article makes no mention that many people in the US and perhaps Canada use it for heating in homes. K-1 is a term for undyed, untaxed Kerosene in the US. We use to heat our home workshop. -- Dak ota   t    e  ''' 08:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Can Biodiesel be used for aviation purposes, providing it can be kept liquid? Maybe a blend with kerosine? Reduce CO2 emissions overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

To above: if diesel can be used for aviation, biodiesel can also. If diesel can't, then BD can't. Be aware that BD is even more viscous than diesel, so you have even worse gelling problems. I say this knowing only about BD in land vehicles-- if the vehicle can use diesel, it can use BD. Since planes get pretty cold, I'd say no. The amount of additives would be huge, I'd

Naming questions
What is K-1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

What is the difference between kerosene and diesel fuel? David.Monniaux 20:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * According to various sources I've seen (ex), kerosene is another name for #1 Diesel. (The stuff we usually put in our cars is #2 Diesel.)  Compared to #2, it's more expensive, not as good for your engine, and gets significantly worse mileage.  Its (only?) advantage is that it works in much colder weather than #2, even winterized #2.  At least, that's AFAICT.  (I've heard of people running kerosene-petrodiesel or kerosene-biodiesel blends in cold weather.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)   (anonymous)
 * According to the article Diesel, Diesel is obtained by fractional distillation of crude oil between 250°C and 350°C and Kerosene (this article) between 150°C and 275°C, this is in sync with the picture in the article on oil refinery and the one about fuel oils. I.e. kerosene is lighter than diesel (and heavier than gasoline), lighter means not only a slightly lower density, also lower boiling and freezing points, lower ignition temperature (flash point), lower relative energy density (per volume), lower viscosity. -- Alureiter 09:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's to do with the viscosity of the refined oil. I work for an oil distributor and in the UK kerosene is called 28 second oil, diesel is called 35 second oil as it's thicker and takes longer to pass through the aperture of the "cup" used to measure oil viscosity. There are a whole variety of names for these products but the ones relating to their viscosity are probably the most accurate.

IrishPete 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Turkish for Kerosene "Gaz Yağı"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Is kerosene a proper noun? Should it be written "Kerosene" or "kerosene"? (Mhopeng (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

 * It is not a proper noun. Wizard191 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

'medical' advice
Is there a wikipedia policy about dubious medical advice? Although I found a reference on the Anthelmintic page to kerosene being used to purge intestinal worms in some army field manual reprint, I strongly suspect that most of the medical community would say that ingesting kerosene under any circumstances is likely to cause more harm than good... for now, I'm leaving the reference with the link so people can at least see the reference. --Montyy0 03:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed from the article the advice that kerosene kill worms. It also kills people. Wikipedia should be very cautious giving out home remedies. I have been told by my doctor that if petroleum distillates enter the lungs it can be fatal. As for ingestion: if someone ingests kerosene they need medical treatment. It is dangerous. See http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2721.htm See http://www.pasasa.org/pasasa/aboutus/ where it says "Paraffin {[kerosene]poisoning is usually caused by drinking paraffin (ingestion). If paraffin, which is very viscous, gets into the lungs it often leads to chemical pneumonitis and eventually pneumonia....80,000 children ingest paraffin (kerosene) every year.40 000 children develop chemical pneumonia each year as a result of ingesting paraffin.  See also http://www.valero.com/docs/MSDS/HeatingOil/Kerosene%20-%20105.pdf Edison 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and I confess that I reinstated the remark. I sit here now and wonder if that should be kept.  It is a fact, it is used in such a way (I know the story from my grandfather, it was used as a 'medicine' against some strange diseases), and yes, kerosine is not a healthy compound.  I know there are templates on the medical pages to warn people not taking these things for 'normal', maybe that should be used here.  Or otherwise a serious rephrase of the sentence. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly, can't wikipedia just say, "so-and-sos have used the ingestion of kerosene to kill intestinal parasites, although it's well-known in most of the world that ingesting kerosene causes severe medical problems" or something like that? Gives info, doesn't confuse Grandma? Gaviidae 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The liquid paraffin used for medical purposes is quite different from kerosene. I have added a page Liquid paraffin (medicinal) with a link to a safety data sheet. Biscuittin 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kero as engine fuel
What about mentioning the use of kerosene in internal combustion engines? I've heard that back in the 20s and 30s many tractors were started using a small tank of gasoline, and once the engine was warm they'd switch to the main kerosene tank. This was done because kerosene was cheaper than gasoline in those days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * They were apparently just using kerosene like regular diesel. People running home-made biodiesel, without anti-gelling agents, also start on regular diesel or gasoline if they can, then switch to BD (regular pump diesel no longer needs the warmed engine because of anti-coagulants, except where it gets cold (you'll see the plugs to electrically heat the fuel pans sticking out of the grills then). Gaviidae 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of those electrical connectors are engine-block heaters, tho, for literally warming up the engine before starting it. --Jerzy•t 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Tractor vaporising oil. Biscuittin 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Volvo Penta was making kerosene internal combustion engines for boats all the way up into the early '80s. Others may have been too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.26.4 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dual-purpose kerosene
In the article Nigeria runs out of jet fuel it talks of dual-purpose kerosene (DPK). What is this ? Wizzy… ☎   08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the EPA, fuel must be catagorised in certain ways for it to be imported into the US (I assume other countries as well). Dual-use kerosene is a fuel that is both "Motor vehicle, nonroad, locomotive or marine (MVNRLM) diesel fuel" and "...is also suitable for use as kerosene or jet fuel (i.e., commonly referred to as dual use kerosene) may be designated as MVNRLM, kerosene, or jet fuel (as applicable)." I think 1D is diesel #1, which is kerosene/diesel. In other words, read the article's "dual-use" as "kerosene." Hope this helps. Gaviidae 13:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Added by althomps48@yahoo.com on 1/28/2012---I would suggest 3 things that I did not see noted here. First,diesel and kerosene are alike but different products. If you start with crude oil and began refining you get to diesel before kerosene but both are well ahead of gasoline in the refining process. Kerosene IS number 1 oil while diesel is number 2 ( thicker, produces more energy, and has a higher ignition point than kerosene. Many older engines run fine on either. Most newer ones will now but with disastruos effects. 2nd point is that in the early nineteen hundreds diesel and kerosene were almost waste products from gaso;ine production and was incredibly cheap therefore the use of the diesel became common. The diesel engine was invented by Rudolph Diesel and originally was meant to run on peanut oil but when the waste product from making other petro products became readily available people began using that.The only reason diesel is expensive now is because they can get away with it. Diesel should not be more than about a third the cost of gasoline. Third point is that diesel produces more heat over a longer period of time than either kerosene (sold as k1) or gasoline and is a much more effecient and cleaner product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.171.75 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

British name
In Britain, kerosene is normally referred to as 'paraffin' (NOT 'paraffin oil' - I have never heard it called 'paraffin oil', except here on wikipedia,) and the wax is referred to as 'paraffin wax', never as just 'paraffin'. When used as aviation fuel, either 'kerosene' or 'aviation spirit/fuel' is usually used. DuncanHill 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read this bcz i found the Paraffin article to be lopsided in using a ToP Dab rather than equal Dab'n. I don't think a proper Dab page can handle the task with just two-way dab'n, but i'm considering an approach with something like
 * Paraffin (terminology) or Paraffin, discussing what the two senses have in comparsion, etymology and a sentence each on the applications that UK and US have for their respective paraffins
 * Paraffin (waxy) or Wax paraffin, with the rest of what is currently in Paraffin
 * Paraffin (liquid), Fuel paraffin, Liquid paraffin, rdrs to Kerosene
 * Paraffin or Paraffin (disambiguation), a Dab lk'g to all of the above 3.
 * Am i wrong in wanting to devote another separate article and a Dab page to this? Am i on the right track with the titles? --Jerzy•t 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to tackle some of the points you raise, see: Paraffin (disambiguation), but it's a bigger job than I expected and there are probably still some inconsistencies. Biscuittin 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate matters slightly further. In terms of domestic use most distribution companies refer to kerosene by that name. Paraffin is a more refined kerosene which contains a lower impurity content than the regular kerosene- as is reflected in the price. Having worked for a distributor for a few years, I know there are lots of different names for the same product and it often leads to confusion. Good luck on sorting it out. IrishPete 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I also add that Methylated Spirit is also dyed a vaguely blueish colour in the UK, which might cause confusion. Meths is an alchohol based fuel - very different from Paraffin.

