text:
Talk:Liliaceae

List of genera
You know, I had specific reasons for moving the list of genera to a new page. First, the long list of genera means that the table goes on for a long time, severely interfering with the ability to format other things on the page not in the table. Secondly, when the list is expanded with more info and the page is also expanded with more info, then the page takes a long time to load. I separated the two because they were practical.

--user:jaknouse 21 January 2003

Hemerocallis, etc.
Many of the genera listed here are no longer included in the Liliaceae under more recent schemes, but have been divided into other families of orders Liliales and Asparagales. Liliaceae may include only 10 genera: Cardiocrinum, Erythronium, Fritillaria, Gagea, Lilium, Lloydia, Medeola, Nomocharis, Notholirion, Tulipa.Tom Radulovich 04:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then where does Hemerocallis go? jaknouse 06:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's most recent update, in Order Asparagales, in its own family, Hemerocallidaceae. The APG II Classificiation System recognized that Asparagales now has 29 families, which can be confusing, so recognizes the alternative of grouping selected related families into larger ones. According to the APG II, Hemerocallidaceae can alternatively be grouped, together with the Asphodelaceae, into Xanthorrhoeaceae. See An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II Tom Radulovich 07:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The APG III system did away with the alternative families and recognizes only 14 families in Asparagales. The family Xanthorrhoeaceae has been expanded and now has 3 subfamilies: Asphodeloideae, Xanthorrhoeoideae, and Hemerocallidoideae. This lumping of the families might not be accepted by many of the specialists in this area, so i am being especially cautious in writing about it. 128.171.106.248 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Generally it suffices to both mention the latest research and at least a bit about how things were classified before (give a year when it changed). Sometimes wording like "molecular research shows that genera x, y, and z are more closely related to each other than w" is easier to cope with than "x should be in family y" (see WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV). Feel free to ask at WT:PLANTS if you'd like advice on specific situations. Kingdon (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are there Calla Lillies?
Why are there two pictures of Calla Lilies on this page? Wikipedia places them in the Araceae family, not this one. Precinct13 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK I decided to be bold and move the pics. They are now on Araceae. Precinct13 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"orange lily"
The linked photo of an "orange lily" is not a true lily (Lilium) but rather a daylily, (Hemerocallis). Although this genus was previously classified in Liliaceae it would be less misleading to link to one of the true lilies, or at least a member of Liliaceae s.s., for this article. MrDarwin 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Changed to a pic of Lilium martagon - MPF 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Spider lily
I working on Lumber River State Park in North Carolina. One of the flowers that is mentioned in the state park website is the spider lily. What is the "official" name of this lily? Dincher 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this State Park is situated in North Carolina, the spider lily mentioned is probably the Carolina Spider Lily (Hymenocallis caroliniana). Description on the site of USDA . JoJan 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help with the spider lilyDincher 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tecophilaeaceae
I have treated Conanthera in Tecophilaeaceae --Penarc 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Language tag
Someone removed Spanish language tag - this should remain till the Spanish article no longer contains material not on the English page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * now redundant - removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I removed this information: "Some recent authors still consider there to be three tribes, Tulipeae, Calochorteae, and Lloydieae" which was supported by this reference: If you look at the article, it's written in extremely poor English. This is not a reputable reviewed journal, and should not be treated as a reliable source here (where anyway we should use primary sources with great care). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this paper again, I think they were just repeating older literature rather than adding any new insight on taxonomy --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 * This information has been revealed by palynomorphological studies by SEM and TEM.
 * The results from 15 years of experience in the field of pollen morphology has been created and collaboration with the Laboratory of palynology in of Lomonosov  Moscow State University under the academic Armen Takhtajan.
 * Although it may not be a high level of English language text, but if there is a scientific problem with article please do give it points. Maybe with your help we can make progress palynological studied.
 * If you need more information, you can refer to the following thesis -

•	Ультраструктура и ультраскульптура оболочки пыльцевых зерен представителей семейства Liliaceae Juss. в связи с вопросами их систематики Год: 2005 Автор научной работы: Маассуми Сайед Мохаммад Ученая cтепень: кандидат биологических наук Место защиты диссертации: Москва Код cпециальности ВАК: 03.00.05 Специальность: Ботаника Количество cтраниц: 318 Научная библиотека диссертаций и авторефератов disserCat http://www.dissercat.com/content/ultrastruktura-i-ultraskulptura-obolochki-pyltsevykh-zeren-predstavitelei-semeistva-liliacea#ixzz2u5LKYYdd •	Косенко В.Н. Палиноморфология порядка Liliales Lindley в связи с вопросами систематики: Дис. д-ра биол. наук. СПб., 1996. 227 с.

 * Научная библиотека диссертаций и авторефератов disserCat http://www.dissercat.com/content/ultrastruktura-i-ultraskulptura-obolochki-pyltsevykh-zeren-predstavitelei-semeistva-liliacea#ixzz2u5KlThHj

 * If you have any questions about this paper you can contact authors this paper. User:31.7.84.84 17:00, 22 February 2014

 * Thank you - but I can't see that the article itself actually establishes a robust subdivision of Liliaceae, or replaces other taxonomic studies. I will review it again and see if it can be used in some other way. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Morphology
Someone changed tepals to sepals. This is incorrect the perigon is poorly differentiated and has two whorls of petaloid tepals. If one insists on referring to sepals, then there are 3 maximum not six. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good Article
Given that this is classed as of High Importance and a Vital Article, it should be upgraded to GA quality. Thye Spanish version which already has that status, would be a good starting point --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a start on upgrading it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding subfamily stubs to deal with redlinks ✅--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is now more a C than a Start --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Warning: a number of plant articles which were expanded using the Spanish Wikipedia were removed by User:Moonriddengirl because they turned out to have been plagiarized. Amaryllidoideae is one example; a whole 65 kb article was removed, losing a lot of hard work put in by some editors. In this case I managed to salvage some of the material (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amaryllidoideae&action=history the page history]). I note that the page history of Liliaceae shows involvement by the editor who was responsible for the Amaryllidoideae plagiarism (EnCASF = CASF). So please be careful and check that text in the Spanish version isn't simply a translation from an English source. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yes I am aware of that - so am checking the sources, and other language versions . In such cases a rewrite is far better than whole scale deletion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * this shows the importance of working from multiple sources - I have checked the involvement of CASF with the Spanish page, and there are no significant contributions in the last 5 years --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know; it was just a warning. I agree that a rewrite is better, but Wikipedia policies require immediate deletion, it seems. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have the outlines of a Good Article and can start preparing it for nomination. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated today --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose
Personally, I would fail the good article nom on the basis of overly technical prose in the description section alone. There are also serious issues with the out-of-control taxonomy section: not only should it not be a subsection of "description" in the first place, but it can be easily divided into three separate 1st level sections. I'm putting this on my to-do list (after a biographical on Abundio Sagastegui and List of Apocynaceae genera). Circéus (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical prose. Since this is a generic issue, I have raised it on the WikiProject Plants talk page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy. I don't understand this point - it is a separate section from Description. As with all taxon articles it follows the GA plant template.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have been more tired than I thought. I somehow was seeing it as a subsection of "description". The other points remain, though. Circéus (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Plants does not allow Taxonomy to be split into three separate 1st level sections, but has 2nd level sections that include Evolution and Phylogeny and Subdivision, and is the system being followed here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I originally wrote the template in the first place, and it's always been my understanding that an overly long 1st-level section in any article either needs to be broken up (here, a "history" and an "evolution/phylogeny" sections can be easily separated from a section that explains current understanding of the family) or to be spun off to a separate article (cf. Taxonomy of Banksia or Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae). Circéus (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's helpful to know - and therefore that template page should be updated to reflect that. I agree with breaking up, and indeed did so - but that would be 2nd level. I had also considered the idea of a daughter page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy now shifted to separate page and replaced with abridged version --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical prose is being addressed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewritten to suit both technical and non-technical reader --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re recent changes, which I reversed -
 * * American spelling is not required on Wikipedia, but spelling should be consistent
 * * use of = symbol in explanatory parentheses is not an approved style
 * * words are preferred to numerical symbols --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for recent suggestions at improvements but I wanted to illustrate each feature with an example drawn from the family - and tried to align them with the corresponding text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even one interesting fact about the family Liliaceae? Hard to believe.
When you have something on the main page that is as interesting as the Liliaceae and you turn it into something completely different from another topic, you don't make me want to read the article, you just make me want to stop looking at the main page.

