text:
Cuban Five

The Cuban Five, also known as the Miami Five, are five Cuban intelligence officers (Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, and René González) who were arrested in September 1998 and later convicted in Miami of conspiracy to commit espionage, conspiracy to commit murder, acting as an agent of a foreign government, and other illegal activities in the United States. The Five were in the United States to observe and infiltrate the Cuban-American groups Alpha 66, the F4 Commandos, the Cuban American National Foundation, and Brothers to the Rescue. They were part of La Red Avispa (lit. 'The Wasp Network') composed of at least 27 Cuban spies.

The Cuban government acknowledged that the five were intelligence agents in 2001, after denying it for three years. It said they were spying on Miami's Cuban exile community, not the U.S. government. Cuba says that the men were sent to South Florida in the wake of several terrorist bombings in Havana organized by anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, a former Central Intelligence Agency operative.

The Five appealed their convictions, and concerns about the fairness of their trial received international attention. A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned their convictions in 2005, citing the "prejudices" of Miami's anti-Castro Cubans, but the full court later denied the five's bid for a new trial and reinstated the original convictions. In June 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. In Cuba, the Five are viewed as national heroes and portrayed as having sacrificed their liberty in the defense of their country.

René González was released from prison on October 7, 2011, having completed thirteen years of his sentence, with three years of probation in the U.S. remaining. He was allowed to return to Cuba for his father's funeral on April 22, 2013, and a federal judge allowed him to stay there provided that he renounce his United States citizenship. Fernando González was released on February 27, 2014. The remaining members were released on December 17, 2014, in a prisoner swap with Cuba for an American intelligence officer, identified by a senior American as Rolando Sarraff Trujillo. The exchange of prisoners coincided with Cuba's release of American contractor Alan Phillip Gross, although the governments characterized the release of Gross as being unrelated to the prisoner exchange. Some observers saw these events as a first step in the easing of political relations between the United States and Cuba, known as the Cuban Thaw.

Background
In 1960s and 1970s, there were several attacks against Cuban civilians by U.S.-based exile groups such as Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), Alpha 66, and Omega 7. In a 2001 report by Cuba's Permanent Mission to the United Nations, the Cuban government cataloged 3,478 deaths as a result of "terrorism", "aggression", "acts of piracy and other actions". The events cited span the course of four decades and pertain to attacks such as the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 by men trained by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, and the Escambray Rebellion between the government and anti-communist rebels in the Escambray Mountains (see also Operation Mongoose). As a result, the Cuban government had long sought to combat these groups. Their efforts include the use of spies sent to operate in the U.S. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other U.S. organizations had been monitoring the activities of Cuban spy suspects for more than 30 years.

Activities
The "Cuban Five" were Cuban intelligence officers who were part of "La Red Avispa", or Wasp Network, which the FBI dismantled with 10 arrests in 1998.

The court found that they had infiltrated Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based organization that flew small aircraft over the Florida straits in efforts to rescue rafters fleeing Cuba, and had on some flights intentionally violated Cuban airspace and dropped leaflets. On February 24, 1996, two Brothers to the Rescue aircraft were shot down by Cuban military jets in international airspace while flying away from Cuban airspace, killing four U.S. citizens aboard.

The U.S. government also accused the remaining four of lying about their identities and sending 2,000 pages of unclassified information obtained from U.S. military bases to Cuba. The network received clandestine communications from Cuba via the Cuban Atención numbers station.

U.S. government organizations, including the FBI, had been monitoring Cuban spy activities for over 30 years, but made only occasional arrests. However, after the two Brothers to the Rescue aircraft were shot down by Cuban MiGs in February 1996 and four U.S. citizens were killed, on the basis of information sent to Cuba by an infiltrator of the group, the Clinton administration launched a crackdown. According to U.S. attorney José Pertierra, who acts for the Venezuelan government in its attempts to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, the crackdown was aided by the cooperation of the Cuban authorities with the FBI in 1997. The Cubans provided 175 pages of documents to FBI agents investigating Posada Carriles's role in the 1997 bombings in Havana, but the FBI failed to use the evidence to follow up on Posada. Instead, they used it to uncover the spy network that included the Cuban Five. He was not arrested until 1998.

At least two of the agents formed romantic relationships during their deployments. One married an American woman, while another proposed during a relationship that lasted at least a decade. After the agents were exposed, the spouse in the first case sued the Cuban government for rape on the basis that sexual intercourse had been procured by fraud.

Arrests, convictions and sentences
All five were arrested in Miami on September 12, 1998 and were indicted by the U.S. government on 25 counts, including charges of false identification and conspiracy to commit espionage. Seven months later, Gerardo Hernández was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shoot-down of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft.

The trial began in November 2000 in the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami and lasted seven months. In June 2001, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts, including the charge of first-degree murder against Hernández.

In December 2001, the members of the group were sentenced to prison terms: two life terms for Hernández, to be served consecutively; life for Guerrero and Labañino; 19 years for Fernando González; and 15 years for René González. In addition, the prosecution sought the post-release deportation of the three Cuban-born members, and for the two US-born members, a post-release sentence of "incapacitation", imposing specific restrictions on them after their release, which would be enforced by the FBI. The restrictions would prohibit them from "associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, and organized crime figures are known to be or frequent."

In 2011, NPR reported some of the people associated with this group were imprisoned in a Communication Management Unit, a section within a federal prison that restricts and monitors all external communications.

Appeals
After the arrests, motions by the defense for a change of venue, on the basis that Miami was a venue too associated with exile Cubans, were denied, despite the fact that the trial began just five months after the heated Elian Gonzalez affair. The jury did not include any Cuban-Americans but 16 of the 160 members of the jury pool "knew the victims of the shootdown or knew trial witnesses who had flown with them." On August 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta unanimously overturned the convictions and sentences of the Cuban Five and ordered a new trial outside Miami, saying that the Cuban exile community and the trial publicity made the trial unfavorable and prejudicial to the defendants. This was the first time a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's finding with respect to venue. However, on October 31, 2005 the Atlanta court agreed to a U.S. government request to review the decision, and in August 2006 the ruling for a new trial was reversed by a 10–2 vote of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal sitting en banc. Charles R. Wilson wrote the opinion of the majority.