Carbon Atoms?
According to "Advanced Chemistry " (Oxford University Press), by Michael Clugston and Rosalind Flemming (ISBN 0-19-914633-0), Kerosene has 10-14 carbon atoms in molecules, so which is right ? I have seen a number of internet-sites stating that Kerosene is from 12-15 carbon atoms, but generally I would think that my textbook is more reliable than the internet, does anyone else know anything about this ? --cKaL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * The article probably contains a mistake. Some sources say 10-16.  But it's not highly volatile. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 * There's certainly no magic formula for kero; those ranges are close enuf that i'd be surprised if the behaviors were dramatic enuf to say that any of them don't qualify. It's likely the difference between the two authors is that
 * they have slightly different definitions of the viscosity, energy content, and ignition temperature ranges that constitute kero, and/or
 * they are describing what would be economical to produce with two different
 * grades of crude and/or
 * refinery technologies (perhaps reflecting different decades of construction, or regulatory regimes) or
 * patterns of price ratios among refinery products, due to differences in local demand. --Jerzy•t 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of RP-1 into kerosene
Disagree - If RP-1 is to be merged into kerosene, then jet fuel must also. The differences between Kerosene and RP-1 are just as few as the differences between Kero and Jet Fuel. Personally I'd rather they stay seperate, or, at least have the redirection take the wikier down to the part of the page that specifically addresses RP-1. Gaviidae 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Rather than focus on the name (kerosene), one should examine the distillation curves of the various fuels.  JP-5 (Naval aviation grade), Jet-A, Jet-A-50, Arctic Diesel, No. 1 Diesel, GT-No. 1, these are all derivatives of something generally regarded as Kerosene.Bonzoboy 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree - separate things, would be too trivial for kerosene article. Eventually the types of kerosene will all merit their own articles; kerosene should only deal with a sweeping overview - Jack (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree for many of the same reasons as stated by Jrockley. I think there's enough material in both articles to merit them being separate. Combining them would probably cause confusion. The articles should link to each other with perhaps some mention of RP-1 in the kerosene article with "See main RP-1 article" and a link to it. IrishPete 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Colour
I don't agree with the statement that kerosene is dark blue. I believe it's initially clear but, in the UK, a dye is added to "domestic paraffin" before sale. This is usually blue but, in the past, different oil companies used different colours, e.g. Esso blue, Aladdin pink (from Shell) and I think Regent/Texaco used green. Biscuittin 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the "dark blue" phrase. --Trovatore 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Kerosene is currently a pale yellow colour- as a result of the marker dyes added to it to ensure it's not used for fuelling on-road vehicles without the payment of appropriate duty. I would like to add a bit about this to the existing article- perhaps as a new paragraph on "kerosene use in the UK" or similar as it would appear that the UK and Ireland use it disproportionately in comparison with other developed nations.IrishPete 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested alterations for the article
I would like to suggest that the paragraphs on heating and lighting be incorporated under one paragraph- possibly with the heading "Domestic use" with statements that have been made consolidated under this heading by geographic region; similarly consolidate "transportation" and "other uses" under a further heading of "commercial use" where possible- there would probably still be a much reduced "other uses" section. I'm happy to rewrite these parts of the article and possibly expand and add references as long as people are happy for me to do that.IrishPete 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In Sri Lanka
I'm surprised nobody's noticed the badly-written section on Sri Lanka — it was added by 91.104.4.48 in late July (*.orangehomedsl.co.uk, diff). I've removed bits already mentioned in other sections, and moved it to the end, but I don't know if the paragraph should be there at all. ⇌Elektron 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Formula
Why don't we have the chemical formula anywhere on the aricle page?-- §  Eloc   §  23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, after reserching around on Google, I found out it's C14H30. I'll add it to the article.-- §  Eloc   §  23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry Question: Why does Kerosene smell bad?
Kerosene is usually defined as a mixture of aliphatic compounds ranging from approximately C12 to C15. So why does it have such a strong odor? If you have ever smelled pure compounds in this range, such as dodecane, they are nearly odorless. Heavier petroleum distillates like mineral oil are pretty much odorless too. But kerosene has a strong, fairly distinct odor. Does kerosene's odor come from other types of chemicals, like naphtha or benzene? If so, is it possible to buy "pure" kerosene with all of those things removed? Deepfryer99 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Source not using kerosene in same sense as article?
This sourced statement in the article appears to be referencing something else besides "kerosene", since it apparently wasn't available until the middle 1800s: "The first kerosene lamp was described by al-Razi (Rhazes) in 9th century Baghdad, who referred to it as the "naffatah" in his Kitab al-Asrar (Book of Secrets)." Piano non troppo (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural/Performance Art
This isn't directly connected with Kerosene but this section suggests that methanol is used indoors as a substitute, which is false. Ethanol or propanol is used indoors since methanol is entirely too toxic. Out of the latter, propanol would be the fuel of choice since it gives a slightly brighter flame despite it being also slightly more toxic than ethanol. I can't find any citations for this, but I do know in the fire-spinning community methanol is frowned upon. Could anyone help provide support? Swampedalive (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of methanol being used in this context, probably because it's not easily available. Methylated spirit (mostly ethanol/methanol mix) is easily available (more easily than kerosene, at least in the UK). Although this surely gets "used" sometimes, simply "because it's there" and there is some vague agreement that it's too toxic to use (by people who aren't especially concerned with such things), the reason it's not used and kerosene (or similar compounds) is sought out instead is simply that the flame isn't visible enough. You need a yellow flame (i.e. sooty), not just blue. Meths is great for cooking on, poor for juggling. What's the point in juggling it if no-one can see you do it? It's also very easy to burn yourself on a meths flame - you can't see where it it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"explosive as gunpowder."
You may wish to reconsider the statement that kerosene was considered "explosive as gunpowder." .  While this may indeed have been the case a study of kerosene explosions shows that in the early days it was the adulteration of kerosene with gasoline that lead to explosions. This was helped by the fact that there was no market for gasoline as this period was before cars were commonplace. The fact is that kerosene is known as being very safe and has a flash point of 100 degrees as compared to a flash point for gasoline of minus 40. Arydberg (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I added a ref from 1873 which states, "The vapor of this substance [kerosene] mixed with air is as explosive as gunpowder." Salmanazar (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try here: http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/

Arydberg (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe kerosene is explosive? Arydberg (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I just found it interesting that some people in the 19th century really did consider kerosene/air vapour to be dangerously explosive; as you say, it may well have been mixed or adulterated with other, more volatile hydrocarbons, such as gasoline. If you have a reference for adulteration with gasoline I'll reword that section of the article to mention it. Salmanazar (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

here is one : http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5052.html Arydberg (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, I actually meant a reference for 19th century adulteration with gasoline. As you'll see, I found a reference specifically mentioning benzene as a common adulterant during that period on account of its relative cheapness, so I am pretty sure all manner of cheaper hydrocarbons were mixed in at one time or other, with hazardous consequences. Salmanazar (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CEEDD173DE433A2575AC0A96E9C94689ED7CF Arydberg (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Like all flammable liquids, Kerosene is highly explosive if atomized and mixed with the correct amount of air. This of course is how Kerosene powered engines operate. The most benign materials are explosive when mixed with air, examples being Flour, Coal dust, etc. Gutta Percha (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How Many HP?
The following quote from the article is very misleading..... "C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) → 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g); ∆H˚ = -7513 kJ The reaction generates an average 1.62 x 1011 watts (J/s) or 217 million horsepower[16]." How can 217 million HP be an average without a statement of quantity? Is this 217 million HP per molecule? I recommend removing the last sentence detailing 217 million HP, and will do so if there is no dissent.208.254.130.235 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Flash-point?
Why is there no mention of the flash-point of kerosene (in °C/°F)? Trumpy (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I've added the info. Wizard191 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By industrial experience I have learned that Kerosine and paraffin are not the same. When used in the European made paraffin heaters we sell, kerosine is difficult to start and if it runs, soots the inside works up causing damage. We can find no suitable paraffin fuel substitute in New ZealandOceanlift (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity
"Ingestion of kerosene is harmful or fatal" Surely this is too vague, ingestion of anything can be harmful or fatal. It requires some data and exposure limits to be meaningful. Mtpaley (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kerosene Jet Fuel?
That directly conflicts with the Jetfuel page and needs to be cited. The afore mentioned page states that Jet A fuels are "Kerosene-type" and not that they are Kerosene, Jet A is also only one of several jet fuels, none of which are mere Kerosene. 64.149.19.131 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly your tag placement made it look that you had a problem with fire poi, not aircraft.
 * Secondly, Jet A-1 is for most practical purposes of discussion at this level, kerosene. Sure, JP-5 is different, but there's no TERRIBLE CONTRADICTION whereby the Cabal is trying to misrepresent. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Another point -- the world consumption rate mentioned in this article (1.2 million barrels a day) is inconsistent with the values in the [Jet Fuel] article (1980=1.8, 2014=5.2). You wouldn't put just any old kerosene in your Boeing, but jet fuel is frequently referred to as "Aviation Kerosene" and similar phrases, so the articles need to be brought back into sync. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plucky Underdog (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Red kerosene
In the USA, red dyed kerosene is sold in metal gallon cans for use in wick type heaters. The price is so ridiculously high for this in some areas that it's impossible to give away a kerosene heater. The same cans of red kerosene in the mid 90's were quite affordable, cheap enough that many people around where I live were using several kerosene heaters in their houses instead of any other type of heating. Bizzybody (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this has changed historically but today in the USA, Kerosene must be sold and stored in Blue containers, while Petrol is sold in Red containers. Gutta Percha (talk)