You couldn't find a single thing interesting about the Liliaceae, the family itself?

This is the most disappointing DYK I have encountered, and considering the bad science in so many of them, that's quite an accomplishment. The Liliaceae is one of the most interesting families of plants, with great scientific research advancing our knowledge of the evolutionary relationships among the Liliaceae and closely related cladeds leading to an understanding of the evolution of the monocots, and this article can only offer a DYK about the tulip trade?

Here's the Tulip mania article for everyone else interested in that topic who got falsely lured to this article about the Liliaceae.

--AfadsBad (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Liliaceae. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hcmuaf.edu.vn/ctt/softs/phtqt/biotech2006/papers/nonghoc/DTNhut4.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liliaceae. 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/20140221173359/http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/ to http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/

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) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. 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/20140227010610/http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda- to http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201225700/http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.pdf to http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.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) 07:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. 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/20150924061105/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201153936/http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm to http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm

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) 02:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dated statement
Didn't want to tag it since this is a good article, and can't try to update it because I don't know the family, but statement "For instance Amana is still listed separately in WCSP," the "still" is potentially dated. —Eewilson (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I deleted the sentence. Tom Scavo (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 * It could be properly sourced and used (WCSP and PoWO accept Amana), but I think the difference between sources is made clear elsewhere in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liliaceae


text:
Hand, foot, and mouth disease

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common infection caused by a group of enteroviruses. It typically begins with a fever and feeling generally unwell. This is followed a day or two later by flat discolored spots or bumps that may blister, on the hands, feet and mouth and occasionally buttocks and groin. Signs and symptoms normally appear 3–6 days after exposure to the virus. The rash generally resolves on its own in about a week. Fingernail and toenail loss may occur a few weeks later, but they will regrow with time.

The viruses that cause HFMD are spread through close personal contact, through the air from coughing and the feces of an infected person. Contaminated objects can also spread the disease. Coxsackievirus A16 is the most common cause, and enterovirus 71 is the second-most common cause. Other strains of coxsackievirus and enterovirus can also be responsible. Some people may carry and pass on the virus despite having no symptoms of disease. Other animals are not involved. Diagnosis can often be made based on symptoms. Occasionally, a throat or stool sample may be tested for the virus.

Most people with hand, foot, and mouth disease get better on their own in 7 to 10 days. Most cases require no specific treatment. No antiviral medication or vaccine is available, but development efforts are underway. For fever and for painful mouth sores, over-the-counter pain medications such as ibuprofen may be used, though aspirin should be avoided in children. The illness is usually not serious. Occasionally, intravenous fluids are given to children who are dehydrated. Very rarely, viral meningitis or encephalitis may complicate the disease. Because HFMD is normally mild, some jurisdictions allow children to continue to go to child care and schools as long as they have no fever or uncontrolled drooling with mouth sores, and as long as they feel well enough to participate in classroom activities.

HFMD occurs in all areas of the world. It often occurs in small outbreaks in nursery schools or kindergartens. Large outbreaks have been occurring in Asia since 1997. It usually occurs during the spring, summer and fall months. Typically it occurs in children less than five years old but can occasionally occur in adults. HFMD should not be confused with foot-and-mouth disease (also known as hoof-and-mouth disease), which mostly affects livestock.

Signs and symptoms
Common constitutional signs and symptoms of the HFMD include fever, nausea, vomiting, feeling tired, generalized discomfort, loss of appetite, and irritability in infants and toddlers. Skin lesions frequently develop in the form of a rash of flat discolored spots and bumps which may be followed by vesicular sores with blisters on palms of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, and sometimes on the lips. The rash is rarely itchy for children, but can be extremely itchy for adults. Painful facial ulcers, blisters, or lesions may also develop in or around the nose or mouth. HFMD usually resolves on its own after 7–10 days. Most cases of the disease are relatively harmless, but complications including encephalitis, meningitis, and paralysis that mimics the neurological symptoms of polio can occur.

Cause
The viruses that cause the disease are of the Picornaviridae family. Coxsackievirus A16 is the most common cause of HFMD. Enterovirus 71 (EV-71) is the second-most common cause. Many other strains of coxsackievirus and enterovirus can also be responsible.

Transmission
HFMD is highly contagious and is transmitted by nasopharyngeal secretions such as saliva or nasal mucus, by direct contact, or by fecal–oral transmission. It is possible to be infectious for days to weeks after the symptoms have resolved.

Child care settings are the most common places for HFMD to be contracted because of toilet training, diaper changes, and the fact that children often put their hands into their mouths. HFMD is contracted through nose and throat secretions such as saliva, sputum, nasal mucus and as well as fluid in blisters, and stool.

Diagnosis
A diagnosis usually can be made by the presenting signs and symptoms alone. If the diagnosis is unclear, a throat swab or stool specimen may be taken to identify the virus by culture. The common incubation period (the time between infection and onset of symptoms) ranges from three to six days. Early detection of HFMD is important in preventing an outbreak in the pediatric population.

Prevention
Preventive measures include avoiding direct contact with infected individuals (including keeping infected children home from school), proper cleaning of shared utensils, disinfecting contaminated surfaces, and proper hand hygiene. These measures have been shown to be effective in decreasing the transmission of the viruses responsible for HFMD.

Protective habits include hand washing and disinfecting surfaces in play areas. Breast-feeding has also shown to decrease rates of severe HFMD, though does not reduce the risk for the infection of the disease.

Vaccine
A vaccine known as the EV71 vaccine is available to prevent HFMD in China. No vaccine is currently available in the United States.

Treatment
Medications are usually not needed as hand, foot, and mouth disease is a viral disease that typically resolves on its own. Currently, there is no specific curative treatment for hand, foot and mouth disease. Disease management typically focuses on achieving symptomatic relief. Pain from the sores may be eased with the use of analgesic medications. Infection in older children, adolescents, and adults is typically mild and lasts approximately 1 week, but may occasionally run a longer course. Fever reducers can help decrease body temperature.

A minority of individuals with hand, foot and mouth disease may require hospital admission due to complications such as inflammation of the brain, inflammation of the meninges, or acute flaccid paralysis. Non-neurologic complications such as inflammation of the heart, fluid in the lungs, or bleeding into the lungs may also occur.

Complications
Complications from the viral infections that cause HFMD are rare, but require immediate medical treatment if present. HFMD infections caused by Enterovirus 71 tend to be more severe and are more likely to have neurologic or cardiac complications including death than infections caused by Coxsackievirus A16. Viral or aseptic meningitis can occur with HFMD in rare cases and is characterized by fever, headache, stiff neck, or back pain. The condition is usually mild and clears without treatment; however, hospitalization for a short time may be needed. Other serious complications of HFMD include encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), or flaccid paralysis in rare circumstances.

Fingernail and toenail loss have been reported in children 4–8 weeks after having HFMD. The relationship between HFMD and the reported nail loss is unclear; however, it is temporary and nail growth resumes without treatment.

Minor complications due to symptoms can occur such as dehydration, due to mouth sores causing discomfort with intake of foods and fluid.

Epidemiology
Hand, foot and mouth disease most commonly occurs in children under the age of 10 and more often under the age of 5, but it can also affect adults with varying symptoms. It tends to occur in outbreaks during the spring, summer, and autumn seasons. This is believed to be due to heat and humidity improving spread. HFMD is more common in rural areas than urban areas; however, socioeconomic status and hygiene levels need to be considered. Poor hygiene is a risk factor for HFMD.