On June 4, 2008, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of the "Five" but vacated and remanded for resentencing in district court the sentences of Guerrero, Labañino, and Fernando González. The court affirmed the sentences of Gerardo Hernandez and Rene Gonzalez. The court held that the sentencing judge had made six serious errors and remanded the case back to the same court. The decision was drawn up by William Pryor. In January 2009, the Five appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twelve amicus curiae briefs were filed.

In May 2009, in response to the request for Supreme Court of the United States review of the panel decision by Judge Pryor, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, on behalf of President Barack Obama, filed a brief asking that the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied. On June 15, 2009, the Supreme Court denied review.

On October 13, 2009, Antonio Guerrero's sentence was reduced to 21 years and 10 months. On December 8, 2009, Ramón Labañino and Fernando González's sentences were reduced to 30 years and to 17 years and 9 months, respectively.

Plans for appeal
Cuban Five defense lawyer Leonard Weinglass died on March 23, 2011. Following his death, civil rights lawyer Martin Garbus took over the case. On June 13, 2012, Garbus held a press conference where he revealed a new strategy based upon proof that the United States government had paid numerous reporters and press outlets to create media pressure on the jurors to convict.

International criticism of the convictions, and U.S. response
Following their conviction, there was an international campaign for the case to be appealed. In the United States, the campaign was most conspicuously represented by the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five which was represented in twenty U.S. cities and over thirty countries.

On May 27, 2005, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a report by its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stating its opinions on the facts and circumstances of the case and calling upon the U.S. government to remedy the situation. Among the report's criticisms of the trial and sentences, section 29 stated: "29. The Working Group notes that it arises from the facts and circumstances in which the trial took place and from the nature of the charges and the harsh sentences handed down to the accused that the trial did not take place in the climate of objectivity and impartiality that is required in order to conform to the standards of a fair trial as defined in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of America is a party."

Amnesty International criticized the U.S. treatment of the Cuban Five as "unnecessarily punitive and contrary both to standards for the humane treatment of prisoners and to states' obligation to protect family life", as the wives of René Gonzáles and Gerardo Hernández were denied visas to visit their imprisoned husbands.

The U.S. Government has responded to these claims, stating that the prisoners have received over a hundred visits from family members granted visas. The government contends that the wives of González and Hernández are members of the Cuban Intelligence Directorate, and thus pose a risk to the national security of the United States:

"Consistent with the right of the United States to protect itself from covert spies, the U.S. government has not granted visas to the wives of two prisoners. Evidence presented at their husbands' trial revealed that one of these women was a member of the Wasp Network who was deported for engaging in activity related to espionage and is ineligible to return to the United States. The other was a candidate for training as a Directorate of Intelligence U.S.-based spy when U.S. authorities broke up the network."

Eight international Nobel Prize winners filed an amicus brief with the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five in 2009.

In the United Kingdom, among other actions, 110 Members of Parliament wrote an open letter to the U.S. Attorney General in support of the Five.

In April 2009, a Brazilian human rights group, Torture Never Again, awarded the Five its Chico Mendes Medal, alleging that their rights had been violated, declaring that "their mail is censored and their visiting rights are very restricted."

In 2011, Brazilian writer Fernando Morais wrote The Last Soldiers of the Cold War, about the Cuban Five. The book is based on over 40 interviews and documents of the governments of United States and Cuba. Martin Garbus, the attorney representing the Cuban Five, has released a book about the case titled "North of Havana, The Untold Story of Dirty Politics, Secret Diplomacy, and the Trial of the Cuban Five".

Release
René González was put on parole for three years starting 2011. He was allowed to return to Cuba for his father's funeral on April 22, 2013, with the understanding that he would return to Florida to fulfill his three years of probation, but on May 3 a federal judge ruled that he could remain in Cuba provided that he renounce his United States citizenship.

In May 2012, it was reported that the U.S. had declined an exchange of prisoners proposed by the Cuban government, that would have seen the Cuban Five returned to Cuba in exchange for USAID contractor Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba for illegally distributing communications equipment. American officials did not consider Gross, whom they viewed as unjustly detained for a comparatively minor offense, equivalent to spies, one of whom had been convicted of murder.

Fernando González was released on February 27, 2014. He returned to Cuba and campaigned for the release of the remaining three.

As secret negotiations toward an exchange of prisoners proceeded, U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, while on a trip to visit Gross in prison, met with Adriana Pérez O'Connor, whose husband Hernández was in prison for life. She asked him to arrange a way for her to become pregnant by her husband. Leahy made her case to U.S. officials, who arranged for Hernández to provide his sperm for artificial insemination. When Pérez became pregnant, officials negotiating the prisoner exchange worried that her pregnancy would make their dealings public before they were ready to announce a deal. Leahy reported that prison conditions for Gross improved after he had assisted Pérez and Hernández.

The prisoner exchange took place in December 2014 as part of a broader agreement to move toward the normalization of Cuba–United States relations. In addition to the three remaining Cubans who were returned to Cuba, Rolando Sarraff Trujillo, a Cuban who had worked as an agent for American intelligence until his arrest in November 1995 was returned to the United States. Sarraff was described as a key figure in Cuban intelligence, a cryptologist who provided the Central Intelligence Agency with information that helped the CIA arrest Cuban spies long after Sarraff's arrest and imprisonment. The exchange of prisoners coincided with Cuba's release of American contractor Alan Phillip Gross, jailed in Cuba since December 2009, although both governments characterized the release of Gross as unrelated to the prisoner exchange.

title: Cuban Five


text:
Whatever and Ever Amen

Whatever and Ever Amen is the second album by Ben Folds Five, released in 1997. Three singles were released from the album, including the lead single, "Battle of Who Could Care Less", which received significant airplay on alternative radio and on MTV, and peaked at number 26 on the UK Singles Chart and number 22 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart, and the band's biggest hit, "Brick", which was a top-40 song in numerous countries.