Price on commodities markets
Does anyone know how to determine the price of C2 burning oil (used for domestic heating) on the commodities markets? I found that "KSG11.NYM" is "Singapore Jet Kerosene Swap" which is the nearest I can find to the price. I've an interest in how the wholesale price of the oil compares to the price consumers of oil pay. In 2010 there was an approximately 70% increase in the cost of domestic heating oil. Many believe the companies distributing the oil are acting as a cartel, and the Monopolies commission have been consulted about this. Here's one MP's take on it http://www.alistaircarmichael.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&catid=1&Itemid=72

I assume the price should depend to a large extent on what its distilled from, but again have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Oil used for heating is simply a lower grade Diesel oil (eg Distillate). It's price has risen dramatically as world wide supplies of Petroleum oil have diminished. Note that in many counties domestic heating oil is taxed at a lower rate to oil used for transport. Gutta Percha (talk)

shelf life / storage life / expiration date / does it go stale
what is typical shelf life of k-1 kerosene? what is typical storage life of k-1 kerosene? does k-1 kerosene go stale (does it expire)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.144.118 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Commenting as it still appears to be missing from the article. It typically can be stored for decades and will remain stable (unlike gasoline without special treatments and unlike vegetable oils that will go rancid).  I've not looked yet but am sure sources can be found.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerosene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228144933/http://www.epa.gov/hpv/pubs/summaries/kerjetfc/c15020ad2.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/hpv/pubs/summaries/kerjetfc/c15020ad2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kerosene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315221502/http://www.oil150.com/essays/2007/02/samual-kier to http://www.oil150.com/essays/2007/02/samual-kier
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209193139/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/ke/kerosene.html to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/ke/kerosene.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Composition
Can anyone specify approximate composition? Thanks. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 14:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kerosene


text:
Jassy

Jassy may refer to:
 * Iași, a city in north-eastern Romania, former capital of the Principality of Moldavia

History

 * Treaty of Jassy, a pact between Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire ending the Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792)
 * First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive and Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, two 1944 World War II major offensives

People

 * Jassy (surname), several people
 * Jasz people, an ethnic group in Hungary, of Ossetic origin

Culture

 * Adath Jeshurun of Jassy Synagogue, a defunct synagogue
 * Jassy, a novel by Norah Lofts
 * Jassy (film), a 1947 British film melodrama adaptation of the novel

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Jassy


text:
Talk:Autoimmune disease/Archive 1

This should either become a redirect to Autoimmune disorders, or the stuff from there should be moved here. Opinions? --Magnus Manske, Thursday, March 28, 2002

Another Autoimmune disorder not listed is Reiter's Syndrome (AKA- Reactive Arthritis). Correlated to Human Gene HLAB27 (In 1916 Hans Reiter, a German military physician, described the disease in a World War I soldier who had recovered from a bout of diarrhea. Dr. Reiter described three characteristic features of the disease: inflammation of the joints, urinary tract, and eyes. More recently, doctors have recognized a fourth major feature: ulcerations of the skin and mouth.)

http://www.orthop.washington.edu/arthritis/types/reiters/01

What about HIV/AIDS? --zandperl 01:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It's an infection, not an autoimmune disorder. -- Nunh-huh 01:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lyme disease; yes or no?
Lymie66 had proposed adding Lyme disease, but someone deleted it citing insufficient evidence; I don't feel strongly about it's inclusion or exclusion, but think it's a good idea to try to keep this list as broad as possible. An entire recent edition of Current Opinions Rheumatology was devoted to the way certain pathogens seem to initiate autoimmune phenomena (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22647621); perhaps if someone could dig up something more specific to how Lyme disease causes the immune system to cause "collateral damage" in certain individuals, it may be more convincing? doctorwolfie (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Aaron Abend (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)There are a number of diseases that seem to follow this pattern, usually some kind of infection followed, in some (but not all) cases, by a chronic condition that shares many attributes of autoimmune diseases. Chagas and Guillame-Barre follow this pattern. If I can find sources to support this pattern, I will add a subsection and a qualifier for these conditions.

Discussion of Autoimmune/inflammation
I undid a revision this morning regarding the exclusion of Crohn's disease. My understanding of this page is that it's meant to be somewhat broad and inclusive (and alphabetical) to give the reader an index of autoimmune conditions. The more I read, the more blurred the distinction seems to become between "autoimmunity" and inflammation and myeloproliferation and even immunodeficiency. I'm working on an article that groups diseases by clinical symptoms (which might be more useful for diagnosticians and primary care people like me) but I wanted to keep this page intentionally broad as a meeting place for clinicians and basic scientists. As the dialog continues, the definition of "autoimmune disease" at the top of the article is likely to evolve. Please feel free to discuss....this page needs help! doctorwolfie (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Abend (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)In the latest version of "The Autoimmune Diseases" there is a discussion of the continuum between autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases. At this time, the list of diseases with the "I" qualifier is incomplete. I am working on this.

Histiocytosis
I noticed that there was a little activity with regards to Histiocytosis; on further reading I'm assuming that the objection is that histiocytosis is more of a neoplastic process, so that it isn't any more "autoimmune" than leukemia. I've also noticed that we've got some immunodeficiency states listed; perhaps we should clarify in the opening paragraph (ie: what "autoimmune disease" ISN'T with appropriate link outs?  Maybe something like:

==="Autoimmune disease should not be confused with either immunodeficiency(in which part of the immune system is simply absent)  or myeloproliferative disorders (in which a neoplastic process occurs and the immune system primarily proliferates with admittedly some autoimmune-appearing collateral damage)"  (Or am I overthinking this?)=== doctorwolfie (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger
Although I'm not real happy with this section from Harrison's textbook of Internal Medicine, it seems that current thinking draws a distinction between Autoimmunity (there are frequently non-pathogenic auto-antibodies detectable in healthy individuals...not to mention ordinary the apoptosic process itself...which is "healthy self destruction") and Autoimmune disease (when the system gets out of balance.   The presence of auto-antibodies can be misleading because they may occur primarily causing tissue self destruction (Diabetes Mellitus I), self stimulation (Graves disease), receptor blockade (myesthenia gravis), or may have been formed secondary to a cytotoxic reaction (anti-mitochondrial antibodies in primary biliary sclerosis).  Furthermore by this model, type I hypersensitivity can be considered "autoimmune disease" because although the triggering antibody (IgE) is not self-directed, the over-enthusiastic response of the innate immune system definitely results in disease. Is there an online medicine Textbook that's widely used in Great Brittain? I would love to compare doctorwolfie (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. The merger tag directs here, so let's discuss it here.

I don't support a merger, for the important reason I mention on the Talk:Autoimmunity page, that not all autoimmunity is pathologic.

I would support relocating discussion of more disease-relevant topics to the Autoimmune Disease page from Autoimmunity, including the sections discussing Genetic Factors, Pathogenesis, Classification, Diagnosis, and Treatments. However, I would propose leaving general theoretical understanding of autoimmunity for the Autoimmunity page - leaving this page more clinical, and that page closer to theoretical.

At the same time, I would have to propose going back to the old separate list page for Autoimmune Diseases, since the comprehensive list itself is enormous, and includes many speculative associations in the current literature. The current proposals on this Talk page will probably continue indefinitely, leaving such a listing enormous - which is what it looked like before being merged into this page.

All opposed? Thoughts? Disagreements? Agreements? Jbarin (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've put a basic draft format of these proposed changes on my Userpages: User:Jbarin/Autoimmune_Disease_draft, User:Jbarin/Autoimmunity draft, and User:Jbarin/List of Autoimmune Diseases draft

Because this is a slow-moving page, I'll leave this up for perhaps a few months before putting through changes. Jbarin (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur.

Autoimmune should not be combined with Autoimmune Disease, but they should be linked to each other.

Autoimmune disease is a specific list of diseases, each of which has a specific definition, each of which has a specific diagnostic criteria, and which can only exist after the research is complete. This is more closely aligned with the legal definition of recognized diseases, which involves medical competency. That means this article needs to have input from a licensed physician.

Autoimmune is mysterious diseases process not understood by licensed physicians. This concept is more closely aligned with work that must be done before diagnostic criteria and legal definition exist. This has nothing to do with medical competencies, and involves university research or alternative medicine that fall outside the legal scope of a license to practice medicine. The body can have autoimmune reactions outside the scope of an autoimmune disease, such as Gluten Sensitivity that should be discussed with a dietitian and not a doctor (i.e.: someone with a medical license will add negative value to this kind of discussion).

This is an important distinction that will disappear if the articles are combined because these two articles must be edited by totally independent communities that have very different skill sets.Nanoatzin (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Old text
Removed passage:
 * some people view them as instances of diseases of affluence.
 * Who specifically an on what grounds ? Any references ?

