text:
Talk:Email address

Recent reversion by 80.108.8.19
IP address 80.108.8.19 recently reverted a change by user:Snori, with the description "Fully qualified domains end with a dot. Reverting the comment-less vandalism". While I would have preferred that user:Snori provide a comment, his removal of the trailing dot from the FQDN was correct: unlike the syntax of RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, there is no trailing period in the RFC 5321 domain name. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Prevalence of tagged addresses?
Some e-mail servers ignore everything after a plus sign (less commonly, a minus sign) so that the user can hand out different addresses to different organizations and thus know who has sold his address without authorization. Email address claims "Note that characters after a plus sign + are generally ignored", which seems too strong. Certainly there are servers that do so, and they may even be common, but they are not the norm. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted space as the full local part?
Currently, the quoted space as the full local part (" "@example.com, or even \ @example.com) is listed as invalid. Does someone know why, since the RFC allows quoted spaces and doesn't say anything about the local part having at least one non-space character? -- Poromenos (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Style for listing IETF RFC and STD docuuments
Would it be desirable to update the references to use IETF RFC, and  instead of plain text and <NOWIKI>text</NOWIKI> blocks? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even if it isn't today, it could become so in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should every mention of an RFC use IETF RFC or only the first in each section? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No addresses commonly used?
Quoting article: "This article uses the term email address to refer to the addr-spec defined in RFC 5322, not to the address that is commonly used; the difference is that an address may contain a display name, a comment, or both."

That seems silly in an artcle about email. Why not addresses commonly used? That's what I'm trying to recreate from 3-year-old memories. Just a short section with some typical examples would do. Was it: (Joe Blow) jblow@acme.com ? (The "+" section seemed close, but no cigar.)

Also one place jargon should be STRICTLY FORBIDDEN is the table of contents, of which is about half. This article seems designed strictly for sysadmins, etc. Like: display name ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 * When the nomenclature in an article on a technical subject differs from that in the literature, then the text should make that clear. The usage of "address" in the article matches the definition of "mailbox" in RFC 5321, not the definition of "address" in RFC 5322.

 * Per the definitions in RFC5321 and FC5322, "Foo Bar " is an address; "<foo@bar.com" is both an address and a mailbox. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit by 117.237.210.103
Could the edit by 117.237.210.103 be referring to source routing as one of the three parts of an address? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the edits by ; the IP just undid one of the edits and I undid the other one. The text at the URL in their edit summary listed the "@" character as the second part.  I wouldn't call it incorrect, but I think the original text of the article better matches the common usage of the term "part" and as a result is more understandable. –LiberatorG (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read the relevant RFCs before making changes based on what the editor presumes is in them
The article has links to, e.g.,, ; it's not that difficult to read them instead of making incorrect changes based on assumptions. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

'Dot-string'?
"A local part is either a Dot-string or a Quoted-string..." - have no idea what a dot string is. Guesses don't count.

Refactoring, or a 'Dot-string' link would be useful / appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs27975 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Those are definitions in . There are multiple citations of that document, with different sections, different quotations, or both, and I'd like to cut out the redundancy without losing information, but I'm not sure how best to retain the functionality of cite IETF while rendering the common information only once. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Status of RFC 5322
is not outdated per the [IETF]; if a PHP validator fails on a quoted local part containing a space then the validator is broken. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * One thing this article seems to be very strict on is, "this is what the RFCs say", but seem to lack practical warnings against doing what is "technically allowed". One can certainly set up a server and allow someone the mail address of , but a huge number of users on the internet will simply not be able to send e-mail to that address (because it is a post year 2000 extension that many providers simply will not deal with).  Today, one cannot sent such an outbound e-mail via Google's email services, for one example that I'm able to test right now.  (( Even though the allowance is much newer, Internationalized (UTF8) local parts are much more accepted )). Vollink (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that adding a list of technically valid but problematic addresses would be useful, and that Despite the wide range of special characters which are technically valid, organisations, mail services, mail servers and mail clients in practice often do not accept all of them. For example, Windows Live Hotmail only allows creation of email addresses using alphanumerics, dot, underscore and hyphen . Common advice is to avoid using some special characters to avoid the risk of rejected emails. could well be expanded --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A quoted-string as a local-part has been a valid email address since RFC-821 from 1982. I can send email to and receive email from such addresses using both Gmail and Outlook (using a work around for a Gmail bug) and I suspect most other email providers. Quoted-string is not a post year 2000 extension.
 * Quoted-strings have generally worked in major MTA software for over forty years; since well before the World Wide Web was conceived.
 * UTF-8 support is comparatively new, only standardized in 2012, but advertised by both Gmail and Outlook. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While are 2012,  are 2008. BTW, none of those supersede, which are still current. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC-5335 was EXPERIMENTAL, not a standard or proposed standard. And RFC-5335/RFC-6531 didn't change anything related to quoted-strings; UTF-8 support is a different issue. Gene.hightower (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC-5335 was EXPERIMENTAL, not a standard or proposed standard. And RFC-5335/RFC-6531 didn't change anything related to quoted-strings; UTF-8 support is a different issue. Gene.hightower (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

include examples with subdomains?
As far as I understand the introduction "With the introduction of internationalized domain names, efforts are progressing to permit non-ASCII characters in email addresses." it also means that anything after the @ is either different from a valid domain name or at least only a true subset. Yet all examples only differs in anything before the "@" - and the comment in brackets. Would it be useful to just inline "john.doe@sub.example.com"? --2001:A62:1963:BA01:B880:2BA:CCE8:633D (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it means that some addresses are now allowed with SMTPUTF8 that are invalid without it; it doesn't mean that every domain must have non-ASCII characters. The first example in Email address has a domain that is pure ASCII.
 * The examples in Email address all have the same domain. The addresses in In contrast to unquoted local-parts, the addresses,  and   are allowed. are individually in  pairs; I don't understand what you mean by inlining them.
 * As for "john.doe@sub.example.com",   has an unquoted local part and doesn't belong in that sentence. If you want an example of a three level domain, the place to put it is Email address.  --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect part: no underscores in domain name
The example of a "bad email address" show this example: i_like_underscore@but_its_not_allowed_in_this_part.example.com. That doesn't seem to be correct as per RFC 2181, section 11, "Name syntax", as stated here. Also see rfc3696, sub 2: "Any characters, or combination of bits (as octets), are permitted in DNS [=domain] names." It continues: "However, there is a preferred form [...] the "LDH rule", [that] provides that the labels (words or strings separated by periods) that make up a domain name must consist of only the ASCII [ASCII] alphabetic and numeric characters, plus the hyphen." So, while preferred, it's not required. JHBonarius (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 * In every way I read RFC 2181, section 11 (the section above quoted ), is specific to non-hostname resource records and those, in turn MIGHT include labels from hostname record types. That is, it's fine to have a weird binary string as a non-hostname resource record's label, but that doesn't automatically apply to MX, CNAME, A, or AAAA DNS records.  But absolutely are used for things like TXT records (which are not expected to point to a hostname).  That is, pay close attention to the first paragraph of that section. Vollink (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Address literal instead of Internet domain name
I was reading the actual RFC for email and noticed it stopped mentioning allowing numerical values starting with RFC 2822. Prior RFCs (like RFC 822) had this language in their address specification section:

Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It    is  permitted  only  as  a means of bypassing temporary system limitations, such as name tables which are  not complete.

This language is present in earlier RFCs, but this language disappears in 2822, and is also not present in 5322. There is a section in the addr-spec in 5322 that says:

Note: A liberal syntax for the domain portion of addr-spec is given here. However, the domain portion contains addressing information specified by and used in other protocols (e.g., [RFC1034], [/rfc/rfc1035 RFC1035], [RFC1123],   [RFC5321]). It is therefore incumbent upon implementations to conform to the syntax of addresses for the context in which they are used.

The RFC for the SMTP protocol, RFC5321 does have a section about using address literals in the domain portion Address Literals.

Some email clients will let you enter an address with address literals, but a lot do not. Some mail delivery subsystems will have problems with delivering mail in that format as well., particularly if there is mailbox ambiguity due to a mail server being responsible for multiple domains.