A remaster was made available on March 22, 2005. All of the extra tracks had been previously released (as b-sides, soundtrack contributions, etc.) except for a cover of the Buggles song "Video Killed the Radio Star", which is a staple of Ben Folds Five's live show.

Title
While recording the album, Folds told the Sheffield Electronic Press in November 1996 that the album would likely either be titled Cigarette or The Little Girl With Teeth. The title Whatever and Ever Amen comes from a line in the song "Battle of Who Could Care Less".

Cover
The album's original cover featured individual photos of Folds, Sledge, and Jessee, along with a hand-drawn Ben Folds Five logo, and a hand-drawn "Whatever and Ever Amen." The cover of the 2005 remastered version moved the album's title from the top left corner to the center and added a fourth photo of all three bandmates sitting together.

Recording
The album was recorded in the front room of a house in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Folds said, "You can't go for perfection in a house. The spiritual comet of the song comes by every so often and lots of technical things are going to be going wrong when that happens. Our producer, Caleb is very good at knowing when the ghost blew through the house. People don't buy records for the accuracy." The first release for their new label, Epic, Folds said the record company did not get to hear the recording until it was finished, saying, "they knew what they were getting into."

Track notes
Near the end of the Nerdist podcast #132, Folds mentioned that the lyrics for "Cigarette" were taken from a newspaper article he claimed was about a man, Fred Jones, who "felt conflicted" after finding his wife had a changed personality due to a brain tumor, on the basis that she was not the same person he had married. (The article, from a 1991 edition of The Tennessean, is actually about the implanted epidural catheter procedure that brought Jones and his wife renewed peace after her years of pain.) The "sequel" track, "Fred Jones Part Two", is on Folds' first solo album, Rockin' the Suburbs.

The track "Steven's Last Night in Town" was written about Ben Folds' friend Stephen Short, a Grammy-Award-winning record producer and manager.

An early mix of "Song for the Dumped" appeared on the soundtrack album for the movie Mr. Wrong, but the song did not actually appear in the movie. The soundtrack was released on February 6, 1996, a full year before the release of "Whatever and Ever Amen".

Hidden tracks
The first pressing of Whatever and Ever Amen features a clip of an actual argument in the studio between Folds, Sledge and Jessee, inserted between "Brick" and "Song for the Dumped". Speaking to The Shrubbery in 1999, Folds said that the clip "was a painfully documented real argument that kept bringing up bad feelings. We decided to get rid of it and let the first pressings be collectors ... Better to keep the band together. It was ugly."

The first pressing featured another hidden track, on the album's last track, "Evaporated", and in the negative space of track 1 on the Digitally Remastered version. The clip is at a live concert, where band roadie Leo Overtoom yells out, "I've got your hidden track right here: Ben Folds is a fuckin' asshole!" A short video clip of this is featured in the video "A Video Portrait" released alongside the album.

Legacy
Nick Hornby writes one of his essays in the book 31 Songs about "Smoke".

The band

 * Ben Folds – piano, lead vocals, electric piano, melodica
 * Darren Jessee – drums, percussion, backing vocals
 * Robert Sledge – bass guitar, double bass, backing vocals

Additional musicians

 * John Catchings – cello on 5 and 12
 * Alicia Svigals – violin on 9
 * Matt Darriau – clarinet on 9
 * Frank London – trumpet on 9
 * Caleb Southern – Hammond organ on 3
 * Norwood Cheek – synthesizer space sound on 1

Production

 * Caleb Southern – producer, engineer
 * Ben Folds – producer, engineer
 * Andy Wallace – mixing
 * Steve Sisco – mixing assistant
 * Howie Weinberg – mastering
 * John Mark Painter – string arrangements
 * Leigh Smiler – cover design
 * Chris Stamey – Pro-Tools
 * The Klezmatics – special contributor

Certifications
} } } }

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

title: Whatever and Ever Amen


text:
Talk:Tabloid (newspaper format)

Proposed split
I would like to propose splitting this article into two. One for the physical format and another for the style of journalism. Perhaps the format article could be about the various formats/paper sizes as a group rather than only about the tabloid size. Disambiguate if neccessary. Roger (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point since it appears that in recent years, at least in Europe, even the more serious newspapers have started using the tabloid format because readers think that the broadsheet format is more clumsy and difficult to handle, if you understand what I mean. In Sweden I don't think there's a singe broadsheet newspaper left. The traditional broadsheet newspapers all switched to the tabloid format, without changing the style of journalism. These days, claiming that all newspapers using the tabloid format are also using "tabloid journalism" is clearly wrong. Jiiimbooh (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Split declined. The relationship between the size and the journalism is better dealt with in context in the same article rather than requiring a reader to look at two separate articles which would of necessity have to duplicate most of the material. If the section on tabloid journalism grows it would then be appropriate to split it out into a standalone article per WP:Summary style.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with the proposers that a split is called for. The issue of a newspaper format and a style of journalism are distinct, despite the overlaps. There are many fine tabloid papers in in the US and Europe which do not engage in "tabloid journalism", and that style is not limited to newspapers which use that format, or even just to newspapers. See Tabloid television, which would be a good merge candidate to Tabloid journalism.   Will Beback    talk    00:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and made the split. The issues of format and journalistic style are separate, though intertwined. One thing that the split highlights is that the material on tabloid journalism had barely any sources, despite it's importance.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge for 'Red Tops'
I'd suggest not - the connotations of 'tabloid' have had to shift since more 'quality press' have re-sized, so 'redtop' is a useful separator/distinguisher and belongs no more under 'tabloid' than it does 'newspapers' in general.