____ Here are some references:

These are from a range of sources. Obesity is seen as contributing to diabetes and arthritis. Also the mechanisms of autoimune diseaeses is not well understood, whereas communicable diseases are.

For all of these reasons, I think it is reasonable to say that there are some who view auto immune diseases as examples of diseases of affluence. However, neither type is well understood. Maybe we need a new division of development medicine?

I would appreciate further views on this.

TonyClarke 01:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

____

Two points: 1. autoimmune diseases are on the rise. (Maybe because people are being cured of other stuff, and maybe just better diagnostics AMONG THE AFFLUENT) 2. Autoimmune diseases are more common under more "hygenic" conditions, ie too clean. Somehow, not being exposed to some agent in nature leads the immune system to react to self. (Sorry that's not coherent.) This was told to me by an autoimmune specialist; I'm sure I;ll find a reference if I get around to looking for it. 67.124.100.215 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, that sorta ties in with allergy and the hygiene thingie. See Allergy. Alex.tan 10:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, good point. Anyway, here's a reference to hygiene hypothesis and MS, with further references. http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050401-4.htm  GangofOne 00:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Just in case anyone ever reads this Talk page: Obesity contributes to Type 2 (non-immune-mediated) diabetes and osteoarthritis.  "Worn-out pancreas from eating more than you need" and "worn-out joints from carrying all that weight" are not generally considered autoimmune diseases. 70.137.153.32 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

-

Like ... Duhh.

Autoimmune is a disease that only affects affluent people when you consider that the average diagnosis for Celiac disease takes 10 years and the test costs about $10,000 after a dozen physicians give you $pricey$ ulcer medicine that doesn't work. Only wealthy people can afford a diagnosis. Poor people have the same problems but they just don't know the name. About 10% of us are walking around with gluten antibodies and don't know it. About 1% of us have active intestinal disease that will cause osteoporosis and cancer if it is not diagnosed.

University of Chicago has a nice writeup about this.Nanoatzin (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Redirecting content to Autoimmunity
I'm going to bring this up for discussion here, and in the Talk:Autoimmunity page before setting to it. It's occurred to me that there's no discussion of the epidemiology of autoimmunity on that page, and that the discussion of it here actually works much better over there. So barring substantive objection, and rather than duplicate content, I'm going to relocate pretty much the entire introductory text from this article to the main Autoimmunity article. All in favor? Opposed? Jbarin 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure from an autoimmune disease called Polymyositis
I sure frokm an autoimmune disease called polymyositis. I do not see it here in thw autoimmune disease listings.

The Muscular Dsytrphy Assosication has it listed on there webite with a very good explanation of it as well.

Adding a bit more information?
Does anyone mind if we expand the table of accepted autoimmune conditions to include the type of immune reaction, where known? I envision something that looks like this:

and so forth. Knowing something about the part of the immune system involved has implications for treatment. (For example, B cell diseases should be treatable with anti-B-cell rituximab.)

Or would it be better to create a couple of new list pages: List of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases and List of T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases? 70.137.153.32 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think your suggestion to add a new column is a good one, though I'd encourage you to include references for the type wherever possible. It appears that you're knowledgeable about the subject, but new to Wikipedia, so if you need help, an overview on citation is available at Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles). And if you need any assistance, feel free to ask at my talk page. --Arcadian 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While Myositis is a rare autoimmune disease, I think it should be included on the list. There are several forms of this disease - polyomyositis, dermatomyositis, IBM and juvenile dermatomyositis. The main symptoms are muscle weakness and extreme fatigue. In the dermatomyositis form the immune system attacks both the skin and the muscles (in some cases, this includes the lung and the heart). Because the disease is so rare, many doctors are unfamiliar with the disease and diagnosis can take a significant amount of time. In my case, I was lucky, I was able to go the National Institute of Health and Johns Hopkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.228.107 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include what body part is attacked and if known what pathogen or toxin is responsible for the immune response. I dont know if we need a complete description or any of that other scientific information you suggested, this is for memeber of the public npot doctors or scienitsts, they can look on the specific pages for that informaiton. Name of diease, part of body attacke, antigen and pathogen/ toxin responsible e, maybe sensityivy if this has some clinical bearing but this would have to be explained i,e. severity of disease. Maybe prevalnce information would be good. 1 in a million etc and if location specific then this too. --190.148.39.164 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems like it would be more appropriate for individual pages for each disease. This article is already threatening (again) to devolve into just another list, with little to no prosaic treatment of useful information. Jbarin (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Optic neuritis
Is this really considered an A.I. disease? Or even a distinct disease? Inclusion in "confirmed" list seems most dubious....io_editor (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those conditions without sources should be removed, or at least bumped down. --Arcadian (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted it. Of the others, [aplastic anemia] should definitely be removed or demoted, not sure which way to go?....io_editor (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

mistake
Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia as it is said on page for this disease is IgG conducted sometimes IgA, IgM antibody is used in cold autoimmune hemolytic anemia.Rakamijan (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease causation
"Autoimmune diseases are a major cause of immune-mediated diseases." If you follow the link to immune-mediated diseases, it says that autoimmune disease are a subset of immune-mediated diseases. So the statement is like saying "green widgets are a major cause of widgets." That's hard to fathom. Unfree (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that autoimmune diseases are certainly a subset of immune mediated diseases. Type 1 hypersensitivity is hardly an autoimmune disease but is certainly an immune mediated disease.

124.168.94.64 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis
Don't see how it MS meets the Milgrom/Witebsky criteria for being classified an autoimmune disease.

Great that you have a reference for hormone levels affecting its progression but without establishing it as autoimmune it hardly seems relevant. 124.168.94.64 (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. The text (Hormone levels have been shown to affect the severity of some autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis) is not relevant. In nearly one year no defense has been made. I have removed it.--Juansempere (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was written that MAG is identified as MS molecular target, which is false. I have moved MS from "Confirmed" to "Suspected", adding a reference to an article that explains the molecular complexity of the immune response. --Juansempere (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * There's no link from the MS listing. We can debate ad nauseum about the validity of labelling individual diseases as autoimmune, MS is probably one of the more popular examples. It's probably going to be more efficient if we agree on a single (or very limited) secondary sources -- there's plenty of non-consensus throughout the field, which is clearly impacting this article. Jbarin (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Autoimmune disease
It is innapropiate from my point of view to restrict autoimmune diseases to the hard core criteria like those used here. The article seems to have been based on this list and later other stuff were added with difference sources. The source is clear as to what it considers as autoimmune, which is: Disorders that are characterized by the production of antibodies that react with host tissues or immune effector cells that are autoreactive to endogenous peptides. The second part of this definition seems to give place to inflammatory diseases without a known autoantibody, but the list fall short. From the same line, the Milgrom-Witebsky criteria is too problematic in the context of this article intended for the general public.

For those reasons, I believe the list should include 'disease which is generally believed to be caused by an autoimmune reaction.' It is much less restrictive and is in the same line, which will include inflammatory diseases without directly known autoantibodies or 'proof' of direct result from cell injuries caused by immune attack. Besides, sometimes the association found between an anti-body and a disease does not mean the antibody is responsable of the disease. Hashimoto encephalopathy is not caused by anti-thyroid antibodies, neither is Crohn caused by anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Those may be findings confirming diagnosis but this shows the difficulty in classifying autoimmune only the conditions which are associated with certain antibodies. Even in the cases of Lupus, high titer for antinuclear antibody does not mean that those antibodies cause the disease. They are simply lab findings.

I took the task to rewrite and expend the article, I'll be working on it here, it would help to have some input from editors on the appopriare definition and if they are in agreement.

Also, mixing suspected autoimmunity like in the case of schizophrenia with conditions which are generally agreed to be autoimmune is not a good idea. Both suspected and generaly recognized should have their independent list. Any comment? Inductionheating (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CROHNS

I'm curious I did not see Chrohns on the list. In my reading at the CCFA website they seem to saying the disease is auto-immune with a strong link to some of the same genetic markers noted in the article. I'd like to see it added I'm not a doctor just a 40 year chronie survivor. WarLord (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi, I notice that you tie autoimmunity to hypersensitivity. Not all diseases frequently listed as autoimmune show hypersensitivity. There is another major cause for the immune system to attack healthy cells: poor targeting. How do you see this? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is for anyone who has any questions or doubts...
Anyone who has any questions or doubts about the validity of the diseases listed as accepted autoimmune disorders should check with The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association at the following link:.

They are one of the official authorities on the matter, their research is posted from the researchers and doctors as it is being done, and have they have a complete list of accepted diseases, which is updated as their understanding of them changes.

You can get information from them, regular updates, participate in surveys - which I strongly encourage you to do, especially if you have more than one member in your family with an autoimmune disorder, because every piece of information gathered helps lead to a greater understanding of how these diseases work.

It's not just environmental, it's not just genetic, it's not just anything; it's a combination of all that's going on, and as our world is accelerating and everything is becoming so much more accessible so much faster and things are in contact in ways they never have been before, it is going to take time and contribution on everyone's part to piece the puzzle together.