Generally to me, it seems that while SMTP does support address literals, it is not generally used or advised for actual user use for email addresses. My original intention on removing those sections were to steer people away from thinking this was a valid format, as it isn't given 5322. But it also IS valid for SMTP, and with the section about conforming to the syntax of the addresses for the context used, it's a little unclear how it should be handled. This page seems to be mostly focused on the addr-spec definition of an email address, which I think means it should mention how address literals are not really intended in that format since it does not appear in the addr-spec anymore. What do others think? Maybe I am missing something obvious? I am a novice at wiki so I figure the more experienced powerusers might have good input here. Martianant (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the links that you provided, i.e., for, is malformed; I recommend that you change all of the RFC citations to either IETF RFC or
 * While some language deprecating it is gone, still includes domain-literal and language describing the use of IP addresses. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though SMTP is able to handle domain literals, such a use is not likely to work in most scenarios where DNS-based security mechanisms (such as SPF, DKIM and DMARC) have been implemented as recommended by relevant RFCs. In effect, SMTP will correctly handle a message with domain literals in the Sender or Envelope-sender header, but more often than not the message will be rejected by downstream MTAs. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are two different IP questions that the article should discuss:
 * Is it valid to use an IP address as the domain part?
 * Is it prudent to have an IP address as the domain part?
 * IMHO, while the answer to the first is yes, the answer to the second is an empatic no; some e-mail operators regard a bare IP address as a red flag and will reject messages containing such mailbox references. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's valid and it's also valid for correctly configured MTAs not to deliver such messages. Such a small contradiction in the vast body of RFAs. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction; is quite clear that "My server, my rules" applies to classifying attempted deliveries; look for "policy reasons". You are, of course, required to use the correct code to indicate rejection. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's valid and it's also valid for correctly configured MTAs not to deliver such messages. Such a small contradiction in the vast body of RFAs. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction; is quite clear that "My server, my rules" applies to classifying attempted deliveries; look for "policy reasons". You are, of course, required to use the correct code to indicate rejection. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Should cite RFC-5321 as relevant standard for address syntax, not RFC-5322
The syntax for header fields such as ‘From:’ and ‘To:’ include email addresses but also much more stuff. The syntax allowed for Mailbox addresses in SMTP is what most people think of as an “email address.”

Perhaps see for suggested text to explain email address syntax, with citation of correct RFCs.

Does anyone think that an email address includes "group" syntax and "display-name" and the comments and folding white space of ? All that stuff can be part of the From: header value, but is not part of any address and is not used to deliver email.

If we can agree on the correct syntax to use, I can take a pass at this article to correct and simplify the text. Gene.hightower (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Some definitions in refer to definitions in.

 * I believe that most people think of an e-mail address as what appears in the From: header field; some (expletive deleted) software doesn't even show the mailbox.

However, the Transport section should definitely limit the term to mailbox, including group addresses. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * >> I believe that most people think of an e-mail address as what appears in the From: header field;
 * So when a web form asks for your email address, you put in “Seymour J Metz <…” starting with the ‘display-name’, then an angle bracket then the ‘addr-spec’? You do not. You put in something matching the ‘Mailbox’ rule from RFC-5321. As would 100 out of 100 people asked, is my guess.
 * >> some (explitive deleted) software doesn't even show the mailbox.
 * Some software shows only the ‘display-name’ in the From: header, that does *not* mean that ‘display-name’ is an email address. Or is even part of an email address. Gene.hightower (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
 * Actually, I do often enter a display name. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chatul Email address does not include the display name. Period. And I somehow don't believe that you enter your display name in, say, the Gmail login form where it asks for "e-mail". — kashmīrī  TALK  17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why refute what I never wrote? Nothing in suggests that I enter it in a login field. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, no display-name; but what about all the comments and folding white space? Is that part of the email address? Gene.hightower (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC-5321 does not have any syntax for "group addresses" - not sure what you're talking about here. Gene.hightower (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An RFC 5321 mailox can identify either an individual mailbox or a group. That's determined by the configuration of the MSA and there is no difference in the syntax. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An email address can deliver to an individual or a group, but the syntax is the same. Gene.hightower (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we accepting that 'Mailbox' from RFC-5321 should be understood as defining the syntax of an "email address" as discussed in this article?
 * I think it's fine to discuss message header fields (such as From: and To:) and how email addresses are used within them. Gene.hightower (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> Some definitions in RFC 5321 refer to definitions in RFC 5322.
 * They are companion documents, that should not confuse anybody. Gene.hightower (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

local-part length limit is incorrect
>> The maximum total length of the local-part of an email address is 64 octets.

Simply not true. Local parts much longer than this are commonly used and work fine with many email providers.

The applicable section of RFC-5321 is 4.5.3.1. ‘Size Limits and Minimums’ where is says: “To the maximum extent possible, implementation techniques that impose no limits on the length of these objects should be used.” Gene.hightower (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you drop the next sentence, "Objects larger than these sizes SHOULD be avoided when possible.", from that quote? That plus section 4.5.3.1.1. 'Local-part', which says "The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64 octets.", ustifies the text in the article. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that in practice ‘Local-part’s much larger than that are in common use, and work fine. The standard suggests that such long ‘Local-part’s SHOULD be avoided, but does not forbid their use. The statement in the artcle without more context provides no useful information, and seems misleading.
 * My quote did not “drop” anything. Curious readers should consult the original documents. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Declaring that a clear limitation in the RFC provide no usefull information verges on OR.
 * The proper way to address the discrepancy is for the text to note that there is a discrepancy between the RFC and practice. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> Declaring that a clear limitation in the RFC
 * Except, this is not the RFC that you maintain defines the syntax of an “email address.” No such length limits are discussed in RFC-5322, so again: what standard should be used to define the syntax? Gene.hightower (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such RFC; I maintained that certain RFCs defined certain terms, e.g., local-part, but never maintained that they defined the specific terms e-mail address and email address. The disagreement is to what terms in the RFCs those terms in the articles should refer. I suggest WP:3PO. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like we are not at a standstill; RFC-5321 is clear, and should be the authoritative basis for this article.
 * RFC-5321 defines ‘Mailbox’ and ‘Address’ and notes that the “two terms are typically used interchangeably.” The definition is: “a character string that identifies a user to whom mail will be sent or a location into which mail will be deposited.”
 * This is the definition of “email address” as used by this article, is it not? The thing this article is about?
 * What basis can you cite to use any of the syntactic constructs of RFC-5322 as the definition of “email address?” The closest thing that document defines is ‘addr-spec’ which clearly allows for strings that you seem unwilling to include as valid examples of email address, so at some level you seem to agree that (at least not all) RFC-5322 ‘addr-spec’s are “email addresses.”
 * To back that up with decades of actual use: only valid RFC-5321 ‘Mailbox’ addresses can be used to send or receive email on the public Internet. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Section on local-part syntax incorrect according to RFC-5321 OR RFC-5322.
>> Comments are allowed with parentheses at either end of the local-part

RFC-5322 allows comments, white space, and “folding” white space (CRLF followed by a space or tab) between any tokens, except “Comments and folding white space SHOULD NOT be used around the "@" in the addr-spec.”

RFC-5321 allows no comments at all. Gene.hightower (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The text should make the context clear. In, Mailbox, used in Forward-path and Reverse-path, does not allow comments or white space anywhere.
 * In, mailbox allows CFWS only prior to the "<". A mailbox given as an addr-spec rather than as a name-addr may not contain CFWS.
 * Neither RFC defines email address or e-mail address.
 * Similarly, the text should reflect differences between and, which obsolete  and . -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> In RFC 5322, mailbox allows CFWS only prior to the "<"
 * In RFC-5322 an ‘addr-spec’ (which is what comes *after* the left angle
 * bracket in an ‘angle-addr’) starts with a ‘local-part’ which can be a
 * ‘dot-atom’ which is an optional CFWS followed by a ‘dot-atom-text’
 * So, CFWS can appear on *both* sides of the "<". Gene.hightower (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> Neither RFC defines email address or e-mail address.
 * And this may be the root of the confusion for many people. The grammar
 * rule that maps to a conceptual “email address” is called ‘Mailbox’ in
 * RFC-5321, and is called ‘addr-spec’ in RFC-5322. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct about RFC 5322 dot-atom allowing CFWS, subject to the restriction in 3.4.1. 'Addr-Spec'. Specification.
 * No, the appropriate terms are Mailbox in RFC 5321 and mailbox in RFC 5321 (the terms differ in case.) Further, if you use the RFC 5321 definition, then all the text about comments is wrong. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree — I suspect that nobody expects comments are allowed in an “email addresses.” Nor the ‘display-name’.
 * This is my main point and the crux of the matter.
 * What is an “email addresses”?
 * https://digilicious.com/mailbox-address-syntax.html Gene.hightower (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> […] mailbox in RFC 5321
 * Except the article says:
 * >> The term email address in this article refers to just the addr-spec […]
 * This seems like a contradiction. Gene.hightower (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> The text should make the context clear.
 * Except mixing syntax from both RFC-5321 and RFC-5322 when all we need to discuss the syntax of an “email address” is RFC-5321 causes very confused text throughout this article. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is a fundamental disagreement on what we need to address. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How do we resolve this fundamental disagreement? Gene.hightower (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest WP:3PO. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a link to an opinion you may find helpful:
 *  Gene.hightower (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> Neither RFC defines email address or e-mail address.
 * But RFC-5321 defines the syntax for the “string that identifies a user to whom mail will be sent or a location into which mail will be deposited.” — that is the ‘Mailbox’ grammar rule from Section 4.1.2. Gene.hightower (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * >> Neither RFC defines email address or e-mail address.
 * From RFC-5321 section 2.3.11. Mailbox and Address:
 * “As used in this specification, an "address" is a character string
 * that identifies a user to whom mail will be sent or a location into
 * which mail will be deposited. The term "mailbox" refers to that
 * depository. The two terms are typically used interchangeably […]”
 * So defines Address and Mailbox. Gene.hightower (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * defines address as mailbox / group.
 * The terms the article uses should be tied to the relevant definitions in the RFCs. In particular, the discussion of Transport should be tied to RFC 5321 and the discussion of header fields and ''CFWS' should be tied to RFC 5322. Also, the lead should make it clear whether group addresses are in scope. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)

Is the addr-spec syntax of RFC 5322 really what we want?
>> The term email address in this article refers to just the addr-spec in Section 3.4 of RFC 5322.