212.42.189.185 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that the terms "red top" and "tabloid" need to be distinguished, but there is not enough information at Red top to warrant a separate article rather than a few paragraphs here. As such, I agree with the merge proposal. -- Smjg (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge Tabloid and Tabloid journalism
Tabloid journalism is essentially a definition and description of a form of journalism connected with Tabloid newspapers. In talking about one, you have to talk about the other. There may come a time when the two articles can be split, but not at the moment. Tabloid journalism is unsourced and relies on assertion and original research, and has to refer back to the Tabloid article. The bulk of the material currently in Tabloid journalism belongs in Tabloid, such as the Supermarket tabloid section, the Red top section, and the brief History section. The rest is a description of the sort of journalism found in tabloids, and such a description is useful in Tabloid.  SilkTork  *Tea time 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's unsourced, sofixit. This article should be a dab really. The format is far less notable than the genre, worldwide. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose Tabloid is a disambiguation page and should remain so. There are six articles currently in the disambiguation link list and only half of them are related to newspapers and journalism, the others are a tv series, a documentary film and an aircraft. Tabloid journalism is clearly distinct from the paper size or the newspaper format. Not all "gutter press" publications are printed on the specific size of paper and not all tabloid format newspapers contain gutter press reportage. It took quite a lot of work to separate out the different concepts in the first place - just take a look further up this talk page. This proposal would simply undo all that work and result in a mixed up article that is unclear about what its exact subject is. Roger (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Tabloid has over 2,500 incoming links, which is five times as many as any other disambiguation page. (Source: Toolserver.)  Disambiguating these references will be challenging and carries a risk of accidentally accusing a tabloid-sized but reputable newspaper of tabloid journalism. Certes (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now down to about 20; well done! Certes (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite sharing the world "Tabloid" in their titles the two articles are about very distinctly different concepts. MikeWigg (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are distinct topics.   Will Beback    talk    02:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

" the Daily Mail boasts a mostly bigoted female readership"
Is that so? What a strange fact to be proud of! Or is it that the two alliterating words 'boast' and 'bigoted' do not really go well together? --Marschner (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Crop
The bottom shelf of the image at the beginning of the article shows Berliner sized newspapers like the guardian, i think the image should be cropped.--In Allah We Trust (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Early U.S. tabloid format daily newspapers.
"In the United States, daily tabloids date back to the founding of the New York Daily News in 1919, followed by the New York Daily Mirror and the New York Evening Graphic in the 1920s."

Both the Boston Daily Advertiser (1921) and the Illustrated Daily News (Los Angeles, 1923) were in tabloid format before the New York Daily Mirror (1924) or the New York Evening Graphic (1924) were published. Pikabruce (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tabloid (newspaper format). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327201505/http://www.bcnewsgroup.com/BlackPress/advertising/ratecards/2007_Island_Retail.pdf to http://www.bcnewsgroup.com/BlackPress/advertising/ratecards/2007_Island_Retail.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324123820/http://www.twindx.com/uploaded/Daily%20Express.jpg to http://www.twindx.com/uploaded/Daily%20Express.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

style of journalist
In line 3 (including the header) it says: "This article is about the printing format. For the style of journalist, see Tabloid journalism." Shouldn't it rather be "style of journalism"? Steue (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Massive fork of tabloid journalism article
Is there any reason to retain the material about what gets printed on tabloid format paper? It means most of this article as it stands will be deleted. But to let it stand is a serious WP:FORK violation.

Unless someone can present a convincing case within the next week or so for having two articles saying essentially the same thing, I will prune very heavily. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What I had in mind was the sober style used by the Berliner (format) article but have concluded that it is too messy to disentangle. Anyone else fancy their chances? I think it has to be someone with industry experience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tabloid (newspaper format)


text:
Andrew Niccol

Andrew Niccol (born 10 June 1964) is a New Zealand screenwriter, producer, and director. He wrote and directed Gattaca (1997), Simone (2002), Lord of War (2005), In Time (2011), The Host (2013), and Good Kill (2014). He wrote and co-produced The Truman Show, which earned him a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and won him the BAFTA Award in the same category. His high-concept science fiction films tend to explore social, cultural and political issues; artificial realities, simulations and the male gaze are frequent themes in his work.

His film Good Kill was selected to compete for the Golden Lion at the 71st Venice International Film Festival.

Early and personal life
Niccol was born in Paraparaumu, New Zealand, and grew up in Auckland, where he attended Auckland Grammar School beginning in 1973. He left New Zealand at age 21 and began directing TV ads in London, which he did for more than ten years before his directorial debut, Gattaca (1997). During production of Simone, he met model and actress Rachel Roberts, with whom he has two children, Jack, born in 2003 (who also played "Young Nicolai" in the 2005 film Lord of War) and Ava, born in 2008.

Directing
Niccol has directed the films Gattaca (1997), Simone (2002), Lord of War (2005), In Time (2011), The Host (2013), and Good Kill (2014) (reuniting after 17 years with actor Ethan Hawke in a lead role; Hawke also appeared in Lord of War as a supporting character named Jack Valentine). He has also directed a short film entitled The Minutes (2012), which is a documentary-esque, narrative tie-in to In Time that describes in more detail the world and characters from the film.

For his directorial debut and first film (which he also wrote), Gattaca (1997), he won a Best Film award from the Sitges - Catalan International Film Festival and both a Special Jury Prize and the Fun Trophy from the Gérardmer Film Festival.

For his film Lord of War (2005), he received a Special Recognition for Excellence in Filmmaking from the National Board of Review.

In June 2021, Niccol was named as the director and writer of a film based on the Christchurch mosque shootings called They Are Us. The filmmakers' choice to focus on Ardern's response rather than the victims generated criticism within New Zealand. In response to public backlash, Niccols confirmed that the film's development had been put on hold until a full consultation with the New Zealand Muslim community had been conducted.

Writing and producing
Niccol's breakthrough screenplay was his script for the film The Truman Show (1998), directed by Peter Weir and starring Jim Carrey. He also served as a producer on the film. The film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay (Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen) and a Golden Globes nomination for Best Screenplay in 1999 and won a BAFTA award for Best Screenplay, a Saturn Award for Best Writing or Best Writer, an Awards Circuit Community Award for Best Original Screenplay and Best Motion Picture, a Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation (shared with Peter Weir), and an Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Original Screenplay. He has written all the films he has directed and produced several of them.

In 1999, Niccol received the ALFS Award for "Screenwriter of the Year" from the London Critics Circle Film Awards for his screenwriting work on the screenplays of The Truman Show (1998) and Gattaca (1997).