For the AARDA full list of autoimmune diseases (as of 4-21-2009), click the following link:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.28.237 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Pyoderma Gangrenosum?
After reading the included list of autoimmune diseases, I noted the omission of Pyoderma gangrenosum. As a person and physician who has had this condition in addition to Crohn's and Psoriasis, I can attest to it's membership within this group. I don't want to edit the page personally but simply suggest its inclusion in the list of disorders since it typically only responds to those treatments like TNF inhibitors and immune system suppressors prescribed for other major autoimmune disorders. I can't currently quote it's prevalence among the population. Reb3csc (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Systemic lupus
What about lupus? Surely this is the worst form of autoimmune disease, since the immune system can affect the body in general? I am not a qualified medical doctor so I would not like to alter the article, but if any one more medically informed than me can help here, that would be appreciated. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It's on the list. Jbarin (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many systemic autoimmune diseases, many of which have near identical or overlapping sets of symptoms to Lupus, so it makes no sense to suggest that some are worse than others.Anonymous watcher (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I think many of us share your frustration: the field itself needs a bit of cleanup; in the meantime clinicians are stuck trying to answer patients' questions without having answers that are very satisfying. However it is comforting for some people (ie: discoid lupus or mixed connective tissue disease) to hear that they're not as likely to develop kidney failure.  The classification system with all its faults just helps us give a general idea to patients so that they can have some idea about what to expect.  Wish I could do more doctorwolfie (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add Celiac Disease
Please add Celiac Disease to the list of autoimmune diseases. Apparently it is the only autoimmune disease for which the trigger is known, i.e. gluten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.104.113 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How about adding Adhesive Capsulitis (Frozen Shoulder)and Superior Limbic Karatoconjunctivitis (SLK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.251.233 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please fix table where Cattleman's and Celiac Disease are stuck on right side
Cattleman's and Celiac seem to be in a row of another disease instead of having their own rows.

129.54.8.46 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Fixed. --173.76.64.144 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ulcerative colitis
Ulcerative coliti is listed as "Accepted", yet the article on UC states: "Although ulcerative colitis is treated as though it were an autoimmune disease, there is no consensus that it is such." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.163.84 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge
I agree with the proposed merge, as I believe it is better to deal with the concepts in context. I have already merged systematic autoimmune disease and Witebsky's postulates here, because that made more sense. Autoimmunity will be harder, because it has quite a lot of technical content that needs to be made accessible.

I think the list of diseases can be trimmed down a lot, and should ideally be based on a high-quality secondary source. JFW | T@lk  19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a beautifully organized article that really spells out the sequence of discoveries. I think it's probably a bit more relevant for basic research people; so maybe it should stay intact. I've been working with the Autoimmune disease page and have been trying to steer it more toward clinical information. Cross-linking the pages might be an interesting solution (basic scientists strive to understand what's going on, and need access to details; clinicians frequently just need to know what test to order, and may only be marginally interested in the underlying mechanisms....sad to say) :( doctorwolfie (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Signs & Symptoms
The signs and symptoms category is usually found on a disease page. Look at the wikipedia page for cancer. Although the signs and symptoms for autoimmune disease can be very different depending on the type I believe there are some symptoms that could be considered to be frequently associated with autoimmune disease, fatigue being one.

Here's a link to a website that covers what I am talking about. http://women.webmd.com/features/life-with-autoimmune-disease

"As the disease develops vague symptoms start to appear, such as joint and muscle pain (very common), general muscle weakness, possible rashes or low-grade fever, trouble concentrating, or weight loss. More specific signs can point toward something being wrong: numbness and tingling in hands and feet (also common), dry eyes (common), hair loss, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, or repeated miscarriages can also be caused by an autoimmune response." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.181.82 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Trouble is, most of those symptoms are very non-specific. It would be a big mistake to suggest that someone with these symptoms is definitely suffering from an autoimmune disease. JFW | T@lk  21:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Narcolepsy
As of 2013, AARDA now recognizes narcolepsy as an autoimmune disease. Based on this, I will update the table. RichLee72 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)RichLee72

This paper was retracted in July 2014. The authors were unable to reproduce the phenomenon. Narcolepsy will be classified as "possible" but not "probable" autoimmune disease. Aaronabend (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Harold Ramis & autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis
According to this Chicago Tribune article, Mr. Ramis died of complications of "autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis": http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-harold-ramis-dead-20140224,0,2259309.story. With more people becoming aware of his death, there will surely be WP queries, but I don't find the term here in this article. Is it a case of "also known as..."? If so, maybe a such a mention will help lay persons to answer their questions. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Autoimmune Disease Updated Listing and Categorization
I am preparing a revised list of autoimmune diseases. The revised listing will retain all disorders currently listed with all sources. I will be adding the following:

1. I am going to categorize the diseases to organize by Organ/Tissue type/system. I will include either a special category for "systemic" diseases that affect multiple organs, or, possibly, list diseases that affect more than one organ multiple times with an indicator. Note that some diseases that affect tissue types, rather than specific organs, will be listed under that tissue type. 2. I will include synonyms and subtypes, and try to make clear the relationship between these terms. 3. I will be filling out the Level of Acceptance field for each disease (see the talk section on Level of Acceptance).

Below is the categorization I am planning to use:

 * Major Organs
 * Heart
 * Kidney
 * Liver
 * Lung
 * Skin
 * Glands
 * Endocrine
 * Adrenal Gland
 * Multi-glandular
 * Thyroid Gland
 * Pancreas
 * Exocrine
 * Reproductive Organs
 * Salivary Glands
 * Digestive System
 * Tissues & Systems
 * Blood
 * Connective Tissue, Systemic, and multi-organ
 * Muscle
 * Nervous System
 * Eyes
 * Ears
 * Vascular system
 * Autoimmune Comorbidities (e.g., Reynauds)
 * Bacteria Triggered Autoimmune Syndromes (e.g., Lyme)
 * Not Autoimmune (e.g., Contact Dermatitis - I cannot find anything to support this disorder being autoimmune)

I am new to editing Wikipedia - suggestions and comments welcome. Thanks.

Aaronabend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The classification will hopefully make the list easier to handle for readers, but is it based on a recognised system (e.g. mono- vs polyglandular autoimmunity)? This will strengthen the system.

I have explored a number of classification options. I am considering copying the SEER system used in the US for cancer stats. Any thoughts on this approach?Aaron Abend (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I am happy to include "not autoimmune" but we will need a very strong WP:MEDRS-compatible source each time that states clearly that a condition is really really not an autoimmune condition. JFW | T@lk  23:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Level of Acceptance
I plan to indicate the Level of Acceptance for each disease using the following levels:

 * 1) Strong: Published papers (primary sources) and textbooks (secondary sources) regard the disease as autoimmune
 * 2) Moderate: Published papers point consistently to the disease being autoimmune and there is consensus
 * 3) Limited: Some published papers show disease is autoimmune but research has not been be consistently reproduced, there is no clear consensus, or is otherwise controversial
 * 4) Comorbidity: A condition common among people with autoimmune disease, but with no evidence of being itself caused by autoimmunity
 * 5) Non-autoimmune:   The disease is not autoimmune but due to naming issues, misunderstanding of autoimmunity, or other reason, the disease is thought by some people as autoimmune (e.g., many people think AIDS is an autoimmune disease)

In applying these criteria, with reference to the concept of penetrance cited elsewhere on the talk page, I plan to add an asterisk next to any disease that is generally believed to be caused by autoimmune disease some of the time. That is, the evidence is strong or moderate, but not all cases of the disease are caused by autoimmunity. Aaron Abend (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Diseases currently listed as "Accepted" will be, by default, labeled "Moderate". I will then check each disease page for secondary sources and, if they are on the disease page, I will move the disease to "Strong". Conversely, if I cannot find good primary sources indicating the disease is autoimmune, I will relegate it to Limited or, if there is no mention of autoimmunity in the disease page, Non-autoimmune.

I believe all supporting reference to each disease being autoimmune must be included in the disease page. I do not think diseases should be categorized as Autoimmune in this list (even with supporting references) if a person clicks on the link to the disease name and finds no mention of autoimmunity. Aaronabend (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

MeSH as a criteria for Acceptance
I have noticed that appearance in the hierarchy of MeSH terms that is headed with Autoimmune Diseases ([C20.111]) is a qualification for assignment as 'Accepted'. Do people believe this is, by itself, a sufficient qualification for regarding a disease as autoimmune? Do people think that should be regarded as "strong" or "moderate" evidence of a disease being autoimmune? Aaron Abend (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Not an unreasonable thing to say. Unfortunately there is no authoritative or consensus body for this (compare primary immunodeficiency, where an acceptance process exists). JFW | T@lk  10:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Penetrance" for autoimmune disease
In genetics, Penetrance is the percentage of individuals with genes that are known to cause a specific disease who actually suffer from that disease. In autoimmune disease, there are diseases, such as Addisons, that can be caused by autoimmunity or a virus or something else. Does anyone think we could figure out the values for this concept of penetrance in autoimmunity, or or is it something that should be stated upfront as relevant to all diseases? Aaron Abend (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on evidence
I just discovered a book, "Epigenetic Contributions in Autoimmune Disease", by Esteban Ballestar, which lists "Autoimmune immunodeficiency" as an autoimmune disease. It references a list of diseases on the website for my organization, AARDA. There is no substantiation for this disease anywhere. I have been discovering other "circular references" and will be making my best effort to remove such diseases from this list completely, or at least moving them to the list of diseases determined to be "Not Autoimmune".