Okay, can we include some additional examples of “Valid email addresses” according to that definition?

jane.doe@-lax-domain- jane.doe@[Almost-anything-goes-here!]

If we accept the basic definition of “email address” from the first section of this article, don't we have to accept these examples as valid? These examples are valid RFC-5322 ‘addr-spec’s, but not valid RFC-5321 ‘Mailbox’s. Gene.hightower (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody want to refute these examples as “valid email addresses” based on the syntax defined by RFC-5322 ‘addr-spec’?

 * Fun fact: a valid RFC-5321 ‘Mailbox’ address is always a valid RFC-5322 ‘addr-spec’, because the syntax allowed by RFC-5321 is a subset of that allowed by RFC-5322. Gene.hightower (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article should state that e-mail address refers to either Mailbox (, only in Transport section) or to mailbox, and that the article should give separate lists of valid and invalid addresses. I also believe that it should mention that some forms are obsolete, e.g., source routing.
 * What about International email addresses? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We should note that RFC-6531 extends the ‘Mailbox’ grammar rule (of RFC-5321) to include UTF-8. Gene.hightower (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC-5322 defines syntax for both ‘address’ and ‘mailbox’; and in that document, they are not the same thing. Neither are an “email address.” Use of these words as names for the derivation rules in the syntax seems to cause confusion, they're just names for rules in the grammar.

The only text strings that define an “email address” are the ‘Local-part’ and ‘Domain’ of RFC-5321, which correspond to the ‘local-part’ and ‘domain’ of RFC-5322. These two strings joined by an ‘@’ character (code point decimal 64) are, in both documents, what people know as an “email address.”

All of the text that may appear inside a message header field beyond ‘local-part’ and ‘domain’ have no semantic value. That includes the ‘display-name’ and the ‘group-list’ and any comments and/or white space.

RFC-5322 says: “The local-part portion is a domain-dependent string. In addresses, it is simply interpreted on the particular host as a name of a particular mailbox.” Clearly indicating in RFC-5322 that the ‘local-part’ and ‘domain’ alone define a mailbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.hightower (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither nor  define email address or e-mail address.
 * Do you have any objection to WP:3O? --

Neither document uses the exact term “email address” but, read section 2.3.11 of RFC-5321 and ask: what is it defining? It defines both ‘Mailbox’ and ‘Address’ and defines them as synonyms. Check that definition vs. the definition on this Wikipedia page. Is this not an “email address”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.hightower (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 * No, it does NOT define them as synonyms; in fact, it does not define address at all. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, they are not synonyms, but the document notes that "The two terms are typically used interchangeably [...]"
 * I stand corrected. Gene.hightower (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2.3.11. Mailbox and Address
 * As used in this specification, an "address" is a character string
 * that identifies a user to whom mail will be sent or a location into
 * which mail will be deposited. The term "mailbox" refers to that
 * depository. The two terms are typically used interchangeably unless
 * the distinction between the location in which mail is placed (the
 * mailbox) and a reference to it (the address) is important. An
 * address normally consists of user and domain specifications. The
 * standard mailbox naming convention is defined to be "local-
 * part@domain"; contemporary usage permits a much broader set of
 * applications than simple "user names". Consequently, and due to a
 * long history of problems when intermediate hosts have attempted to
 * optimize transport by modifying them, the local-part MUST be
 * interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the
 * domain part of the address. Gene.hightower (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Another indication that RFC-5321 considers ‘Mailbox’ an “email address” is this passage, from section 4.1.2. Command Argument Syntax: «If this string is an email address, i.e., a Mailbox, then the "xtext" syntax [39] SHOULD be used.» Where “i.e.” stands for id est, which is Latin for “that is.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.hightower (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a strong opinion from Kashmiri that “email address” does NOT include the ‘display-name’ of RFC-5322. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.hightower (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Mixed case
I have tries to add an example of mixed case which greatly helps readability. But because it includes a (made-up) e-mail address, the submission system thinks it's spam. How do I get past that? TechColab (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (case is always ignored after the @ and usually before)
 * That's a question for the operators of the server that classified it as spam. What messages did you get?
 * I would suggest adding it to the article. If you have a RS that some servers mis-classify it as spam, cite that source. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done it now using the HTML entity for the at. None of the existing examples have used it but may have been created before things were tightened. TechColab (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about a problem getting the message delivered to that address or a problem rendering it in wiki?
 * renders as
 * renders as
 * I don't see a difference between them. Or is the rendering browser dependent? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get it submitted as an example rendering of a valid e-mail address, seemingly because the 'at' triggers anti-spam blocking. It rendered fine in the preview either way. It's not a real address. I was not trying to get e-mails sent there. In the rendered page they look the same. In the Edit view, the others are at signs but I had to use the entity. Doesn't matter now. 93.191.204.229 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dhhdhdjfhehf 2A0C:5A84:5111:2700:F1D4:44C5:D61F:713A (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Email address


text:
Élie Catherine Fréron

Élie Catherine Fréron (20 January 1718 – 10 March 1776) was a French literary critic and controversialist whose career focused on countering the influence of the philosophes of the French Enlightenment, partly through his vehicle, the Année littéraire. Thus Fréron, in recruiting young writers to counter the literary establishment became central to the movement now called the Counter-Enlightenment.

Biography
Fréron was born at Quimper in Brittany and educated by the Jesuits. He made such rapid academic progress that he was appointed professor at the college of Louis-le-Grand before he turned twenty. He became a contributor to the Observations sur les écrits modernes of the abbé Pierre Desfontaines. The very fact of his collaboration with Desfontaines, one of Voltaire's bitterest enemies, was sufficient to arouse the latter's hostility, and although Fréron had begun his career as one of his admirers, his attitude towards Voltaire soon changed.

Fréron in 1746 founded a similar journal of his own, entitled Lettres de la Comtesse de ... It was suppressed in 1749, but he immediately replaced it by Lettres sur quelques écrits de ce temps, which, with the exception of a short suspension in 1752, on account of an attack on the character of Voltaire, was continued till 1754, when it was succeeded by the more ambitious Année littéraire. His death at Paris in 1776 is said to have been hastened by the temporary suppression of this journal.

Legacy
Fréron is now remembered solely for his attacks on Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists, and for the retaliation from Voltaire, who, besides attacking Fréron in epigrams, and even incidentally in some of his tragedies, directed against him a virulent satire, Le Pauvre diable, and made him the principal personage in a comedy L'Ecossaise, in which the journal of Fréron is designated L'Âne littéraire, "the Literary Ass". Fréron is also mentioned in Voltaire's famous novel Candide, in reference to a rude critic the title character meets at a theater. A further attack on Fréron entitled Anecdotes sur Fréron ... (1760), published anonymously, is generally attributed to Voltaire.

Fréron was the author of an Ode sur la bataille de Fontenoy (1745) Histoire de Marie Stuart (1742, 2 vols.); and Histoire de l'empire d'Allemagne (1771, 8 vols.).

He was the father of Stanislas Fréron, revolutionary politician.

Works

 * 1742: Histoire de Marie Stuart, with abbé de Marsy.
 * 1745: Ode sur la bataille de Fontenoy.
 * 1746: Lettres de la comtesse de ***.
 * 1749–1750 and 1752–1754, Lettres sur quelques écrits de ce temps, with Joseph de La Porte, 13 vol.
 * 1753: Opuscules, 3 vol.
 * 1754–1790: L'Année littéraire, 290 vol.
 * 1771: Histoire de l'empire d'Allemagne, 8 vol.

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

title: Élie Catherine Fréron


text:
Peter Ueberroth

Peter Victor Ueberroth (born September 2, 1937) is an American sports and business executive known for his involvement in the Olympics and in Major League Baseball. A Los Angeles–based businessman, he was the chairman of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee which brought the games to Los Angeles in 1984. Ueberroth was named 1984's Time Man of the Year for his success in organizing the Olympic games.

After the conclusion of the games, he was named as the sixth Commissioner of Baseball, a role he held from 1984 to 1989. He later served as the chairman of the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee from 2004 to 2008.