Niccol co-wrote the story for The Terminal, directed by Steven Spielberg. He also served as an executive producer on the film.

title: Andrew Niccol


text: Template:Provinces of the Netherlands

title: Template:Provinces of the Netherlands


text:
Identification key

In biology, an identification key, taxonomic key, or biological key is a printed or computer-aided device that aids the identification of biological entities, such as plants, animals, fossils, microorganisms, and pollen grains. Identification keys are also used in many other scientific and technical fields to identify various kinds of entities, such as diseases, soil types, minerals, or archaeological and anthropological artifacts.

Traditionally identification keys have most commonly taken the form of single-access keys. These work by offering a fixed sequence of identification steps, each with multiple alternatives, the choice of which determines the next step. If each step has only two alternatives, the key is said to be dichotomous, else it is polytomous. Modern multi-access or interactive keys allow the user to freely choose the identification steps and their order.

At each step, the user must answer a question about one or more features (characters) of the entity to be identified. For example, a step in a botanical key may ask about the color of flowers, or the disposition of the leaves along the stems. A key for insect identification may ask about the number of bristles on the rear leg.

Principles of good key design
Identification errors may have serious consequences in both pure and applied disciplines, including ecology, medical diagnosis, pest control, forensics, etc. Therefore, identification keys must be constructed with great care in order to minimize the incidence of such errors.

Whenever possible, the character used at each identification step should be diagnostic; that is, each alternative should be common to all members of a group of entities, and unique to that group. It should also be differential, meaning that the alternatives should separate the corresponding subgroups from each other. However, characters which are neither differential nor diagnostic may be included to increase comprehension (especially characters that are common to the group, but not unique).

Whenever possible, redundant characters should be used at each step. For example, if a group is to be split into two subgroups, one characterized by six black spots and the other by four brown stripes, the user should be queried about all three characters (number, shape, and color of the markings) — even though any single one of them would be sufficient in theory. This redundancy improves the reliability of identification, provides a consistency check against user errors, and allows the user to proceed even if some of the characters could not be observed. In this case, the characters should be ordered according to their reliability and convenience. Further error tolerance can be achieved by using reticulation.

The terminology used in the identification steps should be consistent in meaning and should be uniformly used. The use of alternative terms for the same concept to achieve more "lively prose" should be avoided. Positive statements should be used in preference to negative statements. The wording of the alternatives should be completely parallel sentences; alternatives like "flowers red, size 10-40 cm" versus "flowers yellow" should be avoided.

Geographic distribution characters should be used with caution. Species that have not been observed in a region may still occasionally occur there. Also, the organism may have been transported, particularly to locations near ports and airports, or it may have changed its range (e. g., due to global warming). For Europe and, probably, North Africa a Palaearctic key is advisable.

Rarity is not a viable character. An identification may be correct even though a species is very rare.

Common problems in key usage
Key users must overcome many practical problems, such as:
 * Variant forms: The key may identify only some forms of the species, such as adult males (or, more rarely, females). Keys for larvae identification may consider only the final instar. (This is not the case, however, of keys used in forensic identification of fly larvae.)
 * Incomplete coverage: Species and groups that are difficult to identify or that have been poorly characterized may have been left out of the key, or may be mentioned only in introductory text.
 * Lighting and magnification: Very few keys give details of how the specimen was viewed (the magnification, lighting system, angle of view etc.). This can cause problems. The author may, for instance refer to tiny bristles, hairs or chaetae—but how tiny?
 * Language: Very few keys are multilingual. Translations of a key may be incorrect or misleading. Many keys contain vague words that do not translate..
 * Obsolescence: Older keys may not include more recently described species. They may also use outdated species names, which must then be mapped to the current ones.

Verification
The identification obtained from a key should be viewed as only a suggestion of the species's real identity. Full identification requires comparison of the specimen with some authoritative source, such as a full and accurate description of the species, preferably in a monograph. Many keys contain brief descriptions to allow more certain identification, but these should not be assumed sufficient for verification.

Comparison with a monographic description is often difficult in practice, as many monographs are expensive, out of print, written in foreign languages, or hard to obtain. Monographs are often several decades old, so that often the species names used in the key do not match those used in the monograph.

Another alternative is comparison with authoritatively identified specimens in natural history museums or other relevant repositories. Authoritatively identified images are becoming more common on the internet. To qualify, the image must be labeled with a voucher specimen number, the name of the scientist who identified the photographed specimen, and the name of the public institution where the specimen is housed (so that interested parties can re-examine the specimen themselves).

title: Identification key


text:
Talk:Hand grenade

Dirty tricks
I removed the Dirty tricks section, seen below. I don't see the point of having this section. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to be in the business of providing how-to's on explosive booby-traps. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 04:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well-prepared soldiers carry a roll of duct tape to repair equipment. With practice with dummy grenades, it is fairly easy to learn to construct simple booby traps from duct tape and a grenade.

Such an example of a booby trap is to trap a door frame. Place the grenade about half an arm-length above one's head (most people do not look up; they watch their feet or their hands). When the door is opened, the booby trap should release the grenade's handle. The grenade should stay in place up high, so that it cannot be kicked away.

Booby traps are also used on vehicle gas tanks, and in doing so, are triggered when the vehicle drives away.

I disagre I really dont see any conection between booby trapsa nd hand grenads

I disagree. Anybody with a grenade will not need Wikipedia, while many of those researching grenades may be doing so for purposes of writing literature, fiction, etc where this is useful information. I vote for it being kept, but perhaps leading to an off-site reference rather than going into too many details. --82.35.147.90 10:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I do see your point, but on the other hand, most people doing this won't be looking it up in Wikipedia, most people who read it in Wikipedia won't want to run out and try it, and very few will probably be able to because you can't exactly just walk down to the store and buy a grenade -- in regions you can, I wouldn't exactly consider myself safe! --Furrykef 08:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Move
In addition, perhaps this should be moved to "hand grenade"? It only discusses grenades operated by the hand, but what about grenade launchers and rocket propelled grenades? Clearly these are not hand grenades if not operated by the hand, but many of the principles apply. (I'll correct the article's incorrect implicit assertion that all grenades are hand-operated now.) --Furrykef 08:48, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Since no one opposed User:Furrykef, I moved the article. This article doesn't mention anything about any other grenades than those that are thrown. I fixed almost all double-redirects but those that actually need to link to "grenade" instead of "hand grenade". I could also fix other articles that link to grenade when they actually mean hand grenades. We need a separate grenade article. For now it can just redirect to hand grenade. --ZeroOne 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that this could work well if you did an article about tripwires and other military traps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.149.3 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

safety feature
I remember reading something about some modern hand grenades having microcontroller/accelerometer controlled detonators, designed so they don't go off if you simply drop them at your feet (think in terms of measuring the duration of zero-g motion). Can anyone confirm/deny this? -- The Anome 09:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Not in hand grenades but (some) rifle grandes etc..., yes. Its so you dont do somrthing dumb like fire your underbarrell grenade launcher at point blank range. On the M79 for example, it needs to travel a certain distance to arm itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