I want to distinguish this class of evidence from that for a disease like Coxsackie myocarditis. This also has few solid references. In these cases, I am using the following criteria: 1) the disease has no other known cause, and 2a) it follows a pattern similar to other autoimmune diseases, such as episodic flare-ups, prevalence in women, or 2b) it is comorbid with other autoimmune diseases that themselves have Moderate or Strong evidence of autoimmunity. Where there is weak "circumstantial" evidence, the disease will be classified as Limited, L - meaning that the evidence is not just limited, but "very limited".Aaron Abend (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusion over the term Autoimmunity
I have found a number of diseases in this list that have no evidence of autoimmunity, but where autosomal dominance or the autonomic nervous system are featured prominently. In such cases, I have to assume that somewhere along the way, someone has conflated autoimmunity with these other biological terms. I will classify these diseases as Not Autoimmune and mention that that this is a possible source of the historical miscategorization.

Blau Syndrome, an autosomal dominant condition, falls into this category, though it could, be categorized as "Limited, L" due to comorbidity with known autoimmune diseases. However, in the case of Blau, the only article that connects Blau to autoimmune disease was this list - and a study that looked for a connection between Blau and autoimmunity concluded "There is minimal evidence for autoimmunity and systemic inflammation." Aaron Abend (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories versus Alpha Listing
I have reorganized this list to categorize, to the extent possible, by biological system. This is problematic for 2 reasons. Many autoimmune diseases affect more than one system, and in some cases, there are multi-system diseases (the polyendocrine diseases, for example). The alphabetic listing, however, made it hard for someone to see if their disease was included. So many of these diseases have multiple names (and in some cases, it is still not clear if some of these eponymous disease names are real or just random variations of more common diseases.

I would like feedback on this categorization. It would be great if wikipedia could allow sorting by alpha and by category but I could not figure out how to do it. It would not be hard for me to recast this alphabetically, along with the new references and ICD9 codes, etc. but I am not going to do that unless there is a compelling reason to do that. Another option would be to set up an alphabetic list in a section on this page with intra-page links into the categorized list (we could also reverse that approach - using alpha as the primary organization and providing a categorized list with links into the alpha list).

All suggestions welcome. I am working to make this page as accurate and up-to-date as it possibly can be. Aaron Abend (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

JCI review series
http://www.jci.org/review_series/90 - very technical but useful for pathophysiology discussions. JFW | T@lk  10:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Glycans
The "pathophysiology" section was started. There's lots more that needs discussing (e.g. HLA) but I am particularly puzzled by the fact that we have an entire section on glycation based on a single recent review from a single centre proposing a new paradigm (10.1016/j.jaut.2014.12.002). Does it deserve that level of emphasis? JFW | T@lk  14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

medical specialty?
Why rheumatology and gastroenterology are listed under medical specialty - but not endocrinology or neurology..? - many thanks. 107.92.63.169 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Split autoimmune disease into an article and a list?
It seems like we can split a list off the article Autoimmune disease so we can cover more of the details in our article while the list would hold a database of all autoimmune diseases. This will clean up our article structure and make the article hierarchy more navigable and easier to predict and read. I would like the list to be placed into a page called List of autoimmune diseases. Additionally, we can merge Autoimmune disease into Autoimmunity if the resulting article is too short, but I do not think that this is the case. DS Crowned (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I am happy to create the new page and get the content moved. How do we go about doing this? Feel free to email me.Aaron Abend (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for more people to respond so we can get more consensus, as I am still not sure whether people would object to go ahead. DS Crowned (talk)  06:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 * in the best interest of the reader it would be best to leave the article as is...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I do agree with Ozzie that the article would be better left as is, in comparison to only splitting the list off. However, it is it is common to create list articles as described at Stand-alone lists when a list becomes so large that the list begins to consume more of the article's space that the text. The best case would be for someone to draft a prose summary of the contents of the list. The summary might be 5 sentences long, talk about the classification of diseases in the list, and present about 5 of the most significant diseases in the list. Once an introduction to the list has been written, then ideally the list is split into its own article, that prose summary stays in this article in the section formerly used for the list, and also that summary becomes the leading text in the next list article. If no one writes a summary, then I am indifferent about splitting off a list, and it probably is better for the reader to not split the list.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Split I think that there is a lot that could be said beyond which conditions are or aren't autoimmune diseases.  Basically, this page started life as the list (so "split" might mean WP:MOVEing this page and splitting the non-list content back to this title), and it would be nice to have good general content that applies to many autoimmune conditions.  For example, a decent article on this subject would surely mention steroids as a common method of immunosuppression, and I didn't see that mentioned.  It would also contain some information about general risk factors.  However, as a complication for rationalizing the articles/list, I think it would also be appropriate to take a long look at Autoimmunity, which contains much of the information that seems absent here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Something else In a complex case like this, splitting a list from its explanation is usually a terrible idea. I hear what WhatamIdoing is saying - might the best solution not be to redirect Autoimmune disease to Autoimmunity, and rename this as the list? Moving some text if necessary, but not too much. A list on a complex subject needs a decent prose "lead". Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good approach. We basically have three potential pages here:  Autoimmunity, Autoimmune disease, and List of autoimmune diseases.  While that could be workable, I think we should end up with two, and that one of them should be the "List of" (because there are dozens).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a huge improvement --Iztwoz (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Sizeofint (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Two pages sounds good to me: it's the beauty of the linking power of Wikipedia. I kept an older version of the page in my sandbox (diseases listed alphabetically) simply because a lot of the conditions affect more than one organ system.  I had links to biomarkers, etc, which I'd like to restore at some point.  I think the purpose of the definition page is to describe the basic concept (which seems to be changing a bit, challenging the terminology like "autoimmunity") while the list can index the conditions, (encapsulate and link out) for the purposes of the user who wants to get an idea of the scope of the field of autoimmunity. doctorwolfie (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Split Autoimmune disease should be written in prose and discuss the diseases generally. The complete list of more than 80 conditions can go within the list article. Autoimmunity is more the underlying pathophysiology of autoimmune diseases. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Immune System diseases/disorders
I have spoken with folks from the Immune Deficiency Foundation among others and there is some evidence for including diseases of the immune system that are not specifically autoimmune in this list. Examples include Primary Immune Deficiency (PID) and Castleman's disease. In the case of patients with PID, there is a high incidence of accepted autoimmune diseases, which suggests common mechanisms. Is there any objection for creating a new category for these diseases? I propose calling it "Other Immune System Disorders". Some of the diseases currently classified as not-autoimmune or comorbidities would be moved to this category.

--Aaron Abend (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Asthma autoimmune
To my knowledge it is still speculative as to whether asthma has autoimmune pathogenesis. To refer to asthma as an autoimmune disease without clarification is misleading.130.102.82.34 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The examples section may need to be reworked
The examples section should probably be reworked. It appears to have originally been a list of examples of autoimmune diseases linked to cancer, and seems to focus on this issue over the actual symptoms of the diseases. It should probably be split into a general examples section and a separate examples section for the earlier section about cancer (which it appears to have originally been a part of)2600:1002:B026:552F:E9E:321:D3BD:F315 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Autoimmune disease/Archive 1


text:
Menelaus

In Greek mythology, Menelaus (Μενέλαος Menelaos, 'wrath of the people', ) was a Greek king of Mycenaean (pre-Dorian) Sparta. According to the Iliad, the Trojan war began as a result of Menelaus’s wife, Helen, fleeing to Troy with the Trojan prince Paris. Menelaus was a central figure in the Trojan War, leading the Spartan contingent of the Greek army, under his elder brother Agamemnon, king of Mycenae. Prominent in both the Iliad and Odyssey, Menelaus was also popular in Greek vase painting and Greek tragedy, the latter more as a hero of the Trojan War than as a member of the doomed House of Atreus.

Description
In the account of Dares the Phrygian, Menelaus was described as ". . .of moderate stature, auburn-haired, and handsome. He had a pleasing personality."