Early life
Ueberroth was born in Evanston, Illinois, the son of Laura (Larson) and Victor Ueberroth. His father was of German and Austrian descent, and his mother was of Swedish and Irish ancestry. He caddied at Sunset Ridge Country Club, in Northfield, Illinois. He grew up in Northern California. While attending Fremont High School, Ueberroth excelled in football, baseball, and swimming. After graduating from high school, Ueberroth attended San Jose State University on an athletic scholarship. While attending San Jose State he joined Delta Upsilon. He competed in the 1956 United States Olympic water polo trials but failed to make the team. Ueberroth ultimately graduated from San Jose State in 1959 with a degree in business.

Trans International Airlines
After college, Ueberroth became a vice president and shareholder in Trans International Airlines (he was 22 years old at the time). Ueberroth worked at Trans International until 1963, when he founded his own travel company, which would become First Travel Corporation. By the time he sold First Travel in 1980, it was the second largest travel business in North America.

1984 Olympics
For five years Ueberroth served as the organizer of the 1984 Summer Olympics held in Los Angeles. He was a prominent figure in the games, receiving the Olympic Order in gold at its conclusion from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Due to the success of the games, he was named Time magazine's Man of the Year in 1984. Under Ueberroth's leadership and management, the first privately financed Olympic Games in history resulted in a surplus of nearly US$250 million, and became a model for all of the future games to follow. This was subsequently used to support youth and sports activities throughout the United States. Coincidentally, he was born on the day on which the founder of the modern Olympic Games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, died.

Ueberroth created a committee of over 150 members (mostly business people and entrepreneurs) to generate ideas, opportunities and solve problems. His aggressive recruiting of sponsors for the 1984 Olympics is credited as the genesis for the current Olympic sponsorship program. Due to recruiting competitors between the Los Angeles Olympic Committee and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), after 1984 all Olympics in the US had their local organizing committees enter into recruitment agreements with the USOC to jointly recruit sponsors and share revenue.

Baseball commissioner
Ueberroth was elected to succeed Bowie Kuhn on March 3, 1984, and took office on October 1 of that year. As a condition of his hiring, Ueberroth increased the commissioner's fining ability from US$5,000 to $250,000. His salary was raised to a reported $450,000, nearly twice what Kuhn was paid.

Just as Ueberroth was taking office, the Major League Umpires Union was threatening to strike the postseason. Ueberroth managed to arbitrate the disagreement and had the umpires back to work before the League Championship Series were over. The next summer, Ueberroth worked behind the scenes to limit a players' strike to one day before a new labor agreement was worked out with the Players Association.

During the course of his stint as commissioner, Ueberroth reinstated two Hall of Famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, who had been banned from working for Major League Baseball by Kuhn because of their associations with gambling casinos. Also, Ueberroth suspended numerous players because of cocaine use, negotiated a $1.8 billion television contract with CBS, and initiated the investigation against Pete Rose's betting habits. In 1985, Ueberroth's first full year in office, the League Championship Series expanded from a best-of-five series to a best-of-seven series. At his urging, the Chicago Cubs chose to install lights at Wrigley Field rather than reimburse the leagues for lost night-game revenue. Ueberroth then found a new source of income in the form of persuading large corporations to pay for the privilege of having their products endorsed by Major League Baseball.

However, Ueberroth, with the assistance of the owners, also facilitated collusion between the owners in violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players. Players entering free agency in the 1985, 1986 and 1987 offseasons were, with few exceptions, prevented from both signing equitable contracts and joining the teams of their choice during this period. The roots of the collusion lay in Ueberroth's first owners' meeting as commissioner, when he called the owners "damned dumb" for being willing to lose money in order to win a World Series. Later, he told the general managers that it was "not smart" to sign long-term contracts. Former Major League Baseball Players Association president Marvin Miller later described this as "tantamount to fixing, not just games, but entire pennant races, including all post-season series." The MLBPA, under Miller's successor, Don Fehr, filed collusion charges and won each case, resulting in "second look" free agents, and over $280 million in fines. Fay Vincent, who followed as Ueberroth's successor in the commissioner's office, laid the crippling labor problems of the early 1990s (including the 1994–95 strike) directly at the feet of Ueberroth and the owners' collusion, holding that the collusion years constituted theft from the players.

Under Ueberroth, Major League Baseball enjoyed "increased attendance (record attendance four straight seasons), greater awareness of crowd control and alcohol management within ballparks, a successful and vigilant anti-drug campaign, significant industry-wide improvement in the area of fair employment, and a significantly improved financial picture for the industry. When Ueberroth took office, 21 of the 26 clubs were losing money; in Ueberroth's last full season – 1988 – all clubs either broke even or finished in the black. In 1987, for example, baseball as an industry showed a net profit of $21.3 million, its first profitable year since 1973."

Nonetheless, following the announcement of the first of three large awards to the players following the collusion findings, Ueberroth stepped down as commissioner before the start of the 1989 regular season; his contract was to have run through the end of the season. He was succeeded by National League president A. Bartlett Giamatti.

Post-baseball activities
Ueberroth has been a director of The Coca-Cola Company since 1986. Ueberroth is an investor and chairman of the Contrarian Group, Inc., a business management company, and has held this position since 1989. He is also co-chairman of Pebble Beach Company. He is a director of Hilton Hotels Corporation and previously served as director of Adecco S.A. from 2004 to 2008. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Aircastle since 2012 and been on the board since 2006.

In 1989, Ueberroth considered purchasing Eastern Air Lines, then crippled by a strike and bankruptcy from Texas Air. However, a management dispute with Texas Air CEO Frank Lorenzo led to the deal falling through.

In 1990, Ueberroth bought controlling interest of Hawaiian Airlines with his brother John and business partner J. Thomas Talbot.

Three years after leaving office, he led the Rebuild Los Angeles project after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

In 1999, Ueberroth, along with Arnold Palmer and Clint Eastwood, bought the Pebble Beach golf course.

Ueberroth ran for Governor of California in the 2003 California recall election as an independent, though he was a registered Republican. His campaign focused on California's economic and budget crisis, avoiding social issues. With polls indicating only a low level of support, he pulled out of the race on September 9, 2003, though his name still appeared on the ballot and received a small but significant number of votes. He placed 6th in a field of 135 candidates.

Ueberroth was chairman of Ambassadors International, Inc. but was replaced by his son, Joseph Ueberroth in April 2006. Ueberroth resigned from the board in November 2008.

Ueberroth was also the chairman of the United States Olympic Committee Board of Directors from 2004 to 2008.

Ueberroth was inducted into the USA Water Polo Hall of Fame in 2010.

Ueberroth is a Life Trustee of the University of Southern California.

Ueberroth and his wife, Ginny, were two of the founders of Sage Hill School. He additionally served briefly on the school's Athletic Advisory Council.

Ueberroth is a board member for the Lott IMPACT Trophy, which is named after Pro Football Hall of Fame defensive back Ronnie Lott, and is awarded annually to college football's Defensive IMPACT Player of the Year.

title: Peter Ueberroth


text:
Bok Prize

The Bok Prize is awarded annually by the Astronomical Society of Australia and the Australian Academy of Science to recognise outstanding research in astronomy by honoring a student at an Australian university. The prize consists of the Bok Medal together with an award of $1000 and ASA membership for the following year.

History
The prize is named to commemorate the energetic work of Bart Bok in promoting the undergraduate and graduate study of astronomy in Australia, during his term (1957–1966) as Director of the Mount Stromlo Observatory.

Past winners
Source: Astronomical Society of Australia

title: Bok Prize


text:
Douglas Feith

Douglas Jay Feith (born July 16, 1953) is an American lawyer who served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

Feith has been described as an architect of the Iraq War. In the lead up to the war, he played a key role in promoting the claim that the Saddam Hussein regime had an operational relationship with al-Qaeda (even though there was scant credible evidence of such a relationship at the time). A Pentagon Inspector General report found that Feith's office had "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."

Personal
Feith was born to a Jewish family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, one of three children of Rose (née Bankel) and Dalck Feith. His father was a member of the Betar, a Revisionist Zionist youth organization, in Poland, and a Holocaust survivor who lost his parents and seven siblings in the Nazi concentration camps. Dalck came to the United States during World War II and became a businessman, a philanthropist, and a donor to the Republican party.

Feith grew up in Elkins Park, part of Cheltenham Township, a Philadelphia suburb. He attended Philadelphia's Central High School, and later attended Harvard University, where he obtained his undergraduate degree and graduated magna cum laude in 1975. He continued on to the Georgetown University Law Center, receiving his J.D. magna cum laude in 1978. After graduation, he worked for three years as an attorney with the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.

Work as a Democrat
Feith worked on the staff of senator Henry M. Jackson in 1975 before going on to work on Elmo Zumwalt's campaign against segregationist senator Harry Byrd, Jr. Byrd, an independent since 1970, defeated Zumwalt, a Democrat, 57–38%.