Outbreaks

 * In 1997, an outbreak occurred in Sarawak of Malaysia with 600 cases and over 30 children died.
 * In 1998, there was an outbreak in Taiwan, affecting mainly children. There were 405 severe complications, and 78 children died. The total number of cases in that epidemic is estimated to have been 1.5 million.
 * In 2008 an outbreak in China, beginning in March in Fuyang, Anhui, led to 25,000 infections, and 42 deaths, by May 13. Similar outbreaks were reported in Singapore (more than 2,600 cases as of April 20, 2008), Vietnam (2,300 cases, 11 deaths), Mongolia (1,600 cases), and Brunei (1053 cases from June–August 2008)
 * In 2009 17 children died in an outbreak during March and April 2009 in China's eastern Shandong Province, and 18 children died in the neighboring Henan Province. Out of 115,000 reported cases in China from January to April, 773 were severe and 50 were fatal.
 * In 2010 in China, an outbreak occurred in southern China's Guangxi Autonomous Region as well as Guangdong, Henan, Hebei and Shandong provinces. Until March, 70,756 children were infected and 40 died from the disease. By June, the peak season for the disease, 537 had died.
 * The World Health Organization reporting between January and October 2011 (1,340,259) states the number of cases in China had dropped by approx 300,000 from 2010 (1,654,866) cases, with new cases peaking in June. There were 437 deaths, down from 2010 (537 deaths).
 * In December 2011, the California Department of Public Health identified a strong form of the virus, coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6), where nail loss in children is common.
 * In 2012 in Alabama, United States there was an outbreak of an unusual type of the disease. It occurred in a season when it is not usually seen and affected teenagers and older adults. There were some hospitalizations due to the disease but no reported deaths.
 * In 2012 in Cambodia, 52 of 59 reviewed cases of children reportedly dead due to a mysterious disease were diagnosed to be caused by a virulent form of HFMD. Although a significant degree of uncertainty exists with reference to the diagnosis, the WHO report states, "Based on the latest laboratory results, a significant proportion of the samples tested positive for enterovirus 71 (EV-71), which causes hand foot and mouth disease (HFMD). The EV-71 virus has been known to generally cause severe complications amongst some patients."
 * HFMD infected 1,520,274 people with up to 431 deaths reported at the end of July in 2012 in China.
 * In 2018, more than 50,000 cases have occurred through a nationwide outbreak in Malaysia with two deaths also reported.

India 2022
An outbreak of an illness referred to as tomato fever or tomato flu was identified in the Kollam district on May 6, 2022. The illness is endemic to Kerala, India and gets its name because of the red and round blisters it causes, which look like tomatoes. The disease may be a new variant of the viral HFMD or an effect of chikungunya or dengue fever. Flu may be a misnomer.

The condition mainly affects children under the age of five. An article in The Lancet states that the appearance of the blisters is similar to that seen in monkey pox, and the illness is not thought to be related to SARS-CoV-2. Symptoms, treatment and prevention are similar to HFMD.

History
HFMD cases were first described clinically in Canada and New Zealand in 1957. The disease was termed "Hand Foot and Mouth Disease", by Thomas Henry Flewett, after a similar outbreak in 1960.

Research
Novel antiviral agents to prevent and treat infection with the viruses responsible for HFMD are currently under development. Preliminary studies have shown inhibitors of the EV-71 viral capsid to have potent antiviral activity.

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

title: Hand, foot, and mouth disease


text:
Talk:Hopi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efhahn98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
This article is (imo) a mess. I intended to add a section on Si`italpuva, the Land Brightened with Flowers, from Plateau. Fall 2006 (a beautiful issue) -- but got sidetracked. I started the cleanup, but need help! TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Rimrock, AZ)
 * It appears that this website could be a good resource, but it should be verified before we use it to revise the article. Help? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To Pete Tillman - that website is is not a good resource. It's a sales site for art and the Hopi info has been c+p'ed from other websites. Most sites like than on the internet are dubious at best.

Gregory Schaaf is a credible historian for this subject. Ancient Ancestors of the Southwest ( pub 1996 ISBN 1-55868-255-4) is a good basic primer... This page just gets worse and worse. It's been chopped and changed countless times and is full of inaccuracies and bad grammar not to mention photographs and images that many Hopi may find offensive. Better to tear the whole thing down and start over or just leave out... June 16 2009...Aarionrhod (talk)

 * Why don't you try to add some referenced improvements; and clean up inaccuracies where you can...Modernist (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a project in itself. Good suggestion, though obviously time consuming, but clearly needs doing. Am local, too. BTW, I like your page Modernist... Aarionrhod (talk)

 * I was just thinking the last time I visited Mishongnovi and the other towns on the other Mesa's was 34 years ago, and things were changing then...I can only imagine the changes today..Modernist (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Modernist - we're at 3rd mesa here. You'd probably be more surprised about just how little everything has probably changed! Plus ça change! Aarionrhod (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to return some day..I met some terrific artists at Hopid, back in the 70s...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Modernist - Have added some small ref'ed bits and also added some names to the 'famous Hopi' list - am guessing you added many/most of the artists? Aarionrhod (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A few...you are doing an excellent job..Modernist (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

adding to See Also
The two articles both Black Indians and the One-Drop Rule affects all people of native heritage. How are they not historical? Even though mixture with African Americans and Native American tribes from the west don't occur as much as the eastern and southeastern tribes by far. Those two articles are still apart of Native American history.Mcelite (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hopi are a particularly indigenous group; with very closed social parameters. The two articles might pertain better to cultures that are more widely assimilated then the Hopi. The additions need to be specifically referenced to the Hopi culture and to the Hopi people. Modernist (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree. There are only a small handful of Hopi who have an African American parent/grandparent. Moreover, interesting to note that there exists a longstanding antagonism among Hopi, especially older Hopi, toward African Americans - I have been told that it originates from the 1800's when Buffalo Soldiers were dispached to Hopi. Aarionrhod (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality
Interessting Explanations of hopi-spirituality and actual efforts on http://www.ica8.org/

Shaq3 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Zuni canteen?
I may be mistaken of course, but this "Arizona" pot on the photo looks very much like Zuni to me--Radh (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[[The Navajo, or Diné, of the Southwestern United States are the second largest Native American tribe of Northern America. In the 2000 U.S. census, 298,197 people claimed to be fully or partly of Navajo ancestry.[1] The Navajo Nation constitutes an independent governmental body which manages the Navajo Indian reservation in the Four Corners area of the United States. The traditional Navajo language is still largely spoken throughout the region, although most Navajo speak English fluently as well. Navajo refer to themselves in their native language as Diné, which is translated as "the people" in'' English.

Reservation Size
in this Section here it is told, the Reservation was increased 1992 to 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km²) - ok so far - but some lines later is here told, "...On their 1,800,000-acre (7,300 km²) reservation, there is a significant amount ..." - so suddenly they have 1,200 km² more than 1992? - thanks in advice -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry but somebody forget to "end" the nowiki --  Hartmann Schedel  cheers  16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the Hopi's diet ?
Please can someone add a section on the Hopi diet. It can be placed in the Culture section. --41.151.98.34 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is far from a B-class article
This article appears to be written by people who have never been to the Hopi reservation.

The article completely fails to mention the spiritual dislike of the Hopi for photography and even (noted on signs around the Reservation) against sketching and note taking.