Family
Menelaus was a descendant of Pelops son of Tantalus. He was the younger brother of Agamemnon, and the husband of Helen of Troy. According to the usual version of the story, followed by the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, Agamemnon and Menelaus were the sons of Atreus, king of Mycenae, and Aerope, daughter of the Cretan king Catreus. Grimal, s.v. Menelaus; Hard, pp. 355, 507, 508; Collard and Cropp 2008a, p. 517; Gantz, p. 552; Parada, s.v. Menelaus; Euripides, Helen 390–392, Orestes 16; Hyginus, Fabulae 97; Apollodorus, E.3.12; Scholia on Iliad 1.7  (citing "Homer" = Hesiod Catalogue of Women fr. 137a Most) and Scholia on Tzetzes' Exegesis in Iliadem 1.122 (citing "Homer" = Hesiod Catalogue of Women fr. 137c Most). They are also the sons of Atreus, in the Iliad and Odyssey, see for example Iliad 11.131, Odyssey 4.462, although Aerope is not mentioned (see Gantz, p. 522). See also Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris 4–5, (Atreus as father, no mention of mother); Hesiod Catalogue of Women fr. 138 Most [= fr. 195 MW], and Sophocles, Ajax 1295–1297 (Aerope as mother, no mention of father). However, according to another tradition, Agamemnon and Menelaus were the sons of Atreus' son Pleisthenes, with their mother being Aerope, Cleolla, or Eriphyle. According to this tradition Pleisthenes died young, with Agamemnon and Menelaus being raised by Atreus. Agamemnon and Menelaus had a sister Anaxibia (or Astyoche) who married Strophius, the son of Crisus.

According to the Odyssey, Menelaus had only one child by Helen, a daughter Hermione, and an illegitimate son Megapenthes by a female slave. Other sources mention other sons of Menelaus by either Helen, or slaves. A scholiast on Sophocles' Electra quotes Hesiod as saying that after Hermione, Helen also bore Menelaus a son Nicostratus, while according to a Cypria fragment, Menelaus and Helen had a son Pleisthenes. The mythographer Apollodorus, tells us that Megapenthes' mother was a slave "Pieris, an Aetolian, or, according to Acusilaus, ... Tereis", and that Menelaus had another illegitimate son Xenodamas by another slave girl Cnossia, while according to the geographer Pausanias, Megapenthes and Nicostratus were sons of Menelaus by a slave. The scholiast on Iliad 3.175 mentions Nicostratus and Aethiolas as two sons of Helen (by Menelaus?) worshipped by the Lacedaemonians and another son of Helen by Menelaus, Maraphius, from whom descended the Persian Maraphions.

Ascension and reign
Although early authors, such as Aeschylus refer in passing to Menelaus' early life, detailed sources are quite late, post-dating 5th-century BC Greek tragedy. According to these sources, Menelaus' father, Atreus, had been feuding with his brother Thyestes over the throne of Mycenae. After a back-and-forth struggle that featured adultery, incest, and cannibalism, Thyestes gained the throne after his son Aegisthus murdered Atreus. As a result, Atreus' sons, Menelaus and Agamemnon, went into exile. They first stayed with King Polypheides of Sicyon, and later with King Oeneus of Calydon. But when they thought the time was ripe to dethrone Mycenae's hostile ruler, they returned. Assisted by King Tyndareus of Sparta, they drove Thyestes away, and Agamemnon took the throne for himself.

When it was time for Tyndareus' stepdaughter Helen to marry, many kings and princes came to seek her hand. Among the contenders were Odysseus, Menestheus, Ajax the Great, Patroclus, and Idomeneus. Most offered opulent gifts. Tyndareus would accept none of the gifts, nor would he send any of the suitors away for fear of offending them and giving grounds for a quarrel. Odysseus promised to solve the problem in a satisfactory manner if Tyndareus would support him in his courting of Tyndareus's niece Penelope, the daughter of Icarius. Tyndareus readily agreed, and Odysseus proposed that, before the decision was made, all the suitors should swear a most solemn oath to defend the chosen husband in any quarrel. Then it was decreed that straws were to be drawn for Helen's hand. The suitor who won was Menelaus (Tyndareus, not to displease the mighty Agamemnon offered him another of his daughters, Clytaemnestra). The rest of the suitors swore their oaths, and Helen and Menelaus were married, Menelaus becoming a ruler of Sparta with Helen after Tyndareus and Leda abdicated the thrones.

Their supposed palace (ἀνάκτορον) has been discovered (the excavations started in 1926 and continued until 1995) in Pellana, Laconia, to the north-west of modern (and classical) Sparta. Other archaeologists consider that Pellana is too far away from other Mycenaean centres to have been the "capital of Menelaus".

According to tradition Menelaus founded the port-city Menelai Portus on the coast of Marmarica in Northern Africa.

Trojan War
According to legend, in return for awarding her a golden apple inscribed "to the fairest," Aphrodite promised Paris the most beautiful woman in all the world. After concluding a diplomatic mission to Sparta during the latter part of which Menelaus was absent to attend the funeral of his maternal grandfather Catreus in Crete, Paris ran off to Troy with Helen despite his brother Hector's prohibition. Invoking the oath of Tyndareus, Menelaus and Agamemnon raised a fleet of a thousand ships and went to Troy to secure Helen's return; the Trojans refused, providing a casus belli for the Trojan War.

Homer's Iliad is the most comprehensive source for Menelaus's exploits during the Trojan War. In Book 3, Menelaus challenges Paris to a duel for Helen's return. Menelaus soundly beats Paris, but before he can kill him and claim victory, Aphrodite spirits Paris away inside the walls of Troy. In Book 4, while the Greeks and Trojans squabble over the duel's winner, Athena inspires the Trojan Pandarus to shoot Menelaus with his bow and arrow. However, Athena never intended for Menelaus to die and she protects him from the arrow of Pandarus. Menelaus is wounded in the abdomen, and the fighting resumes. Later, in Book 17, Homer gives Menelaus an extended aristeia as the hero retrieves the corpse of Patroclus from the battlefield.

According to Hyginus, Menelaus killed eight men in the war, and was one of the Greeks hidden inside the Trojan Horse. During the sack of Troy, Menelaus killed Deiphobus, who had married Helen after the death of Paris.

There are four versions of Menelaus' and Helen's reunion on the night of the sack of Troy:
 * Menelaus sought out Helen in the conquered city. Raging at her infidelity, he raised his sword to kill her, but as he saw her weeping at his feet, begging for her life, Menelaus' wrath instantly left him. He took pity on her and decided to take her back as his wife.
 * Menelaus resolved to kill Helen, but her irresistible beauty prompted him to drop his sword and take her back to his ship "to punish her at Sparta", as he claimed.
 * According to the Bibliotheca, Menelaus raised his sword in front of the temple in the central square of Troy to kill her, but his wrath went away when he saw her rending her clothes in anguish, revealing her naked breasts.
 * A similar version by Stesichorus in "Ilion's Conquest" narrated that Menelaus surrendered her to his soldiers to stone her to death, but when she ripped the front of her robes, the Achaean warriors were stunned by her beauty and the stones fell harmlessly from their hands as they stared at her.

After the war
Book 4 of the Odyssey provides an account of Menelaus' return from Troy and his homelife in Sparta. When visited by Odysseus' son Telemachus, Menelaus recounts his voyage home. As happened to many Greeks, Menelaus' homebound fleet was blown by storms to Crete and Egypt where they were becalmed, unable to sail away. They trapped Proteus and forced him to reveal how to make the voyage home. Once back in Sparta, he and Helen are shown to be reconciled and have a harmonious married life—he holding no grudge at her having run away with a lover and she feeling no restraint in telling anecdotes of her life inside besieged Troy. Menelaus does seem to be pained that he and Helen have no male heir, and is shown to be fond of Megapenthes and Nicostratus, his sons by slave women. According to Euripides' Helen, Menelaus is reunited with Helen after death, on the Isle of the Blessed.

In vase painting
Menelaus appears in Greek vase painting in the 6th to 4th centuries BC, such as: Menelaus's reception of Paris at Sparta; his retrieval of Patroclus's corpse; and his reunion with Helen.

In Greek tragedy
Menelaus appears as a character in a number of 5th-century Greek tragedies: Sophocles' Ajax, and Euripides' Andromache, Helen, Orestes, Iphigenia at Aulis, and The Trojan Women.

title: Menelaus


text:
Menelaus of Alexandria

Menelaus of Alexandria (Μενέλαος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, Menelaos ho Alexandreus; c. 70 – 140 CE) was a Greek mathematician and astronomer, the first to recognize geodesics on a curved surface as natural analogs of straight lines.

Life and works
Although very little is known about Menelaus's life, it is supposed that he lived in Rome, where he probably moved after having spent his youth in Alexandria. He was called Menelaus of Alexandria by both Pappus of Alexandria and Proclus, and a conversation of his with Lucius, held in Rome, is recorded by Plutarch.

Ptolemy (2nd century CE) also mentions, in his work Almagest (VII.3), two astronomical observations made by Menelaus in Rome in January of the year 98. These were occultations of the stars Spica and Beta Scorpii by the moon, a few nights apart. Ptolemy used these observations to confirm precession of the equinoxes, a phenomenon that had been discovered by Hipparchus in the 2nd century BCE.