Reagan administration
At Harvard, Feith had studied under Richard Pipes, who joined the Reagan administration's National Security Council, in 1981, to help carry out a private intelligence project called Team B that Pipes and his students had conceived. Feith joined the NSC as a Middle East specialist that same year, working under Pipes.

He transferred from the NSC staff to the Pentagon, in 1982, to work as special counsel for Richard Perle, who was then serving as assistant secretary to the United States Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger promoted Feith, in 1984, to deputy assistant secretary of defense for negotiations policy. When Feith left the Pentagon, in 1986, Weinberger awarded him the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the department's highest civilian award.

During his time in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration, Feith helped to convince the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz all to recommend against ratification of changes to the Geneva Conventions. The changes, known as the "Additional Protocols," grant armed non-state actors prisoner of war status under certain circumstances even if they fail to distinguish themselves from the civilian population to the same extent as members of the armed forces of a high contracting party. Reagan informed the United States Senate in 1987 that he would not ratify Additional Protocol I. At the time, both The Washington Post and The New York Times editorialized in favor of Reagan's decision to reject Additional Protocol I as a revision of humanitarian law that protected terrorists.

Private practice
Feith began his career as an attorney in private practice with the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP for 3 years, after which he joined the Reagan administration (see the previous section).

Upon leaving the Pentagon, Feith co-founded, with Marc Zell, the Washington, DC law firm of Feith & Zell. The firm engaged in lobbying efforts for, among others, the Turkish, Israeli and Bosnian governments, in addition to representing defense corporations Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Feith left the firm in 2001, following his nomination as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

Bush administration
Feith joined the administration of President George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2001. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. With his new appointment in hand, Feith proved influential in having Richard Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Feith was criticized during the first term of the Bush administration for creating the Office of Strategic Influence. This office came into existence to support the War on Terror. The office's aim was to conduct non-covert influence operations in foreign countries. However, after significant media scrutiny into what exactly would fall within the OSI's mandate, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had Feith shut the office down, while transferring its functions elsewhere within the Department of Defense. Feith played a significant role in the buildup to the Iraq War. Feith has been characterized as an architect of the Iraq War.

As part of his portfolio, he supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community. The office was responsible for hiring Lawrence Franklin, who was later convicted along with AIPAC employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman for passing classified national defense information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. The office, eventually dismantled, was later criticized in Congress and the media for analysis that was contradicted by CIA analysis and investigations performed following the invasion of Iraq. In response to the allegedly poor work of Feith's Office of Special Plans, General Tommy Franks, who led both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War called Feith "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet".

Feith was responsible for the de-Ba'athification policy promulgated in Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 1 which entered into force on 16 May 2003.

In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." This repeated Feith's earlier involvement with Team B as a postgraduate, when alternative intelligence assessments exaggerating threats to the United States turned out to be wrong on nearly every point. The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war." At Senator Levin's insistence, on April 6, 2007, the Pentagon's Inspector General's Report was declassified and released to the public.

Responding to criticism of a report that linked Al-Qaeda with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Feith called the office's report a much-needed critique of the CIA's intelligence. "It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence", Feith said. "What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government." Feith also rejected accusations he attempted to link Iraq to a formal relationship with Al Qaeda. "No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship", Feith said. "There was a relationship." Feith stated that he "felt vindicated" by the report of the Pentagon inspector general. He told The Washington Post that his office produced "a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance."

Feith was the first senior Pentagon official to leave the administration after Bush was re-elected. There was some speculation when Feith announced he was leaving as to why he was stepping down. Some believed he was pressured to leave because of problems over his performance and his increasing marginalization.

Post-government career
Following his government service, Feith was employed by the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, where he taught a course on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy. He came to Georgetown's School of Foreign Service after leaving Stanford's Hoover Institution and was appointed by School of Foreign Service dean, Robert Gallucci. However, his hiring "caused an uproar among the Foreign Service school faculty." Two years later, Feith's contract was not renewed, causing continuing hostility between the Georgetown Law Center faculty and alumni and the Foreign Service school faculty.

In 2008, Feith became a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, where he is the director of its Center for National Security Strategies.

Views and publications
Feith is a Republican, and has contributed money to various party candidates over the years. He has been described as a neoconservative. One of Feith's controversial views was his argument that increasing the number of political appointees equated to more democracy, which would help align government policy to the promises politicians make before they get into office.

Feith's writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and The New Republic. He has contributed chapters to a number of books, including James W. Muller's Churchill as Peacemaker, Raphael Israeli's The Dangers of a Palestinian State and Uri Ra'anan's Hydra of Carnage: International Linkages of Terrorism, as well as serving as co-editor for Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History.

Feith is an ardent supporter of Israel. Along with Richard Perle and David Wurmser, he was a member of the study group which authored a controversial report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a set of policy recommendations for the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The report was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies without an individual author being named. According to the report, Feith was one of the people who participated in roundtable discussions that produced ideas that the report reflects. Feith pointed out in a September 16, 2004 letter to the editor of The Washington Post that he was not the co-author and did not clear the report's final text. He wrote, "There is no warrant for attributing any particular idea [in the report], let alone all of them, to any one participant."

Feith was on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a think tank that promotes a military and strategic alliance between the United States and Israel.

Feith was interviewed by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes in a segment that was aired on April 6, 2008. During this interview he promoted his newly released memoir, War and Decision and defended the decision making that led to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

War and Decision
On April 8, 2008, Feith's memoir, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, was published by HarperCollins.

War crimes investigation
In 2009, Feith became one of several Bush administration officials under consideration for investigation of possible war crimes in a Spanish court, headed by Baltasar Garzón under claims of universal jurisdiction. The case had reportedly still been active as of 2011.

Personal life
Feith is married with four children. His eldest son, Daniel Feith, graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School and served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Consumer Protection Branch in the United States Department of Justice. His second son, David Feith, graduated from Columbia University and worked as an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal and an assistant editor at Foreign Affairs before serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the United States Department of State from July 2020 to January 2021.

title: Douglas Feith


text:
Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease

Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease (LCPD) is a childhood hip disorder initiated by a disruption of blood flow to the head of the femur. Due to the lack of blood flow, the bone dies (osteonecrosis or avascular necrosis) and stops growing. Over time, healing occurs by new blood vessels infiltrating the dead bone and removing the necrotic bone which leads to a loss of bone mass and a weakening of the femoral head.

The condition is most commonly found in children between the ages of 4 and 8, but it can occur in children between the ages of 2 and 15. It can produce a permanent deformity of the femoral head, which increases the risk of developing osteoarthritis in adults. Perthes is a form of osteochondritis which affects only the hip. Bilateral Perthes, which means both hips are affected, should always be investigated to rule out multiple epiphyseal dysplasia.

Signs and symptoms
The condition is most commonly found in children between the ages of 4 and 10. Common symptoms include pain in the hip, knee, or ankle (since hip pathology can cause pain to be felt in a normal knee or ankle), or in the groin; this pain is exacerbated by hip or leg movement, especially internal hip rotation (with the knee flexed 90°, twisting the lower leg away from the center of the body). The range of motion is reduced, particularly in abduction and internal rotation, and the patient presents with a limp. Pain is usually mild. Atrophy of thigh muscles may occur from disuse and an inequality of leg length. In some cases, some activity can cause severe irritation or inflammation of the damaged area, including standing, walking, running, kneeling, or stooping repeatedly for an extended period. In cases exhibiting severe femoral osteonecrosis, pain is usually a chronic, throbbing sensation exacerbated by activity

The first signs are complaints of soreness from the child, which are often dismissed as growing pains, and limping or other joint guarding, particularly when tired. The pain is usually in the hip, but can also be felt in the knee (referred pain). In some cases, pain is felt in the unaffected hip and leg, due to the children favoring their injured side and placing the majority of their weight on their "good" leg. It is predominantly a disease of boys (4:1 ratio). Perthes is generally diagnosed between 5 and 12 years of age, although it has been diagnosed as early as 18 months. Typically, the disease is only seen in one hip, but bilateral Perthes is seen in about 10% of children diagnosed.

Cause
Perthes disease is a childhood hip disorder initiated by a disruption of blood flow to the head of the femur. Due to the lack of blood flow, the bone dies (osteonecrosis or avascular necrosis) and stops growing.

Legg believed the cause was impairment of blood supply to the femoral epiphysis, Calvé believed rickets, and Perthes deduced an infection possibly causing degenerative arthritis leads to LCP disease. Currently, a number of factors have been implicated, including heredity, trauma, endocrine dysfunction, inflammation, nutrition, and altered circulatory hemodynamics. Risk factors are not limited to impaired and disproportionate growth, low birth weight, delayed skeletal maturity, short stature, systemic hormonal changes, and low economic index. Although no one has identified the cause of Perthes disease, a reduction in blood flow to the joint is known.