High explosive grenades
Under which category would high explosive (offensive) grenades, like the British No. 69 fit? Oberiko 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I reckon that it belongs alongside the Mills bomb, Steilhandgranate, and the like. The problem is that 'fragmentation' is too restrictive, it ought to be renamed anti personnel grenades. Presumabley the flying bakelite did cause some injuries on top of the blast. Go on! You make the change. GraemeLeggett 16:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smoke grenades
Whoever keeps removing what I put up about where to buy smokes grenades needs to STOP. I don't see what is wrong with providing where to buy them. They are great for paintball. No matter how many times you remove it I will continue to post it. From: The angry Mr. Smokey

 * YOU need to stop putting that in.
 * 1)because its against the no-advertising policy of wikipedia.
 * 2) It's only useful to a small number of people - those who want to buy smoke grenades AND live in that geographical area. GraemeLeggett 16:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP toxicity
I qualified the statment slightly The quoted toxicity values for ingestion are between 1 and 16 mg per kilo body weight: 70 mg to 1120 mg for a medium adult.

Offensive/Defensive
"The hand sized Mills bomb with a cast iron casing is an example of a defensive grenade, the Stielhandgrenate with a tinplate canister around the explosive and a handle is a classic example of the latter."

This sentence should be two sentences (no comma). Also, is the Stiel really a defensive grenade?

Timeing mechanisms
Didn't early HGs use an acid timing mechanism? Rich Farmbrough 14:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some british antitank/incindary ones in WW2 did, you had to break a glass bulb to release the acid and strat the reaction (kind of like a glowstick)86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Throwing the pin
From the article: "A common mistake is grasping the grenade in the weak hand, pulling the pin and then throwing the pin." Now, I'm not in the military, but this doesn't really strike me as a particularly common mistake to make. --193.11.222.179 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the same thing and came here to check if it had been discussed. It's got to be hooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact strikes me as the sort of mistake one makes only once......Rodney420 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate?
As a US Soldier two things about this article struck me as off, but perhaps still correct:

(1) "US and other NATO soldiers (with the exception of the US Marines) are trained not to "burn off" or "cook off" grenades..."

I went threw basic training at Ft. Knox in 2000 and did train on cooking off grenades. Perhaps that isn't what they were suppose to train me in, but in my 6-year military career (including a deployment to Iraq) I have never been told not to cook-off my grenades.

(2) All US soldiers going through Basic Combat Training (BCT) for the US Army must throw a live grenade. So the caption on the picture of the soldier throwing a grenade that says throwing a dummy grenade is a part of Basic Training is misleading (though that might be what the soldier pictured is in fact doing).

Same. In the UK armed forces you use them in training (but only one or two, mainly its dummies) and you are told how to cook off, although you are advised not to use it unless you need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NO! You do not wait
R. Lee Ermy (Hoped I spelled that right) is the marine sergeant famous for calling people Maggot and operating a show called "Mail Call" In one episode he explained better then I this fallacy.

In modern training a soldier DOES NOT hold onto a grenade after the pin is pulled. The reason for this is that grenades are mass produced and such are subject to flaws. While a grenade may be intended to go off in 5-7 seconds this does not always happen.

Ermy demonstrated this with a grenade instructor. The Instructor used dummy grenades which only ignited smoke. He threw five grenades, three exploded on time. One exploded late, the last exploded after two seconds. Had a soldier been holding onto this grenade and counting down he and anyone near him would have died had it been the real thing. A soldier who does not want a grenade thrown back throws the grenade so that it will bounce off of something, or roll around making it difficult for the enemy to grab it. Holding onto a grenade and counting down is a sure way to die.

 * This is a hundred percent wrong. The technique is called "cooking off," and it is taught, practiced, and used. Jrkarp 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah where did you get your information from? And for that matter how many grenades have you cooked off? And if you were military how long ago? And for that matter what is this bit in the article about holding the handle while cooking off, the thing doesn't arm until the spoon is released. If you are intentionally trying to shave time before you throw the weapon holding the spoon contradicts the whole process.

And for you personally Mister Karp I noticed your little comment. Just because I used a quotation from "Mail Call" does not mean I am citing him as my singular source of information. It is called quoting somebody. You see in our culture we often quote people who do an articulate job of describing or explaining something in order to convey a point.

 * Don't take things so personally. Geez.  Plus, sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ); it puts your username and date of edit after the post.  Now, onto your points:

 * I got my information from personal knowledge and experience, plus United States Army Field Manual FM 3-23.30, Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/index.html. See chapter 3, section 3.5 (Close Combat).

 * I am not going to publicly discuss my military experience; if I wanted to it would be on my user profile along with the note about being a lawyer.

 * I did not add the part about holding the handle while cooking off. I'm going to do a rewrite of parts of this article, and that part will be changed.

 * I know why you used a quotation from "Mail Call," but you added information to the main page of this article, and your only justification for it was having seen the episode of Mail Call. See Cite_sources.

 * I most definitly know what it means to quote someone, but you have to provide a reference, like an episode number or at least an air date, so it is verifiable.