Examining a number of other books on the Hopi, those works which show interiors exclude photos of tribal members. Even the surrounding Navajo have a degree of sensitivity to picture taking reflected in their tourist documents, the National Park Service documents, and more (signage, but not to the extent of the Hopi). 99.2.229.105 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopi people → Hopi – target is redirect to current title created by move by Kwami on May 17 2011 contrary to WP:UNDAB. Hopi (disambiguation) exists and is mentioned in current title's hatnote Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
 * There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited.  But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people".  — kwami (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 * A discussion you held only with other people who frequent WP:NCL and which you did not deign to inform any affected wikiproject, the results of which are in blatant conflict with CRITERIA/TITLE and various other guidelines; and where "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't." this was you are avoiding saying - unless you're referring to the flawed guideline you authored yourself; "it was decided it shouldn't" is tantamount to saying "I decided it shouldn't", if that's the case. I've seen all kinds of discussions of these issues and was also around when such matters were being discussed and the name-only titles established as a de facto convention because we did take into account the very guidelines you ignored when writing and privateley chatting up your preferred changes to WP:NCL. You've got a WP:OWN issue going on with your forcing "FOO people" titles all over the globe, and NOW you want a centralized discussion you say; no that's only a tactic like trying to shut this down as; to protect your questionable handiwork and call for yet more discussion instead of common-sense action.Skookum1 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Common sense action" meaning removing needless disambiguations and untidy redirects by the thousands and no actual work done on the articles, not even fixing the ledes.Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the general discussions of related moves at Talk:Cayuga_people and Talk:Chipewyan_people (mentioned above) have ended respectively as opposing the moves and without consensus, in the interest of uniformity I recommend closing this discussion. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * they did not end up "opposing the moves", they were no consensus and not moved. I was criticized in those bulk RMs for not filing them separately so they could be discussed separately; so I did.  And now hearing from the person who moved thousands of such titles without discussion or consultation or any RM whatsoever, that he wants a centralized discussion.  Wanting to see this closed because the bulk RM containing it was "no consensus" (not "opposed") does not invalidate this RM as you are both trying to maintain.  This is a case of a simple redirect from an unnecessary dab back to the original title, nothing more.  And you want to throw this out as having already been rejected when in fact it wasn't??Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. In this case, the Hopi ethnic group is overwhelmingly the primary topic, and the previous move was undiscussed and unilateral. Regarding having the discussion at a centralized place, each of the situations are unique, so they need to be discussed on the individual pages. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * We have a centralize guideline for these things. We're not talking about an exceptional case here. I have no problem with Skookum wanting to change the guidelines, but it should really be done there, not piecemeal.
 * As for not cleaning up, I had started to do that, until Skookum got upset. Now he's upset that I stopped.  (Did just a minor clean up the lead, though it probably wasn't needed when the page was moved.) — kwami (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are here at: Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). You were part of the discussion that led to them: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 7, which was blissfully civil and productive. I do see that some agreed-upon changes have somehow been reverted in the cut-and-paste move, but we can take that up on the conventions talk page (e.g., it was agreed to remove Elbonians (ethnic group)/Macedonians (ethnic group), since you had pointed out it was only used once). A one-size-fits-all plan won't work, as WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups had determined repeated in the years that it was still active. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Then why are NCL groupies insistent that "people" MUST be added when as is regularly claimed; see CambridgeBayWeather's reply to Jorisv on "Nisga'a people" and here on "Hopi people" concerning precision and redirects]. None of these moves were necessary; cases where "people" must be used are Mohawk people, which was at Mohawk nation which was an utterly problematic title (see that talkpage).  And WP:Ethnic groups is not "inactive" it is "semi-active"....but I'm used to such misrepresentations and exaggerations around here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412  T 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Article titles also applies given that Hopi redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hopi. 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/20080208035314/http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/nampeyo/sikyatki.shtml to http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/nampeyo/sikyatki.shtml

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) 17:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hopi. 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/20091011060917/http://www.hopieducationfund.org/partners.html to http://www.hopieducationfund.org/partners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504031856/http://www.hopi-nsn.gov/News/tabid/169/EntryId/45/Hopi-Economic-Development-Corp-Transition-Team-Off-to-a-Fast-Start.aspx to http://www.hopi-nsn.gov/News/tabid/169/EntryId/45/Hopi-Economic-Development-Corp-Transition-Team-Off-to-a-Fast-Start.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606091954/http://www.experiencehopi.com/tuvvicenter.html to http://www.experiencehopi.com/tuvvicenter.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812044529/http://www.gallupindependent.com/2004/05may04/052004hopi.html to http://www.gallupindependent.com/2004/05may04/052004hopi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011060917/http://www.hopieducationfund.org/partners.html to http://www.hopieducationfund.org/partners.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) 22:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hopi. 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 tag to http://medplant.nmsu.edu/thelesperma.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419040710/http://www.experiencehopi.com/hotel.html to http://www.experiencehopi.com/hotel.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) 15:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious info
"The Hopi Tribe is a sovereign nation within the United States and has government-to-government relations with the United States federal government."

I have a feeling this is not entirely accurate. As a sovereign nation, do they have a representative in the UN?

"On November 30, 2017 in his last day as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe, Herman G. Honanie and Governor Doug Ducey signed the Hopi Tribe-State of Arizona Tribal Gaming Compact, a year after the Tribe approved entering into a compact with the State of Arizona."

Are sovereign nations allowed to enter into treaties with individual US states? That sounds irregular.

I'm not shitting on the Hopi nation; I love my native brothers and sisters. But I have a feeling one of my beloved native brothers and/or sisters have a significant influence on the content of this article.

Mercster (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hopi


text:
Rubella

Rubella, also known as German measles or three-day measles, is an infection caused by the rubella virus. This disease is often mild, with half of people not realizing that they are infected. A rash may start around two weeks after exposure and last for three days. It usually starts on the face and spreads to the rest of the body. The rash is sometimes itchy and is not as bright as that of measles. Swollen lymph nodes are common and may last a few weeks. A fever, sore throat, and fatigue may also occur. Joint pain is common in adults. Complications may include bleeding problems, testicular swelling, encephalitis, and inflammation of nerves. Infection during early pregnancy may result in a miscarriage or a child born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Symptoms of CRS manifest as problems with the eyes such as cataracts, deafness, as well as affecting the heart and brain. Problems are rare after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Rubella is usually spread from one person to the next through the air via coughs of people who are infected. People are infectious during the week before and after the appearance of the rash. Babies with CRS may spread the virus for more than a year. Only humans are infected. Insects do not spread the disease. Once recovered, people are immune to future infections. Testing is available that can verify immunity. Diagnosis is confirmed by finding the virus in the blood, throat, or urine. Testing the blood for antibodies may also be useful.

Rubella is preventable with the rubella vaccine with a single dose being more than 95% effective. Often it is given in combination with the measles vaccine and mumps vaccine, known as the MMR vaccine. When some, but less than 80%, of a population is vaccinated, more women may reach childbearing age without developing immunity by infection or vaccination, thus possibly raising CRS rates. Once infected there is no specific treatment.

Rubella is a common infection in many areas of the world. Each year about 100,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome occur. Rates of disease have decreased in many areas as a result of vaccination. There are ongoing efforts to eliminate the disease globally. In April 2015, the World Health Organization declared the Americas free of rubella transmission. The name "rubella" is from Latin and means little red. It was first described as a separate disease by German physicians in 1814, resulting in the name "German measles".

Signs and symptoms

Rubella has symptoms similar to those of flu. However, the primary symptom of rubella virus infection is the appearance of a rash (exanthem) on the face which spreads to the trunk and limbs and usually fades after three days, which is why it is often referred to as three-day measles. The facial rash usually clears as it spreads to other parts of the body. Other symptoms include low-grade fever, swollen glands (sub-occipital and posterior cervical lymphadenopathy), joint pains, headache, and conjunctivitis.

The swollen glands or lymph nodes can persist for up to a week and the fever rarely rises above 38 °C (100.4 °F). The rash of rubella is typically pink or light red. The rash causes itching and often lasts for about three days. The rash disappears after a few days with no staining or peeling of the skin. When the rash clears up, the skin might shed in very small flakes where the rash covered it. Forchheimer spots occur in 20% of cases and is characterized by small, red papules on the area of the soft palate.

Rubella can affect anyone of any age. Adult females are particularly prone to arthritis and joint pains.

In children, rubella normally causes symptoms that last two days and include:
 * Rash begins on the face which spreads to the rest of the body.
 * Low fever of less than 38.3 C.
 * Posterior cervical lymphadenopathy.

In older children and adults, additional symptoms may be present, including
 * Swollen glands
 * Coryza (cold-like symptoms)
 * Aching joints (especially in young females)

Severe complications of rubella include:
 * Brain inflammation (encephalitis)
 * Low platelet count
 * Ear infection

Coryza in rubella may convert to pneumonia, either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia, and bronchitis (either viral bronchitis or secondary bacterial bronchitis).

Congenital rubella syndrome
Rubella can cause congenital rubella syndrome in the newborn, this being the most severe sequela of rubella. The syndrome (CRS) follows intrauterine infection by the rubella virus and comprises cardiac, cerebral, ophthalmic, and auditory defects. It may also cause prematurity, low birth weight, neonatal thrombocytopenia, anemia, and hepatitis. The risk of major defects in organogenesis is highest for infection in the first trimester. CRS is the main reason a vaccine for rubella was developed.

80–90% of mothers who contract rubella within the critical first trimester have either a miscarriage or a stillborn baby. If the fetus survives the infection, it can be born with severe heart disorders (patent ductus arteriosus being the most common), blindness, deafness, or other life-threatening organ disorders. The skin manifestations are called "blueberry muffin lesions". For these reasons, rubella is included in the TORCH complex of perinatal infections.

About 100,000 cases of this condition occur each year.