The disease is theorized to include the artery of the ligamentum teres femoris being constricted or even blocked too early, not allowing for time when the medial circumflex femoral artery takes over. The medial circumflex femoral artery is the principal source of blood supply to the femoral head. LCP disease is a vascular restrictive condition of idiopathic nature. Symptoms like femoral head disfigurement, flattening, and collapse occur typically between ages four and ten, mostly male children of Caucasian descent. Children affected by LCP disease often display uneven gait and limited range of motion, and they experience mild to severe pain in the groin area. For example, a child may be six years old chronologically but may have grown only four years old in terms of bone maturity. The child may then engage in activities appropriate for a six-year-old child, but lacking the bone strength of an older child, these activities may lead to flattening or fracture of the hip joint. Genetics do not appear to be a determining factor, but a deficiency of blood factors with anticoagulant property used to disperse blood clots may lead to blockages in the vessels supplying the joint. A deficiency of protein C and protein S, which also act as blood anticoagulants, may also exist; if that were the case, their deficiency could cause clot formation in ligamentum teres femoris artery and hinder blood supply to the femoral head. However, no evidence of this has been found; over the years, many theories have been published, but none has stood up to professional research.

Pathology
Over time, healing occurs by new blood vessels infiltrating the dead bone and removing the necrotic bone which leads to a loss of bone mass and a weakening of the femoral head. The bone loss leads to some degree of collapse and deformity of the femoral head and sometimes secondary changes to the shape of the hip socket.

It is also referred to as idiopathic avascular osteonecrosis of the capital femoral epiphysis of the femoral head since the cause of the interruption of the blood supply of the head of the femur in the hip joint is unknown.Perthes can produce a permanent deformity of the femoral head, which increases the risk of developing osteoarthritis in adults. Perthes is a form of osteochondritis which only affects the hip, although other forms of osteochondritis can affect elbows, knees, ankles, and feet. Bilateral Perthes, which means both hips are affected, should always be investigated thoroughly to rule out multiple epiphyseal dysplasia.

Diagnosis
X-rays of the hip may suggest and/or verify the diagnosis. X-rays usually demonstrate a flattened, and later fragmented, femoral head. A bone scan or MRI may be useful in making the diagnosis in those cases where X-rays are inconclusive. Usually, plain radiographic changes are delayed six weeks or more from clinical onset, so bone scintigraphy and MRI are done for early diagnosis. MRI results are more accurate, i.e. 97–99% against 88–93% in plain radiography. If MRI or bone scans are necessary, a positive diagnosis relies upon patchy areas of vascularity to the capital femoral epiphysis (the developing femoral head).

Treatment
The goals of treatment are to decrease pain, reduce the loss of hip motion, and prevent or minimize permanent femoral head deformity so that the risk of developing a severe degenerative arthritis as an adult can be reduced. Assessment by a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon is recommended to evaluate risks and treatment options. Younger children have a better prognosis than older children.

Treatment has historically centered on removing mechanical pressure from the joint until the disease has run its course. Options include traction (to separate the femur from the pelvis and reduce wear), braces (often for several months, with an average of 18 months) to restore range of motion, physiotherapy, and surgical intervention when necessary because of permanent joint damage. To maintain activities of daily living, custom orthotics may be used. Overnight traction may be used in lieu of walking devices or in combination. These devices internally rotate the femoral head and abduct the leg(s) at 45°. Orthoses can start as proximal as the lumbar spine, and extend the length of the limbs to the floor. Most functional bracing is achieved using a waist belt and thigh cuffs derived from the Scottish-Rite orthosis. These devices are typically prescribed by a physician and implemented by an orthotist. Clinical results of the Scottish Rite orthosis have not been good according to some studies, and its use has gone out of favor. Many children, especially those with the onset of the disease before age 6, need no intervention at all and are simply asked to refrain from contact sports or games which impact the hip. For older children (onset of Perthes after age 6), the best treatment option remains unclear. Current treatment options for older children over age 8 include prolonged periods without weight bearing, osteotomy (femoral, pelvic, or shelf), and the hip distraction method using an external fixator which relieves the hip from carrying the body's weight. This allows room for the top of the femur to regrow.

While running and high-impact sports are not recommended during treatment for Perthes disease, children can remain active through a variety of other activities that limit mechanical stress on the hip joint. Swimming is highly recommended, as it allows exercise of the hip muscles with full range of motion while reducing the stress to a minimum. Cycling is another good option as it also keeps stress to a minimum. Physiotherapy generally involves a series of daily exercises, with weekly meetings with a physiotherapist to monitor progress. These exercises focus on improving and maintaining a full range of motion of the femur within the hip socket. Performing these exercises during the healing process is essential to ensure that the femur and hip socket have a perfectly smooth interface. This will minimize the long-term effects of the disease. Use of bisphosphonate such as zoledronate or ibandronate is currently being investigated, but definite recommendations are not yet available.

Perthes disease is self-limiting, but if the head of femur is left deformed, long-term problems can occur. Treatment is aimed at minimizing damage while the disease runs its course, not at 'curing' the disease. It is recommended not to use steroids or alcohol as these reduce oxygen in the blood which is needed in the joint. As those affected age, problems in the knee and back can arise secondary to abnormal posture and stride adopted to protect the affected joint. The condition is also linked to arthritis of the hip, though this appears not to be an inevitable consequence. Hip replacements are relatively common as the already damaged hip experiences routine wear; this varies by individual, but generally is required any time after age 50.

Prognosis

Children younger than six have the best prognosis, since they have time for the dead bone to revascularize and remodel, with a good chance that the femoral head will recover and remain spherical after resolution of the disease. Children who have been diagnosed with Perthes' disease after the age of ten are at a very high risk of developing osteoarthritis and coxa magna. When an LCP disease diagnosis occurs after age eight, a better outcome results with surgery rather than nonoperative treatments. Shape of femoral head at the time when Legg-Calvé Perthes disease heals is the most important determinant of risk for degenerative arthritis; hence, the shape of femoral head and congruence of hip are most useful outcome measures.

Epidemiology
Perthes' disease is one of the most common hip disorders in young children, occurring in roughly 5.5 of 100,000 children per year. The lifetime risk of a child developing the disease is about one per 1,200 individuals. Boys are affected about three to five times more often than girls. New cases of Perthes' disease rarely occur after age 14 years (if diagnosed after 14 years of age, then it is usually old disease from early in childhood or avascular necrosis from an alternative cause). White northern Europeans appear to be affected more frequently than other ethnicities, though a paucity of reliable epidemiology exists in the Southern Hemisphere. Children of those with the disease themselves may have a very slightly increased risk, though it is unclear if this is because of a genetic predisposition, or a shared environmental factor. It is most commonly seen in persons aged three to twelve years, with a median of six years of age. The UK incidence rates show an intriguing pattern with low incidence rates in London, and a progressive increase in disease in more northerly areas (maximal in Scotland). Some evidence suggests, at least in developed countries, more socioeconomically deprived communities have a greater risk of disease (a similar trend to diseases such as adult heart disease), though the reason for this remains unknown. One possible explanation that has been considered is tobacco smoke exposure, though this is significantly confounded by the strong socioeconomic gradient common to both smoking and Perthes' disease.

History

 * 1897: The disease was first described by Karel Maydl (1853–1903).
 * 1909: Henning Waldenström (1877–1972) described the disease, attributing it to tuberculosis.
 * 1910: The disease was recognized as being unrelated to tuberculosis by three physicians working independently. Legg–Calvé–Perthes is named after these three doctors: Arthur Legg (1874–1939), Jacques Calvé (1875–1954), and Georg Perthes (1869–1927).

Research directions
In the UK in 2016, a nationwide study began collecting details of every case of Perthes' disease as part of the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance Study. This aims to get core information about the disease, prior to starting extensive clinical trials about the best forms of treatment. Every hospital in England, Scotland, and Wales which treats Perthes' disease is collecting details of new cases. This study is supported by Steps Charity Worldwide. The study is nationally approved by the UK ethics committee and NHS research approval teams in England, Scotland, and Wales. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the Alder Hey Charity.