 * If you want to disagree with U.S. Army publications and insist your point is right, we can post a RFC and ask others to weigh in. However, I think that a U.S. Army Field Manual is pretty dispositive on this point. Jrkarp 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, if you are going to complain that the globalsecurity.org version is outdated, I found the 2005 revision of that FM in PDF format, but for some reason TRADOC documents can now only be accessed by people with an AKO account. However, Google's "View as HTML" function works for some reason and a cached HTML version can be read here (as of today anyway): http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:DIF-a652qTgJ:atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/8392-1/fm/3-23.30/fm3_23x30.pdf.  The section about cooking off is unchanged from the earlier revision.  If I can find a PDF version of the 2005 revision, I will post a link. Jrkarp 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I found a download that does not require a password: https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/10881-1/fm/3-23.30/fm3_23x30.pdf. These documents are not secret and have always been publicly available, so I have no idea why some of the Army sites require a login to access them. Jrkarp 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe its just us guys in Air Force Secuirty who teach not to cook off, either way I'll accept the article as it is now. As I recall I did not add the Mail Call information to the article directly but kept it in the talk page, if I did add it to the article itself it was unintentional. Klauth 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That may be true. You guys don't generally have to deal with MOUT, bunker assaults, or the like.

 * The material you did add paralleled the Mail Call information, so you can see why I thought that was where you got it from. In any case, I am glad that we worked this out.

 * BTW, FM 3-23.30 does say that grenades are only to be cooked off in actual combat, so maybe that is part of where Ermy got it from. Maybe the Marines "officially" discourage the practice. In any case, I personally would not want to throw a frag into a room full of OPFOR without cooking it off a second or two. Jrkarp 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Same. British army soldiers are discouraged from cooking off unless absolutely nececerrary in actual combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Hand Grenades?
I think the history can be expanded to include grenades from ancient times in asia...

Initial picture wrong
Gents, your initial picture of what you call "A WWII-era MkIIA1 "pineapple" fragmentation hand grenade" is actually a commercial reproduction of an M21 practice grenade body using an M228 practice grenade fuze (that is normally used with the M69 practice grenade). Just letting you know that I will be changing the picture to one that actually shows what you describe. --Eodtek 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Percussion? Grenades
No such thing. A grenade which detonates or activates on impact is referred to as, "impact fused". "percussion", in ordnance terminology, refers to a technique of activating a weapon system by impact of a striker or firing pin on a percussion cap. While some impact fusing methods use percussion systems, the Russian RGO/RGD for example, they are still simply impact fused grenades. In normal discussion, they're simply referred to as, "impact grenades."

Propaganda Grenades?
I read in an older book and another source that the German forces during the Second World War actually produced hand and rifle grenades containing propaganda leaflets. I can't imagine them being even vaguely effective, but wonder if something could or should be added to this wiki article.
 * They indeed did exist. I'll add some info. shortly.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sting Grenade
What is the level of risk of damage to the target individual? I would think such a device could put out an eye at the very least, and perhaps do serious soft-tissue damage. This could be lethal if the soft tissue in question were the throat. Anyone have any information on this?

Septegram 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They all have a risk. Nasty burns can be caused by the stun grenades the SAS used. In the iranian embassy siege they set the place on fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incendiary Grenades
The passage "Thermate and white phosphorus" was changed to "Thermite and white phosphorous." However, elsewhere in the article we do see references to thermate. (all italics mine) Which is correct in this context? Septegram 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TherMITE is what its called here in the UK armed forces. Dont know about in the US english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah its TherMITe here in the UK 86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

MILES Grenades
An example of a MILES (laser light stimulation) grenade, developed by Sandia labs for the US Gov't, is found here:. These grenades can be used in MILES training (training using blanks and laser light) Raylopez99 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment
Easily a B-class. I don't know if this is quite ready for GA or A-class nomination, but within my personal conception of the assessment system, it's at the top edge of B-class. Length and depth is great - you've discussed not only the basic grenade, but its history, the etymology of the word, and a good number of the most common types of grenades. Plus there's tons of pictures. Thank you for mentioning the Chinese origins and pre-modern history of the grenade concept. Far too many articles on modern militaries skip that part entirely. Good work. LordAmeth 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Flashbang - 180 dB?
Is this correct? (I've been close to more than one flash powder detonation in my time, and the noise is truly mind-buggering). However, according to the Acoustic Weapons Page, anything over 160 dB, even at short exposure, can cause eardrum rupture and permanent hearing loss. (120 dB is the pain threshold). Can someone fact-check this?

 * Sound level depends on distance, and there's no standard measuring distance. A flashbang might measure 180 dB at six inches, but 160 dB at ten feet. --Carnildo 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

flashbangs CAN cause permanent hearing loss and/or eardrum rupture. They are nasty wee things, and can also cause fires.

Safety handle incorrectly called a spoon?
Under the heading "Characteristics" and the subheading "Using grenades," the article describes the safety handle as "sometimes incorrectly called a 'spoon.'" But I think this term is popular enough among actual members of the armed forces that it should be considered a nickname, not a mistake. It’s not like they don’t know the proper name, they just choose to call it a spoon.

yeah its a spoon to most soldiers

Yeah its a called both here in the UK 86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality?
are they legal in the US?
 * Well, obviously if you're walking around downtown wearing a belt of frag grenades you're bound to raise some sort of suspicion, and I can't think of any scenarios where actually discharging one would be justified (impractical for hunting, too dangerous for self-defense), so my guess would be no. It's a hard subject to track down... Phort99 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're as legal as any other explosive weapon or ammunition round is in the United States - They're classified as a "Destructive Device" under Federal law, and you have to have either a Destructive Devices manufacturers, importers, or dealers Federal Firearms License, or BATF item-by-item approval, and a $200 transfer tax payment per item you purchase as an individual. There is no blanket prohibition (the Military buys its materiel from manfacturers licensed under these laws, and there are legal arms import/export dealers, and others who have permits for them).  Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Timer
My friend claimed that grenades are not timed. He says this because he saw a video of a man holding a few people hostage with a grenade. The man pulled the pin and the grenade did not explode for the duration of the entire video. I thought it was possible to prevent the fuse from lighting by holding a safety switch down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.66.82 (talk • contribs)