Cause
The disease is caused by the rubella virus, in the genus Rubivirus from the family Matonaviridae, that is enveloped and has a single-stranded RNA genome. The virus is transmitted by the respiratory route and replicates in the nasopharynx and lymph nodes. The virus is found in the blood 5 to 7 days after infection and spreads throughout the body. The virus has teratogenic properties and is capable of crossing the placenta and infecting the fetus where it stops cells from developing or destroys them. During this incubation period, the patient is contagious typically for about one week before he/she develops a rash and for about one week thereafter.

Increased susceptibility to infection might be inherited as there is some indication that HLA-A1 or factors surrounding A1 on extended haplotypes are involved in virus infection or non-resolution of the disease.

Diagnosis
Rubella virus specific IgM antibodies are present in people recently infected by rubella virus, but these antibodies can persist for over a year, and a positive test result needs to be interpreted with caution. The presence of these antibodies along with, or a short time after, the characteristic rash confirms the diagnosis.

Prevention
Rubella infections are prevented by active immunization programs using live attenuated virus vaccines. Two live attenuated virus vaccines, RA 27/3 and Cendehill strains, were effective in the prevention of adult disease. However, their use in prepubertal females did not produce a significant fall in the overall incidence rate of CRS in the UK. Reductions were only achieved by immunisation of all children.

The vaccine is now usually given as part of the MMR vaccine. The WHO recommends the first dose be given at 12 to 18 months of age with a second dose at 36 months. Pregnant women are usually tested for immunity to rubella early on. Women found to be susceptible are not vaccinated until after the baby is born because the vaccine contains live virus.

The immunisation program has been quite successful. Cuba declared the disease eliminated in the 1990s, and in 2004 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that both the congenital and acquired forms of rubella had been eliminated from the United States. The World Health Organization declared Australia rubella free in October 2018.

Screening for rubella susceptibility by history of vaccination or by serology is recommended in the United States for all women of childbearing age at their first preconception counseling visit to reduce incidence of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). It is recommended that all susceptible non-pregnant women of childbearing age should be offered rubella vaccination. Due to concerns about possible teratogenicity, use of MMR vaccine is not recommended during pregnancy. Instead, susceptible pregnant women should be vaccinated as soon as possible in the postpartum period.

In susceptible people passive immunization, in the form of polyclonal immunoglobulins, appears effective up to the fifth day post-exposure.

Treatment
There is no specific treatment for rubella; however, management is a matter of responding to symptoms to diminish discomfort. Treatment of newborn babies is focused on management of the complications. Congenital heart defects and cataracts can be corrected by direct surgery.

Management for ocular congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) is similar to that for age-related macular degeneration, including counseling, regular monitoring, and the provision of low vision devices, if required.

Prognosis
Rubella infection of children and adults is usually mild, self-limiting, and often asymptomatic. The prognosis in children born with CRS is poor.

Epidemiology
Rubella occurs worldwide. The virus tends to peak during the spring in countries with temperate climates. Before the vaccine against rubella was introduced in 1969, widespread outbreaks usually occurred every 6–9 years in the United States and 3–5 years in Europe, mostly affecting children in the 5–9 year old age group. Since the introduction of vaccine, occurrences have become rare in those countries with high uptake rates.

Vaccination has interrupted the transmission of rubella in the Americas: no endemic case has been observed since February 2009. Vaccination is still strongly recommended as the virus could be reintroduced from other continents should vaccination rates in the Americas drop. During the epidemic in the US between 1962 and 1965, rubella virus infections during pregnancy were estimated to have caused 30,000 stillbirths and 20,000 children to be born impaired or disabled as a result of CRS. Universal immunisation producing a high level of herd immunity is important in the control of epidemics of rubella.

In the UK, there remains a large population of men susceptible to rubella who have not been vaccinated. Outbreaks of rubella occurred amongst many young men in the UK in 1993 and in 1996 the infection was transmitted to pregnant women, many of whom were immigrants and were susceptible. Outbreaks still arise, usually in developing countries where the vaccine is not as accessible. The complications encountered in pregnancy from rubella infection (miscarriage, fetal death, congenital rubella syndrome) are more common in Africa and Southeast Asia at a rate of 121 per 100,000 live births compared to 2 per 100,000 live births in the Americas and Europe.

In Japan, 15,000 cases of rubella and 43 cases of congenital rubella syndrome were reported to the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Infectious Diseases between October 15, 2012, and March 2, 2014, during the 2012–13 rubella outbreak in Japan. They mainly occurred in men aged 31–51 and young adults aged 24–34.

History
Rubella was first described in the mid-eighteenth century. German physician and chemist, Friedrich Hoffmann, made the first clinical description of rubella in 1740, which was confirmed by de Bergen in 1752 and Orlow in 1758.

In 1814, George de Maton first suggested that it be considered a disease distinct from both measles and scarlet fever. All these physicians were German, and the disease was known as Rötheln (contemporary German Röteln). (Rötlich means "reddish" or "pink" in German.) The fact that three Germans described it led to the common name of "German measles." Henry Veale, an English Royal Artillery surgeon, described an outbreak in India. He coined the name "rubella" (from the Latin word, meaning "little red") in 1866.

It was formally recognised as an individual entity in 1881, at the International Congress of Medicine in London. In 1914, Alfred Fabian Hess theorised that rubella was caused by a virus, based on work with monkeys. In 1938, Hiro and Tosaka confirmed this by passing the disease to children using filtered nasal washings from acute cases.

In 1940, there was a widespread epidemic of rubella in Australia. Subsequently, ophthalmologist Norman McAllister Gregg found 78 cases of congenital cataracts in infants and 68 of them were born to mothers who had caught rubella in early pregnancy. Gregg published an account, Congenital Cataract Following German Measles in the Mother, in 1941. He described a variety of problems now known as congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) and noticed that the earlier the mother was infected, the worse the damage was. Since no vaccine was yet available, some popular magazines promoted the idea of "German measles parties" for infected children to spread the disease to other children (especially girls) to immunize them for life and protect them from later catching the disease when pregnant. The virus was isolated in tissue culture in 1962 by two separate groups led by physicians Paul Douglas Parkman and Thomas Huckle Weller.

There was a pandemic of rubella between 1962 and 1965, starting in Europe and spreading to the United States. In the years 1964–65, the United States had an estimated 12.5 million rubella cases (1964–1965 rubella epidemic). This led to 11,000 miscarriages or therapeutic abortions and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. Of these, 2,100 died as neonates, 12,000 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were intellectually disabled. In New York alone, CRS affected 1% of all births.

In 1967, the molecular structure of rubella was observed under electron microscopy using antigen-antibody complexes by Jennifer M. Best, June Almeida, J E Banatvala and A P Waterson.

In 1969, a live attenuated virus vaccine was licensed. In the early 1970s, a triple vaccine containing attenuated measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) viruses was introduced. By 2006, confirmed cases in the Americas had dropped below 3000 a year. However, a 2007 outbreak in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile pushed the cases to 13,000 that year.

Eradication efforts
On January 22, 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization declared and certified Colombia free of rubella and became the first Latin American country to eliminate the disease within its borders. On April 29, 2015, the Americas became the first WHO region to officially eradicate the disease. The last non-imported cases occurred in 2009 in Argentina and Brazil. The Pan American Health Organization director remarked, "The fight against rubella has taken more than 15 years, but it has paid off with what I believe will be one of the most important pan-American public health achievements of the 21st Century." The declaration was made after 165 million health records and genetically confirming that all recent cases were caused by known imported strains of the virus. Rubella is still common in some regions of the world and Susan E. Reef, team lead for rubella at the CDC's global immunization division, who joined in the announcement, said there was no chance it would be eradicated worldwide before 2020. Rubella is the third disease to be eliminated from the Western Hemisphere with vaccination after smallpox and polio.

Etymology
From "rubrum" the Latin for "red", rubella means "reddish and small". "German" measles derives from "germanus" which means "similar" in this context.

The name rubella is sometimes confused with rubeola, an alternative name for measles in English-speaking countries; the diseases are unrelated. In some other European languages, like Spanish, rubella and rubeola are synonyms, and rubeola is not an alternative name for measles. Thus, in Spanish, rubeola refers to rubella and sarampión refers to measles.

title: Rubella


text:
Talk:Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Untitled
I feel this page should be better organized or incorporated into pages elsewhere. It is just a list and typically expresses only the "anti" viewpoint without giving the pro-Mormon viewpoint. A little balance would be appropriate.