Dogs
LCP disease is an avascular necrosis of the femoral head in small-breed dogs, usually those weighing up to 25 lbs. LCP disease was first described in veterinary literature by Tutt in 1935. Tutt described the disease as almost exactly what Waldenstromin (1909) described in humans. Small breeds, particularly Toy Poodles, Yorkshire Terriers, Pugs, Jack Russell Terriers, West Highland White Terriers, and Dachshunds can be affected. No sex predilection is seen in the dog as contrasted to humans, in whom an 80% male incidence of the disease is evident. Similar to children, however, the condition is usually unilateral, with only about 10–15% incidence of bilateral disease. The age of onset varies between 4 and 12 months, with a peak incidence around 7 months. The pathology of avascular necrosis followed by revascularization and bony remodeling of the femoral head in the dog certainly suggests a vascular etiology, though the cause of the condition is not completely understood. Hip pain is usually seen by the age of 6 to 8 months. The disease is bilateral in 12–16% of cases. X-rays are necessary to make the diagnosis and show increased opacity and focal lysis in the head of the femur, and later in the disease, collapse and fracture of the neck of the femur. The recommended treatment is surgical removal of the head of the femur, but conservative treatment (rest, exercise restriction, and pain medication) may be effective in a limited number of cases (less than 25%, according to some studies). In dogs, the prognosis is excellent with surgery. Prednisolone tablets may also be helpful.

title: Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease


text:
User talk:Haqqax~enwiki

Hi. What are the image you've recently uploaded for? (Image:Added.PNG etc) -- Tarquin

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Haqqax. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Haqqax~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Haqqax~enwiki


text:
Heavy Weather

Heavy Weather may refer to:

 * Heavy Weather (Wodehouse novel), a novel by P. G. Wodehouse
 * Heavy Weather (TV film), a 1995 adaptation of Wodehouse's novel
 * Heavy Weather (Sterling novel), a 1994 science fiction novel by Bruce Sterling
 * Heavy Weather (album), a 1977 album by Weather Report
 * "Heavy Weather" (song), a 2020 song by The Rubens
 * "Heavy Weather", a song by Diana Ross from The Force Behind the Power
 * "Heavy Weather", a song by Jarvis from Jarvis (album)

title: Heavy Weather


text:
Cruz Bustamante

Cruz Miguel Bustamante (born January 4, 1953) is an American politician. He previously served as the 45th Lieutenant Governor of California from 1999 to 2007, serving under governors Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A member of the Democratic Party, Bustamante also served in the California State Assembly and served as the Speaker from 1996 to 1998.

Early life and education
The eldest of six children, Cruz Bustamante was born in Dinuba, California. His family later moved to San Joaquin, California. He attended and graduated from Tranquillity High School in the 1970s, where he excelled in both football and wrestling, and later attended Fresno City College and California State University, Fresno. Bustamante earned his Bachelor of Arts via distance learning from California State University, Fresno in 2003.

Career
As a resident of Fresno, Bustamante was elected to the California State Assembly in a special election in 1993, and became the Speaker of the Assembly in 1996. He was elected lieutenant governor in 1998, the first Latino elected to statewide office in California in more than 120 years. He was also the highest-ranking elected Latino officeholder in the United States until Bill Richardson became governor of New Mexico in 2003.

2003 recall election
He was the most prominent Democrat to run in the 2003 California recall election to remove Governor Gray Davis, and placed second to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, losing by 17 points. (see full election results).

Bustamante had an apparently icy relationship with Governor Davis, a fellow Democrat, during his tenure. They reportedly had not talked in months before the recall election approached. Bustamante's decision to run in the recall election was controversial, as many supporters of Governor Davis had urged prominent Democrats not to run, in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the event. During the recall election, Bustamante ran on a platform slogan of "No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante," indicating he opposed the recall.

2006 insurance commissioner election
Bustamante was the Democratic nominee for California insurance commissioner in 2006. In his official candidate statement, he said "I want to become an example to others to lead healthier lives by losing weight myself. Obesity in California costs $7.7 billion a year." Bustamante claimed to have shed 43 pounds, to a weight of 235 pounds, by means of diet and exercise.

He easily won the June 6, 2006 Democratic primary, receiving 70.5% of the vote and defeating his challenger, John Kraft. Bustamante received 1,606,913 votes to 674,309 for Kraft. Many political analysts believed that Kraft, who ran a low-key campaign where he took no campaign contributions, received those votes as a protest for Bustamante's behavior during the 2003 recall election. However, Kraft planned to actively campaign for Bustamante in the general election, and donated a significant portion of his fortune as an heir to Kraft Foods to Bustamante's campaign.

Bustamante ran against Republican Steve Poizner in November. Bustamante announced that he would not be returning insurance industry contributions to his campaign, a position criticized by Poizner and campaign ethicists. Bustamante also failed to meet a deadline to submit a campaign statement to voters. According to the Field Poll, on November 3, 2006, Bustamante trailed Poizner by 9%. and lost to Poizner by 12% in the general election.

It was speculated that Bustamante would run for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 21st congressional district in 2012, but ultimately he did not run.

Personal life
With his wife Arcelia, Bustamante has three children.

title: Cruz Bustamante


text:
Subclavian artery

In human anatomy, the subclavian arteries are paired major arteries of the upper thorax, below the clavicle. They receive blood from the aortic arch. The left subclavian artery supplies blood to the left arm and the right subclavian artery supplies blood to the right arm, with some branches supplying the head and thorax. On the left side of the body, the subclavian comes directly off the aortic arch, while on the right side it arises from the relatively short brachiocephalic artery when it bifurcates into the subclavian and the right common carotid artery.

The usual branches of the subclavian on both sides of the body are the vertebral artery, the internal thoracic artery, the thyrocervical trunk, the costocervical trunk and the dorsal scapular artery, which may branch off the transverse cervical artery, which is a branch of the thyrocervical trunk. The subclavian becomes the axillary artery at the lateral border of the first rib.

Structure
From its origin, the subclavian artery travels laterally, passing between anterior and middle scalene muscles, with the anterior scalene (scalenus anterior) on its anterior side and the middle scalene (scalenus medius) on its posterior. This is in contrast to the subclavian vein, which travels anterior to the scalenus anterior. As the subclavian artery crosses the lateral border of the first rib, it becomes the axillary artery.

On the right side the subclavian artery arises from the brachiocephalic (innominate) artery behind the right sternoclavicular articulation; on the left side it springs from the arch of the aorta. The two vessels, therefore, in the first part of their course, differ in length, direction, and relation with neighboring structures. The left subclavian artery is around 9 cm long in adults, while the right subclavian artery is around 6 cm long. Both have a width of 9-12 mm.

Parts
In order to facilitate the description, each subclavian artery is divided into three parts:
 * The first part, also known as the prescalene part, extends from the origin of the vessel to the medial border of the scalenus anterior muscle.
 * The second part, also known as the scalene part, lies behind the scalenus anterior muscle.
 * The third part, also known as the postscalene part, extends from the lateral margin of the muscle to the outer border of the first rib, where it becomes the axillary artery.

The first portions of the two vessels require separate descriptions; the second and third parts of the two arteries are practically alike.

Right subclavian artery
The first part of the right subclavian artery arises from the brachiocephalic trunk, behind the upper part of the right sternoclavicular articulation. It passes upward and lateralward to the medial margin of the scalenus anterior muscle. It ascends a little above the medial part of the clavicle.

It is covered, in front, by the integument, superficial fascia, the platysma muscle, deep fascia, the clavicular origin of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, the sternohyoid muscle, and the sternothyroid muscle, and another layer of the deep fascia. It is crossed by the internal jugular vein and the vertebral vein, by the vagus nerve and the cardiac branches of the vagus and sympathetic, and by the subclavian loop of the sympathetic trunk which forms a ring around the vessel. The anterior jugular vein is directed laterally in front of the artery, but is separated from it by the sternohyoid muscle and the sternothyroid muscle. Below and behind the artery is the pleura, which separates it from the apex of the lung. Behind the artery is the sympathetic trunk, the longus colli muscle and the first thoracic vertebra (T1). The right recurrent laryngeal nerve winds around the lower and back part of the vessel.

Left subclavian artery
The first part of the left subclavian artery arises from the aortic arch, behind the left common carotid artery, and at the level of the fourth thoracic vertebra. It ascends in the superior mediastinal cavity to the root of the neck, and then arches lateralward to the medial border of the scalenus anterior muscle.

It is in relation, in front, with the vagus nerve, the cardiac nerves, and the phrenic nerves, which lie parallel with it, the left common carotid artery, left internal jugular and vertebral veins, and the commencement of the left innominate vein. It is covered by the sternothyroid muscle, the sternohyoid muscle, and the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Behind, it is in relation with the esophagus, thoracic duct, left recurrent laryngeal nerve, inferior cervical ganglion of the sympathetic trunk, and the longus colli muscle; higher up, however, the esophagus and thoracic duct lie to its right side; the latter ultimately arching over the vessel to join the angle of union between the subclavian and internal jugular veins. Medial to it are the esophagus, trachea, thoracic duct, and left recurrent laryngeal nerve. Lateral to it are the left pleura and lung.

Second part
The second portion of the subclavian artery lies behind the scalenus anterior muscle and in front of the scalenus medius muscle. It is very short, and forms the highest part of the arch described by the vessel.

In front, it is covered by the skin, the superficial fascia, the platysma muscle, the deep cervical fascia, the sternocleidomastoid muscle, and the scalenus anterior muscle. On the right side of the neck, the phrenic nerve is separated from the second part of the artery by the scalenus anterior muscle, while on the left side it crosses the first part of the artery close to the medial edge of the muscle. Behind the artery are the pleura and the scalenus medius muscle. Above the artery is the brachial plexus. Below the artery is the pleura. The subclavian vein lies below and anterior to the artery, separated from it by the scalenus anterior muscle.