In the 10th-century Kitāb al-Fihrist [The Book Catalogue] by Ibn al-Nadīm, six books by Menelaus are mentioned: the Book of Spherical Propositions (Sphaerica), On the Knowledge of the Weights and Distribution of Different Bodies, The Elements of Geometry in three books, and The Book on the Triangle. Only the first of these, Sphaerica, survives today in Arabic translation. Composed of three books, it deals with the geometry of the sphere and its application in astronomical measurements and calculations. The book introduces the concept of spherical triangle (figures formed of three great circle arcs, which he named "trilaterals") and proves Menelaus' theorem on collinearity of points on the edges of a triangle (which may have been previously known) and its analog for spherical triangles. It was later translated by the sixteenth century astronomer and mathematician Francesco Maurolico.

The lunar crater Menelaus is named after him.

title: Menelaus of Alexandria


text:
Talk:Wallachia

Black Wallachia
''Both names could come from a confusion : Kara Iflak, the Turkish name of Vallachia, means ”land of Vallachians” ; but later kara ”land” was mistranslated as kara - black. Later, the Turks renamed Moldavia and Vallachia as Kara-Iflak (Moldavia) and Ak Iflak (Vallachia) according to the Turkish cardinal points symbolism : north is symbolized by black, and west is symbolized by white.''

This "color assignment" comes in direct contradiction with 3rd footnote in Description of Moldavia by Dimitrie Cantemir.

P.S.: I dropped the idea of citing properly a wikisource resource in another language (if it can be done at all) as it was a real pain for someone who's trying to do it for the first time.

Map
Hi Alin2808 ,

the map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TR_XIII_-_XVI_copy.jpg

I see you restored that map, but that map is incorrect, it should be change or remove.

You can see it is more proper because it mention what are those areas: fiefs: File:Tara Rumaneasca map.png

For example King Sigismund of Hungary was Holy Roman Emperor also, but it does not mean Hungary became part of the Holy Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire became part of Hungary. King Louis of Hungary was the king of Poland too but it does not mean Hungary became part of Poland or inverse. Hungarian kings held the title king of Cumania, king of Bulgaria... but it does not mean those regions were part of the Kingdom of Hungary. I know for a certain period the Hungarian king donated fief land to the Wallachian voivode who was his vassal, and the provided land was inside the Hungarian crown inside the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary, that land did not became part of Wallachia because the Wallachia voivode got fief estates there, and from those estates he paid tax to his overlord to the Hungarian king, that is the feudal system. If Hungarian lords got estates in Hungary, those areas did not became separate countries.

If I check international and Hungarian history maps I never see those regions were detached from the Kingdom of Hungary. And that map is a photoshopped user made map not an academic history map. In Wiki we should present academic history maps or user made maps if the base of those maps are sourced reliable academic maps: No original research

Example international maps:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_in_the_14th_Century.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Public_Schools_Historical_Atlas_-_Europe_14th_century.jpg

https://www.accordingtophillips.com/uploads/8/1/8/3/81833274/europe-1360_orig.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_1360.jpg

https://64.media.tumblr.com/4ced68cf04b685e1ec51557b70cb94ab/tumblr_pb5gc1qZFc1rasnq9o1_1280.jpg

Hungarian modern academic maps about medieval Hungary in that period:

https://baloghpet.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/nagy_lajos-1360-1280px.jpg

https://m.blog.hu/na/napitortenelmiforras/image/aközépkoralegkirályabb/magyarorszag_anjou_koraban.jpg

https://images.slideplayer.hu/41/11284622/slides/slide_25.jpg

https://images.slideplayer.hu/41/11284622/slides/slide_20.jpg From this book: From Nicopolis to Mohács: A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526. Tamás Pálosfalvi. The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage: Politics, Society and Economy 63.

The author is one of the most respected and expert historian in the history of that time. I show some maps, still I do not see that big areas of the south area of the Kingdom of Hungary would be part of Wallachia.

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The fiefs do appear colored differently on the map. Though looking again at it, the map has other issues as well (like showing Vicina on the map when its location is debated, and the coats of arms used). The map also doesn't appear to be used elsewhere either. Alin2808 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Alin2808, thanks for understanding! OrionNimrod (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Greek name
"it was already there a long time" is not a strong argument if it's the only one. Virtually no-one of the population spoke Greek. The lead and the top of the infobox should be reserved for names in relevant languages. Greek was used by Phanariot Wallachian rulers and I presume their courts for a century. Wallachia existed for over five. Even Church Slavonic, another language only spoken by a small fraction of the population, was more relevant. Super  Ψ   Dro  16:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Ok so then we delete Church Slavonic as well 213.233.110.226 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Church Slavonic name of Wallachia is currently not included. I put it as an example because it was a language with a (not completely) similar situation to Greek in the country and because Moldavia used to include it as well as Greek. Super   Ψ   Dro  18:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok whatever then we wait for other people to share their opinions on this matter 213.233.110.226 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wallachia


text:
Treaty of Paris

Treaty of Paris may refer to one of many treaties signed in Paris, France:

1200s and 1300s

 * Treaty of Paris (1229), which ended the Albigensian Crusade
 * Treaty of Paris (1259), between Henry III of England and Louis IX of France
 * Treaty of Paris (1303), between King Philip IV of France and King Edward I of England
 * Treaty of Paris (1320), peace between King Philip V of France and Robert III, Count of Flanders
 * Treaty of Paris (1323), in which Count Louis of Flanders relinquished Flemish claims over Zeeland
 * Treaty of Paris (1355), a land exchange between France and Savoy

1500s to 1700s

 * Treaty of Paris (1515), planning the marriage of the 15-year old future King Charles I of Spain and 4-year old Renée of France
 * Treaty of Paris (1623), between France, Savoy, and Venice against Spanish forces in Valtelline
 * Treaty of Paris (1626), peace between King Louis XIII and the Huguenots of La Rochelle
 * Treaty of Paris (1657), established a military alliance between France and England against Spain
 * Treaty of Paris (1718), between Philip of Orléans, Regent of France, and Leopold, Duke of Lorraine
 * Treaty of Paris (1761), established the third Bourbon Family Compact between France and Spain
 * Treaty of Paris (1763), ended the Seven Years' War/French and Indian War
 * Treaty of Paris (1783), ended the American Revolutionary War
 * Treaty of Paris (1784), ended the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War
 * Treaty of Paris (1796), ended the war between France and the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia

1800s

 * Treaty of Paris (August 1801), ended the war between France and Bavaria
 * Treaty of Paris (4 October 1801), the final peace treaty between Russia and Spain; see Treaty of Paris (8 October 1801)
 * Treaty of Paris (8 October 1801), the final peace treaty between France and Russia
 * Treaty of Paris (1802), ended the war between France and the Ottoman Empire
 * , creating the Confederation of the Rhine
 * Treaty of Paris (February 1810), between France and the Kingdom of Bavaria
 * Treaty of Paris (1810), ended the war between France and Sweden
 * Treaty of Paris (24 February 1812), established an alliance between France and Prussia against Russia
 * Treaty of Paris (14 March 1812), established an alliance between France and Austria against Russia
 * Treaty of Paris (1814), signed between France and the Sixth Coalition
 * Treaty of Paris (1815), signed between France and the Seventh Coalition, following the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo
 * , part of the Congress of Vienna
 * Treaty of Paris (1856), ended the Crimean War
 * Treaty of Paris (1857), ended the Anglo-Persian War
 * Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), one of the first intellectual property treaties
 * Treaty of Paris (1898), ended the Spanish–American War

1900s and 2000s

 * Treaty of Paris (1900), ended all conflicting claims between France and Spain over Río Muni in Africa
 * Treaty of Paris (1918), between France and Monaco adapting provisions of the Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1861 in the context of the Monaco succession crisis of 1918
 * Paris Convention of 1919, the first international convention to address the political difficulties and intricacies involved in international aerial navigation
 * Treaty of Paris (1920), united Bessarabia and Romania
 * Treaties of Paris that ended World War I (at the Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)):
 * Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919), with Austria
 * Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (1919), with Bulgaria
 * Treaty of Versailles (1919), with Germany
 * Treaty of Trianon (1920), with Hungary
 * Treaty of Sèvres (1920), with the Ottoman Empire
 * Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, formally established peace between the World War II Allies and Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Finland
 * Treaty of Paris (1951), established the European Coal and Steel Community
 * Bonn–Paris conventions (1952), putting an end to the Allied occupation of West Germany
 * Treaty establishing the European Defence Community (1952), an unratified treaty
 * Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960), liability and compensation for damage caused by accidents occurring while producing nuclear energy
 * Paris Peace Accords (1973), ended American involvement in the Vietnam War
 * Paris Charter (1990), helped form the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
 * 1991 Paris Peace Accords, marked the end of the Cambodian-Vietnamese War
 * Dayton Agreement (1995, formally signed in Paris), ending the Bosnia War
 * Paris Agreement (2015), an international agreement on climate change

Other uses

 * Treaty of Paris (band), pop-punk rock band from Chicago
 * Treaty of Paris, the horse which won the 2013 Acomb Stakes

title: Treaty of Paris