BoNoMoJo, I did not realize that the MMM was already in the list. The list is very long and I just missed it. My apologies. soulpatch

 * No problem. And the first link is in the middle of list...kind of easy to miss. I probably could've avoided the second addition of the duplicate if I'd summarized my change/deletion of it with more specificity. I assumed you'd see what I was doing.  Sorry. B

"Regarding" is kinda clumsy and anti-style -- someone should rename this. - 戴&#30505sv 01:15, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

ARRggghhh! Ed, why are you moving these pages with so little discussion beforehand? You are making a mess. The naming convention for these articles has already been long discussed in related articles and your changes do not reflect any regard to these discussions! —B 00:52, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

The propriety of pages with "Controversies" in the title
I don't think any article should have the word controversy in the title, unless the article is about the fact of controversy, like what causes the controversy, what effects the controversy has on the dialog, etc. (and in that case, it should be named "Controversy and X"). The problem lies in the word "controversy": "Controversies regarding X" could mean anything, and it encourages people to conduct edit wars. I don't think you would never see a "Controversies regarding X" page in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, because it is assumed that any good, factual article about any subject will mention the major controversies involved, and not collage them together in a Frankenstein article. Lets face it everything about the LDS Church (or any religion) is controversial, and could eventually be examined in depth on a "controversy" page; a "controversy" article is like black hole that sucks material from main, "non-controversial" articles. COGDEN 05:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * There is this exact issue in the the Jehovah's Witnesses articles. Should there be a giant list of "controversies" or should these be presented in the context of their subjects? I don't have a really good answer to this. But I suspect that this question could come up for an given subject and I would like some guidance on what to do here. j o s h  b  u d d y  22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible change in this article's focus
I've been thinking about what to do with this article, because every aspect of the LDS Church is controversial, and if followed to its logical conclusion, this page might as well be redirected to List of articles about Mormonism. To make this article meaningful, I think it needs to do more than just point out the things that are controversial. Therefore, why don't we make this article about Mormon external controversy itself, with an appropriate name change, such as Anti-Mormonism. It would be a more historical article concerning external controversy only, and would cover things like the Missouri mobs, the Nauvoo Expositor, U.S. efforts to stamp out polygamy, the "Godmakers", the Tanners, public reactions by non-Mormons over the "Negro doctrine" and the ERA, etc. To keep the scope of the article reasonable, I think it should be restricted to matters that caused notorious public controversy, or that concern anti-Mormonism as a movement or practice. Instead of arguments like "X doctrine is controversial because the Bible says Y", there should be arguments like "X doctrine was controversial in the year 18xx, and as a result, Y and Z happened", and "X evangelical group was formed in 19xx to convert those who had been 'led astray' by Mormonism". COGDEN 19:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with articles with the word "controversy" in the title. For example, there's an article about global warming controversy. It exists because there are practical reasons to keep individual articles from becoming excessively long. Similarly, I think there are enough controversies related to Mormonism to justify a separate article on that topic.

 * I think also that it's an overstatement to say that "every aspect of the LDS Church is controversial." For example, there's no real controversy aboout the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Everyone except the kidnappers would agree that it was a deplorable crime against an innocent child. I'm sure that Jerald and Sandra Tanner would agree with that statement. Likewise, there's no controversy about whether the Mormons settled in the Salt Lake Valley.

 * Finally, making this an article about "anti-Mormonism" would exclude the important area of controversies within Mormonism. Several of the examples you gave above were actually internal controversies. Sonia Johnson, for example, headed a group called "Mormons for ERA," and even if we stipulate that her excommunication placed her "outside" Mormonism (which is itself an iffy assertion), the issue remained controversial within the church as well as externally. Likewise, the "Negro doctrine" was the object of considerable controversy and anguish within the church as well as the object of criticism from outside. I don't think controversies can always be cleanly divided into "anti-Mormon" vs. "internal." --Sheldon Rampton 00:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree with Sheldon, there are some good points to the statements above, but I think most of the information on the current controversies page are from an Anti-Mormon perspective, or controversies within the LDS Church (no mention of Elizabeth Smart on the page). I do think that this page could be divided into various articles that would make more sense - Anti-Mormon, Anti-Mormonism beliefs, Mormon Skepticism, Conflicts within Mormonism, and Conflicts within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How it reads now is like a List of articles about anti-Mormon viewpoints with little commentary. -Visorstuff 01:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have anything against the word "controversy" in the title per se, as long as the article is about the "controversy" itself, and not simply a list of Mormon doctrines that are controversial. To be NPOV, controversy has to be put in its context; we have to know who found it controversial and why, and what happened as a result of the controversy. And it can include internal, as well as external controversies. (I guess Sheldon is correct that sometimes you can't draw the line between the two.) It could be an article that covers anti-Mormonism, Mormon dissidents, and mormon criticism. Maybe it could be called History of Mormon criticism and/or Mormon criticism. COGDEN 15:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, something does need to be done, and I like COGDEN's latest points. There is already a Mormonism as a Christian Religion page.  The name change might be as small as Mormon Controversy, as in The Mormon Controversy. Hawstom 20:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I have noticed that Wikipedia seems to have much more negative material about Mormons than any other religion within its contents. Whatever happens to this page, the result should also be applied to the other religion sections.  The "controversies" of Mormonism exceed that of Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Catholicism, and all other religions combined; well at least it appears to be so by Wikipedia description of it.  In my eyes, it seems that Wikipedia is attempting to expose Mormonism's problems while failing to reveal other religions' enigmas.  Why doesn't the Catholic or Jehovah's Witness or Islamic Wikipedia section have an in-depth examination of their "controversies" as well?  All religions have some, not just Mormons. Gaytan 15:30, 5 Nov 2004

There is something to what you are saying. Wikipedia is a work on progress. Maybe you can look into it further and develop it into a project in the coming months. Tom - Talk 05:28, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

From my talk page: Further explanation...
Thought this would be appropriate here as well

Why did you revert my edits on the Mormon controversies article? No explanation was provided and I'm not sure what your reasoning was by context. Deadsalmon 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My apologies of not explaining. First, you removed Orson Scott Card as a controversial Mormon. He is quite controversial within Mormonism. He is accused of making homophobic statements by non-Mormons, he is accused of being to "liberal" in his interpretations of Mormon teachings by many Mormons. A good example is his statements that the church doesn't discourage watching "R-rated movies" [8], the use of sex and strong language in his fictional works and so forth. I'm not judging the merit of his statements or his work, but his is considered controversial both within and without of the Church. And I haven't even begun to address his historical research and academic-type publications. He is bright and very smart, but is as controversial (if not more so) than Sheri Dew, and others who are controversial - not anti, but controversial both within and without the church.

 * Second, you wrote, changed all references from "no longer identifies as Mormon" to "former Church member." In many cases, you may be correct, as their excommunication or whatever, was highly publicized for folks including Sonia Johnson, Ed Decker, but others including Steve Benson and the Tanners, we take their word for it that they asked for their names to be removed. Wikipedia needs proof to say "former church members" whereas it is easier to state that they no longer identify as Mormons. Plus, that is consistent across all controversial folks who have either left the church or no longer identify themselves as Mormons. Plus if they are no longer Mormons, how should they be categorized in a list titled, "List of prominent critics and controversial Mormons." They are former or don't identify?

 * Some of your punctuation and stylistic changes made at 01:51, 28 September 2005 probably could have stayed, however, I just hit the rollback/revert button which undoes the user edit to the next last edit prior to the user edits.
 * I really appreciate you asking for a clarification and for your Wiki-etiquette. I see they've been removed again, which is dissapointing and I'll discuss with MrWhipple. -Visorstuff 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I don't think Card or Dew belong in the list since neither of them have had public battles with the institutional Church, nor have they been subjects of Church discipline, nor have they left the Church (Dew, in fact, is the president of Deseret Book). And calling them "conservative" is not a useful description — Card is quite liberal politically. --MrWhipple 05:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I can agree with the categories of conservative - probably something better would work. That said, the title of thsi article is Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And these two are controversial. The section headng is "List of prominent critics and controversial Mormons" and that fits the bill for these two. perhaps it would be best if we seperate out the list into two parts: non mormons and mormons (or even faithful mormons?)