Third part
The third portion of the subclavian artery runs downward and lateralward from the lateral margin of the scalenus anterior muscle to the outer border of the first rib, where it becomes the axillary artery. This is the most superficial portion of the vessel, and is contained in the subclavian triangle.

It is covered, in front, by the skin, the superficial fascia, the platysma muscle, the supraclavicular nerves, and the deep cervical fascia. The external jugular vein crosses its medial part and receives the transverse scapular, transverse cervical, and anterior jugular veins, which frequently form a plexus in front of the artery. Behind the veins, the nerve to the Subclavius descends in front of the artery. The terminal part of the artery lies behind the clavicle and the Subclavius and is crossed by the transverse scapular vessels. The subclavian vein is in front of and at a slightly lower level than the artery. Behind, it lies on the lowest trunk of the brachial plexus, which intervenes between it and the scalenus medius muscle. Above and to its lateral side are the upper trunks of the brachial plexus and the omohyoid muscle. Below, it rests on the upper surface of the first rib.

Branches
The subclavian arteries give off five major arteries each: the vertebral artery, the internal thoracic artery, the thyrocervical trunk, the costocervical trunk, and the dorsal scapular artery.

Development
Embryologically, the left subclavian simply arises from the left 7th intersegmental artery, while the right subclavian arises, proximal to distal:

 * 1)  right 4th aortic arch
 * 2)  right dorsal aorta
 * 3)  right 7th intersegmental artery

Essentially, the 4th aortic arch and dorsal aorta form the aortic arch on the left, but since the right dorsal aorta regresses distal to the right 7th intersegmental artery, on the right they form the proximal portion of the subclavian artery. Since the left subclavian is then a tributary of the left common carotid, they can be thought of as arising from the brachiocephalic trunk.

Variation
The subclavian arteries vary in their origin, their course, and the height to which they rise in the neck.

The origin of the right subclavian from the innominate takes place, in some cases, above the sternoclavicular articulation, and occasionally, but less frequently, below that joint. The artery may arise as a separate trunk from the arch of the aorta, and in such cases it may be either the first, second, third, or even the last branch derived from that vessel; in the majority, however, it is the first or last, rarely the second or third. When it is the first branch, it occupies the ordinary position of the innominate artery; when the second or third, it gains its usual position by passing behind the right carotid; and when the last branch, it arises from the left extremity of the arch, and passes obliquely toward the right side, usually behind the trachea, esophagus, and right carotid, sometimes between the esophagus and trachea, to the upper border of the first rib, whence it follows its ordinary course. In very rare instances, this vessel arises from the thoracic aorta, as low down as the fourth thoracic vertebra. Occasionally, it perforates the Scalenus anterior; more rarely it passes in front of that muscle. Sometimes the subclavian vein passes with the artery behind the Scalenus anterior. The artery may ascend as high as 4 cm. above the clavicle, or any intermediate point between this and the upper border of the bone, the right subclavian usually ascending higher than the left.

The left subclavian is occasionally joined at its origin with the left common carotid artery, forming a left brachiocephalic trunk.

The left subclavian artery is more deeply placed than the right in the first part of its course, and, as a rule, does not reach quite as high a level in the neck. The posterior border of the Sternocleidomastoideus corresponds pretty closely to the lateral border of the Scalenus anterior, so that the third portion of the artery, the part most accessible for operation, lies immediately lateral to the posterior border of the Sternocleidomastoideus.

Some authors describe the subclavian artery as arising from the 7th intersegmental artery.

Function
The subclavian arteries carry most of the blood that supplies the arms. It also supplies some blood to the neck and brain.

Clinical significance
Compression of the subclavian artery can cause thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS).

The subclavian arteries can be vulnerable to aneurysm.

Subclavian steal syndrome occurs when there is occlusion or stenosis of the subclavian artery at a point before the branching of the vertebral artery. This can cause blood to flow the wrong way through the vertebral artery into the distal subclavian artery, allowed by the reduced pressure.

The subclavian arteries are relatively superficial, and can be seen using ultrasound.

Aberrant right subclavian artery is a condition where the right subclavian artery arises on the arch of aorta distal to the left subclavian artery, instead of brachiocephalic trunk. This condition occurs in about 0.4 to 1.8% of the general population. The aberrant right subclavian artery than has to cross behind the oesophagus to reach the right side of the body. Majority of those having the condition are asymptomatic, but some may be presented with difficulty in breathing, difficulty in swallowing, grating noise during breathing, and chest pain. This condition has to be ruled out during procedures relating to oesophagus because injury to this artery during the procedure can cause massive bleeding.

title: Subclavian artery


text:
Prevention of disasters principle

In international law, the Prevention of Disasters Principle, as first elaborated in the Agenda arising from the United Nations Habitat II conference, permits states to take pre-emptive or restraining actions when a consensus of scientific opinion is that failing to do so will cause some disaster to occur. See also the Precautionary Principle.

title: Prevention of disasters principle


text:
User:Sdp

Not much to see here. I have a todo list.

Vital Stats:

 * Name: Sam D. Phillips (not Sam Phillips)
 * Hometown: Reno, Nevada (actually Washoe Valley, but Reno is close enough)
 * Location: Oakland, California
 * Occupation: System Administrator
 * Age: 46

 * Works: at a big Video Game company...

title: User:Sdp


text:
Rio Convention

Rio Convention relates to the following three conventions, which were agreed at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

At the Earth Summit, the decision-making process was tailored to promote a sustainable planet for future generations. The key message entailed the idea that changes in behaviour could be the foundation needed for progress toward the desired transformation for the environment. The resulting documentation from the two-week deliberations and meetings included the following: Agenda 21 (a non-binding action plan of the United Nations promoting sustainable development), the Statement of Forest Principles, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the following Conventions were formed:

 * 1) UNFCCC, the abbreviation of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
 * 2) CBD, the abbreviation of Convention on Biological Diversity
 * 3) UNCCD, the abbreviation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

History
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the Rio Summit, the Rio Conference, and the Earth Summit, took place in Rio de Janeiro from June 3 to 14th in 1992. The conference was unprecedented and aimed to reassess economic development to preserve natural resources and discuss the problem of pollution. The decision-making process was tailored to promote a sustainable planet for future generations. The key message entailed the idea that changes in behaviour could be the foundation needed for progress toward the desired transformation for the environment. The resulting documentation from the two-week deliberations and meetings included the following: Agenda 21 (a non-binding action plan of the United Nations promoting sustainable development), the Statement of Forest Principles, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the following Conventions were formed: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
With 196 ratified parties, the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to conserve and protect biodiversity, biological resources and safeguard life on Earth, as an integral part of economic and social development. Considering biological diversity as a global asset to current and future generations and populations across the planet, the Convention works to prevent species extinction and maintain protected habitats. As well, the CBD promotes the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and works to maintain the environmental and sustainable process of access and benefit sharing, derived from genetic resource use.

Established on December 29th, 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity works to maintain the following three objectives:

 * 1) “The conservation of biological diversity"
 * 2) "The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity"
 * 3) "The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”

The CBD currently follows the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, used as a vehicle to maintain synergies at National levels. Its mission is to “take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity to ensure that by 2020, ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication.”

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
With 197 ratified parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is committed to the objective of “[stabilizing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and previously the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the UNFCCC Secretariat works to maintain the goals and objectives of the Convention, as the primary United Nations body whose role functions to address the threat of climate change.

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) functions as an international agreement that ties the sustainability of land management and the issues of land degradation to the environment. Among the areas of consideration, the Convention focuses on restoring degraded ecosystems found in dryland areas. The UNCCD, consisting of 197 parties works towards creating “a future that avoids, minimizes, and reverses desertification/land degradation and mitigates the effects of drought in affected areas at all levels.”

Legislatively, the UNCCD is committed to achieving Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and combat pressing environmental issues of Desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD) through a newly created 2018-2030 Strategic Framework, consistent with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development This framework follows the 10-year strategic plan and framework for 2008-2018 that aimed to establish global partnerships in working toward the reversal and prevention of desertification and land degradation. The UNCCD aims to restore the productivity of degraded land, while improving livelihoods and aiding populations that are vulnerable because of environmental destruction. “The Convention’s 197 parties work together to improve the living conditions for people in drylands, to maintain and restore land and soil productivity, and to mitigate the effects of drought.”

title: Rio Convention


text:
Talk:Lumbar disc disease

note
How is Lumbar disc disease different from a "pinched nerve" and isn't sciatica, which is referred to here in passing, a seperate disease alltogether?
 * I clarified the description of the disease to show the cause of the disease. The previous description was of the effect. Epolk July 7, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lumbar disc disease