If things that don't have battles with the institutional church don't belong in the list, then we should also modify the "List of controversial subjects" and remove "Book of Mormon," "Book of Abraham," "Book of Moses," "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible," "Temple (Mormonism)," "Pre-existence," and "Word of Wisdom" among others? The problem when we start seperating, we are only giving one point of view. I know a few people who have stuggled with their testimonies after either dealings or interactions or readings or interations with both of the two listed, and I'm not the one who added them to the article originally. So it is not isolated to my experience. Unfortunate, but this is what we work with. There are probably more people that should be added.

 * I second the idea of splitting the list into controversial critics of the church and controversial faithful members - it's not a perfect distinction, but Card and Dew are completely devoted the church, and lumping them with all the others on this list is jarring, or at least a "which one of these things is not like the others?" While we're at it, the list of controversial faithful members might include J. Golden Kimball, Hugh Nibley, B.H. Roberts, etc. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
Based on the Wikipedia NPOV policy (specifically, the policy on content forking), I suggest that this whole article be deleted. The policy is clear. --TrustTruth 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, the Exmormonism and anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism pages reference this material generally, and this list serves as a short-cut to avoid taking up too much space there. That's the only reason I bothered with it, because I need to link it to save space. I agree with NPOV fully, and this list seems to comply, EXCEPT the names part, which seems a bit like a blacklist or guilt by association. It is now completely neutral to a religious POV, and rightly balanced in the categories section, and makes no assumptions that aren't discussed in Mormon-edited pages on the topics. Mormons don't deny these controversies, they just explain them differently than some might.Anon166 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The appropriateness of references to Utah statistics
I don't think that the LDS can be properly equated with Utah in general, and thus statistics about antidepressent use, bankruptcy, and fraud are all out of place in a "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." If they are placed under an appropriate heading, the antidepressant and bankruptcy statistics should be deleted (hearsay) unless proper citations can be produced.Nightclerk 20:15, 19 June 2006

 * Agreed, I was getting around to it anyway. Anon166 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mormonism
I think this would help balance both pages and add to the neutrality of Wikipedia.

POV and listcruft
The premise of this whole "article" is weaselly - it basically says "people who aren't Mormons are skeptical of everything Mormonism is about" with no attribution of notability to any third-party sources whatsoever. This could all be one person's opinion, too, as there's very little non-IP editing in the article. MSJapan 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please chime in at Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.--TrustTruth 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some citation requests. This article has a large, swelling infection of npov elements (not to mention one-sided axe-grinding citations). It needs to be lanced, drained, and given heavy doses of an antibiotic. I believe it can be healed. I see the value of a collection point for Mormon criticisms. Let's get all the criticisms together and shine the light of day -- an npov light of day -- on them. Please. --TrustTruth 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Head of government

comment
The Prime Minister of the UK is crucial to this article because it is the first of office of the head of government. Due to the presence of this role, the head of government was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurusa101 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This really ought to gonto an article on parliamentary systems of government

The system is marked by the following:0  43ver

 * The formation of a government answerable to parliament by a member (sometimes the leader) of the party or parties;

 * Full answerability of that government to parliament through
 * the ability of parliament to vote no confidence;
 * the requirement that the government gain and hold Supply;
 * answerability for its actions to whichever house (almost invariably the democratically elected upper house) controls Supply

I agree it should be in such an article, but because we are talking about a separate head of government, that requires clarifying how such a system within which a separate head of government operates, actually works. So I think this is one of the instances were duplication is necessary.

I'm going to put the bit back for that reason. I will be revisiting the article later and I may rephrase or re-contextualise the above. I certainly take your point seriously. JTD 22:35 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've rewritten bits to stress where I am talking about a parliamentary system-prime minister. I think there may be more clarity. I've bullet-pointed your opening paragraph to highlight the three distinctions; presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary. When I get the chance I'll add in more info. Are you happy with the reshaping? JTD 23:14 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I cleaned up the spelling and punctuation of this article, and took out the misunderstanding about 10 Downing St.

Guinnog

Vandalism
I found the following sub-literate drivel at the end of the second paragraph but it doesn't show up on the edit page so I don't know how to fix it.

Chief officer of the executive branch?
Terminology is tough, I know, but is the Head of Government really necessarily the chief officer of the executive branch, as it says in the first sentence? In semi-presidential systems and many parliamentary systems, the chief executive office sits above the Government (or "Administration", in American terms). The person who heads the Government is not necessarily the head of the entire executive branch of government. SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy
Should British monarch be counted as head of government alongside Prime Minister as well ? By constitutional convention, monarch is head of Parliament

Also for King of Netherlands is similar, since Dutch constitution specifies that government is consisted of Crown(king) and his ministers

Siyac —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 * @Siyac The British monarch is the head of state and the nominal head of the executive, but is not the head of government. The head of government is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is a member of the House of Commons elected by the people of the United Kingdom. Even in the Netherlands, the monarch's powers are nominal, and most powers that are formally vested in the Crown are in fact exercised by the government. 112.134.220.222 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Head of Government
President of France is also head of government, since he chairs cabinet meeting, is this correct ? our prime minister is our head of government. jeffy is funny

Merger with Prime Minister
Mrodowicz (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Having two separate articles for this position, is duplication. The discussion of prime minister, is essentially about the role of the head of government, and the two are pretty much interchangable. Of course there are some countries whose head of government is not titled 'Prime minister' in their native language (eg. Germany, Austria, Monaco, Italy, Israel, Russia, Spain, Scandinavian countries, Pakistan, Vatican City etc). Furthermore, English language convention in general is to refer to nearly all heads of govt as PM, regardless of the actual title in the native language, with a small number of exceptions (Germany & Austria - Chancellor, Monaco - Minister of State, Vatican City - Secretary of State). However, having two separate articles has shown itself to be problematic. For example, German chancellor - Angela Merkel is discussed and included in the 'Prime minister' article as a 'prime minister of Germany' as opposed to Germany having no prime minister. Is she then a 'prime minister' or not? A further problem is which countries heads of government should be included as prime ministers in the 'Prime minister' article? The head of government of Pakistan has the official title of 'Grand Vizier', and is referred to as such in the Urdu language. However, in the English language his title is translated as the 'Prime Minister of Pakistan'. If we were to conclude that Merkel is chancellor and not prime minister of Germany, (as both the German and English languages would indicate) then what about the "Grand Vizier of Pakistan'? - according to his official title he is not the prime minister of Pakistan, but according to the English translation of his role, he is the prime minister of Pakistan. I therefore suggest one article on Heads of government, in which the position is defind. It will be mentioned within the article that the most common title for head of government is 'prime minister' as well as which other titles are used to describe this role.Mrodowicz (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that all substantive and generic Head of Government related information should be moved here from the Prime Minister article. The PM article should only deal with the etymology of that expression, and links to offices which use that particular title. The Head of State article, which I have contributed to, may serve as inspiration and many sources used over there could also be used in this article as well. RicJac (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Many countries have a singular head of government and head of state, or a Prime Minister who does not wield the power of head of government. We need to keep historical Prime Ministers from countries which have abolished that position and replaced it with something else. Agreed that Chief Ministers, should be moved, but positions like Premier and Chancellor are not as clear. 204.89.57.225 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The Head of Government talks about the other positions besides Prime Minister as mentioned in the header. There was no merged for the other pages for the different heads of government. I oppose the merge. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:56, April 30 2013 (UTC)

In more than six months there has been very little discussion of this merger proposal, and there is clearly no consensus for the merge, so I am removing the tag. Neutron (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both are equally important, should never be merged. Fai  zan  14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Faizan's right. Both of them are important. Keivan.f  Talk 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose One is a head of government in general, and one is specifically a prime minister. I don't know why this was even proposed in the first place. Ithinkicahn (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition
Head of Government or Prime Minister may be 3rd, 4th or even more on a country's precedence table. A Head of Government is the highest political official, who leads a country regarding its national policies. Travelmite (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

lead misdescribes UK Queen's power
The following, found in the lead, apparently not a summary of anything in the body, and unsourced, is partly wrong and partly misleading: "For example, in the United Kingdom, the prime minister 'advises' the Queen on the appointment of the cabinet, advice she is required to accept. On the other hand, the Queen's long service as the head of state enables her to provide the prime minister with information and insight into many matters to better run the government. However, because the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, the Prime Minister uses his or her own discretion regarding whether or not to follow the Queen's advice. The Queen also is entitled to appoint a new Prime Minister."

An English law textbook written for undergraduates and published by Oxford University Press (I cited it for another article some years ago), said that the government has two branches, Crown and Parliament, that the Queen is the head of state, that she can appoint anyone or no one as Prime Minister regardless of which party won the election, that she can appoint 120 ministers who normally serve Parliament and answer when necessary to courts but when serving the Crown need not answer to the Parliament, which means, since courts are inferior to the Parliament, need not obey court orders (a real case to that effect arose not many years ago involving a refused asylum application), that she and not the Prime Minister is the commander-in-chief, that she determines who can receive a passport (presumably meaning she can set immigration and citizenship policies), that her legislative veto is final (making a Prime Minister's rejection of her advice potentially career-ending), and that she may have been within her rights when she responded to a disinclination by the appointive House of Lords to enact legislation she desired by suggesting that she could appoint many more members to that House unless the House passed the bill. Any requirement that the Queen accept the PM's advice on cabinet composition is political, not legal. While it is widely believed that the Queen is not supposed to have political opinions, or at least that they must be private or secret, neither is the law.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC) (Correction: 00:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC))

 * By George! You live in Fantasyland. Well, it's Saturday night: maybe you high on pot..Once you're back on Planet Earth, read this British government short information page on who's the boss in the British system of government: https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works

--Lubiesque (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will extend good faith to you and assume you were not engaging in a personal attack but only using humor, which I could match. Seriously, I think you are confusing political and legal. The page you linked to does not significantly separate the two. I did, and said so in the opening post of this topic. If you search the page you linked to for "Crown" or "Queen" (without quotation marks), you'll notice how little those words are used, whereas U.K. law gives much more weight to the Crown, an office occupied at the top by the Queen, who, legally, is not to be trifled with. I dug out the book citation I referred to above: Public Law, by law prof. Adam Tomkins of Univ. of Glasgow (N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press (Clarendon Law ser.), 2003). I'd recommend that you read it except that, while I read it 4–5 years after publication, it is now 14 years after publication and apparently no newer edition has been issued, and so I suggest reading a book published within the last 10 years, but of similar quality, and not simply a one-page nonscholarly brochure-like page. (That page reminds me of the big-city U.S. mayor who told a children's book author that he writes the laws, and I think several dozen City councilmembers would properly have disputed that.) In the meantime, Monarchy of the United Kingdom should be just a click away and might be of interest. Now, if the legal book is wrong, and that's possible with any source, you may refute it, but the page you linked to is merely a sketchy disagreement and not adequate as a thoughtful refutation of a law textbook by a well-credentialled author and from a highly reputable publisher. You're welcome to go at it. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved and edited. See the diff. However, I did not add citations that are still needed. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mikhail Mishustin (2018).jpg

The Head of State also leads the government in countries without a separate Head of Government
In a presidential system of government, both the head of state and the head of government is the President. So, the President's role as head of state is more important than that as head of government. But in semi-presidential and parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government is separated. So, a President is not specifically introduced as a head of government.112.134.220.202 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

State President of South Africa was Head of State, NOT Head of Government
"State President" was the title of the head of state of the Republic of South Africa from 1961 to 1994 (Apartheid rule). From 1961 to 1984 the State President was the head of state with limited ceremonial powers, while the Prime Minister was the head of government. In 1984 the office of Prime Minister was merged with the office of State President, thus transferring the executive powers of the Prime Minister to the State President. So, State President was not the title of the head of government of South Africa. 112.134.220.222 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anthony Albanese portrait.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Olaf Scholz In March 2022.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Giorgia Meloni Premier (cropped 2).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anwar Ibrahim, official portrait 2022 (cropped, 3to4 format, closeup).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister Official Portrait 2022.jpg

Add some people
Hey, can someone add Joe Biden, the President of the United States of America and Chris Hipkins, the Prime Minister of New Zealand (my country) to the list of heads of government at the top of the page, or are the 9 already there enough? thx. Sup3rG33k08 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 * @Sup3rG33k08 2001:D08:1399:58CA:9ED4:2CC5:FE96:6997 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @2001:D08:1399:58CA:9ED4:2CC5:FE96:6997 what does this mean? Sup3rG33k08 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sup3rG33k08: I don't think that the array of images is meant to be an indiscriminate list; we have List of current heads of state and government for that. Biden might not be the best choice because he is not only head of government, but also head of state. I don't have such an objection to adding Hipkins, though, if others think that it's necessary. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add more images. The current collage reflects the plurality of governmental systems, racial and gender plurality. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Photomontage
Photomontage should be removed as per MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY for the same reasons outlined here. Will lead to endless edits and talks over who, what race, gender etc...to represent....simply for visuals appeal as links to bios dont help in understanding the topics at hand Moxy 🍁 07:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY specifically says "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations" this one is neither so it shouldn't apply. I don't really care if there are images at the top or which ones, but MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY shouldn't apply here. Also your edit summary looks really unhelpful to the point that calling it disingenuous might be more accurate. Nobody  ( talk ) 11:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sort of borderline, assuming the montage is restricted to currently serving, there may be 300 or so, maybe less. Still plenty for potential disagreement/disruption, but that may be preventable with decent consensus, maybe via rfc. If there is too much disruption/timesink on this, I say remove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At a glance, the current selection seems pretty decent, arguably it covers South America and Oceania. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is the photos don't actually provide understanding on the topic. The article is on the topic of head of government as a role, putting some photos of some heads of government around the world doesn't actually add anything. It doesn't make it easier for the reader to understand just because there's the photo of the prime minister of Japan at the top of the article. None of these people are mentioned in the article, so it's just really decoration and the selection may as well be random. Seems like it maybe doesn't even pass MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with this. The images show who is actually meant by head of government without having to start reading, so they do provide a basic understanding of the topic. Nobody  ( talk ) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguably passes WP:LEADIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We will have to simply dissagree on that point as the link you provided says "Using photomontages or a gallery of images of group members should be avoided in articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations."  This article is about a position...not people....the article to spam inages would be at List of current heads of state and government. Not sure how a list of only thoses from democracies helps in any manner...only democracies have heads of governments? Moxy 🍁 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I find it hard to make "about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations" fit well here. I commented, a little, in the discussions that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, and I supported it for the timesink/disruption aspects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the type of article the closes talked about "concerning galleries of images of living people in general," here Moxy 🍁 14:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The AN says This was expanded into a second RfC concerning galleries of images of living people in general. But the second RfC doesn't talk about living people in general, just expanding the first RFCs consensus from "ethnic/"race" to also include "similarly large human populations". (I haven't read the Second RfC completely so it's possible I missed something.) And Head of government is clearly not in the same category as ethnic groups or similarly large human populations. Nobody  ( talk ) 17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would you not consider this a large human group..... there's hundreds of them. Regardless I seen by the edit wars and all the posts above its clearly a point of contention and won't ever be stable. Perhaps a  RFC so others can evaluate the wording that is clear to me. Moxy 🍁 17:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because ethnic groups apply to millions, similarly large human populations could then be interpreted to also mean millions. The second RfCs Close also specifically mentions Children and Amputees which again are millions. Head of government is what? A few hundred? Clearly a different scale. Nobody  ( talk ) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it has to do with the inherent problems not just the scale..... it's the spirit of the protocol we should be following not finding ways to run around it. But clearly we need to make the wording clear for all. Moxy 🍁 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Agree with Canterbury Tail: it's effectively a random selection of leaders, and does not contribute significantly to an understanding of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've no problems with including or excluding, as long as we're consistent here & at the Head of state page. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with above it's pretty random. There aren't really any images in the article that help understand the topic. (Not that the article is great either.) Perhaps just sticking to the politics sidebar is more helpful, at least that one gives related links. CMD (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Local consensus not to have a leadimage in this article is certainly possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I support not including a lead image in this article. Readers do not need a montage of random heads of government to help them understand the topic. Cjhard (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
'However, just because the head of state is the de jure dominant position does not mean that he/she will not always be the de facto political leader.' at Under a dominant head of state. Should there only be one not here? Wikifan153 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Head of government