 * The timer starts once the lever is released. It's so that you don't have to pull the pin and throw immediately (among other things). — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not entirely there are granades that detonate on impact.--Tresckow 23:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flashbang image
Anyone like the images or ? The first is a model from the game America's Army, so it's PD-Government, I think. The second is a replica M84, probably copyrighted. — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars
In the "History" section, I find it odd that it skips from "ineffective" grenades in the English Civil War to the American Civil War two centuries later; in between, grenades were obviously used and improved as well. Reading through Tolstoy's War and Peace, I find that grenades are often mentionned; not only that, but, obviously, there are soldiers reffered to as "grenadiers". So it seems to me that, perhaps, there would be something worth mentionning with regards to eighteenth and early nineteenth century usage as well, no?70.81.243.107 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They were used extensively in war(s) between the english and the french, and also had a major role in naval ship boarding.86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * They were used extensively in formal siege warfare in the final stage of the assault on the covered way and defense of the ramparts. I have some references -including on to a stock of 36,000 grenades in store at one fortress- which I can hopefully addBenvenuto (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 * This fault is still there in the article, skipping two hundred years of history that included the development of grenadiers as specialist elite assault troops around the War of the Spanish Succession. "When e'er we are commanded To storm the palisades Our leaders march with fusees And we with hand-grenades..." Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image:Schema Grenade-en.svg
Hello everybody, and sorry for my bad english. It is right to warn you that I have just made this diagram, and I made an english version version. Here!

Cordially

83.203.246.253 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Waklé

That Chinese picture
No disrespect to the Chinese who almost certainly invented gun powder, but am I the only one who is sceptical about that picture of a "hand grenade"? It looks to me like a demon carrying a flaming orb.--MacRusgail 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pulling out the pin with your teeth!
Hi guys, great article!

I heard somewhere that you need 5lbs of pressure to pull out a grenade pin (I have no way of verifying this, in fact I think my crusty old dad said it to me, and I have not idea what 5lbs of pressure equates to) and therefore it can't be done with your teeth.

Do we think this should be mentioned in the article somewhere, as most people seem to believe that it can be done. I've had a bit of trouble finding good sources but I have these;

 * 4th paragraph
 * just above where it says "Technical Note"
 * 4th picture
 * 8th paragraph (in brackets)

Let me know what you think guys.

Also I know one of the presenters tried it and couldn't do it on Mythbusters Episode 81 - Grenades and Guts (Hand Grenade Hero). Ryan4314 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If your teeth can't stand five pounds of lateral force, you need to see a dentist. Key point is that you don't grip it between your incisors, you grip it between your molars. --Carnildo (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn't think it was possible, I just can't find a decent source. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Much as I love Mythbusters, that Adam couldn't pull a pin out of a modern grenade doesn't mean it couldn't be done with WWII American grenades, or foreign grenades, or antique grenades, or by someone who was really desperate. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It cant be done because the majority of troops bend the pin at the side away from the pullring as a safety feature - means it needs much more forse to pull the pin out (got to pull with enough force to deform the pin back to normal) its handy as you can do it with a hand but not if its caught on something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks, Anyone pulling the pin from a WW2 Pineapple grenade with their teeth -- ie even in desperation -- is going to be minus teeth and the pin will still be in the grenade.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

American Civil War and "Vasic"
I introduced the paragraph about grenade use in American Civil War and revised the text about "Vasic" granade, written in poor English (although the mine is also not perfect). The possible Serbian participation in the plot was subject of POV Dispute in the article on Assassination in Sarajevo, so I found better to drop "false accussation" and use "alleged participation".201.53.214.97 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stun grenade nomenclature
The paragraph on stun grenades opens with this bit: "Invented by the SAS in the 60's, the term stun grenade, while in widespread use in games and the media, is actually a misnomer; the typical 'flashbang' (or 'bang') deployed by a civilian law enforcement tactical team in the US is technically not a grenade. There are numerous mechanical and end-use differences between an NFDD (noise flash diversionary device) and a stun grenade (or in fact a grenade of any type). Most professional organizations dealing in SWAT/police special operations take great pains to teach their officers to differentiate between an NFDD and a true grenade. This is largely due to frequently spurious lawsuits but also admittedly to avoid the negative connotation of the term 'grenade'." But according to the "Characteristics" paragraph: Hand grenades have four characteristics: Their employment range is short Their effective casualty radius is small Their delay element permits safe throwing; Their hard shell enables grenades to ricochet off hard surfaces, like walls, before detonating. So even according to the article itself, the term 'stun grenade' is not a misnomer at all (to me, not calling it a grenade just seems like classic doublespeak - presumably for the reasons outlined in the second half of the first quote). I'm slapping a "citation needed" on this. Kolbasz (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The characteristics above are descriptive rather than defining... Also, the US Military grenades manual does in fact define stun grenades as grenades: :
 * 1-10. STUN HAND GRENADES
 * Stun hand grenades are used as diversionary or distraction devices during building and room clearing operations when the presence of noncombatants is likely or expected and the assaulting element is attempting to achieve surprise. The following is a description of the M84 diversionary/flash-bang stun hand grenade and its components (Figure 1-13).
 * So... I think we can probably dispose of that section safely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * What's missing in the article is that a grenade is defined in relation to other ordnance. It's not just something you can point at and say "Oh, that's a grenade." The comparative questions are those such as: Is shot from a gun barrel? Is it dropped from a plane? Is it placed by hand, or thrown? Or fired? Does it explode on contact, or after a period of time? (I.e., is it a bullet, or a bomb, or a mine, or a mortar, or...what?)
 * The four quoted points above have several problems, some related to the "modern-centric" view of grenades. But also, the wording is too specific in some ways, but too inexact in others. E.g.,, what is a "short" range? Why should being able to ricochet be an essential feature? Piano non troppo (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * "Is shot from a gun barrel? Is it dropped from a plane? Is it placed by hand, or thrown? Or fired?". You guys are thinking that all grenades are hand grenades. they are not. Some grenades are contact or time, or distance travelled (airburst). Grenades can fire from the end of a normal gun barrell, from a launcher, from a weapon mounted on a tank, by hand, by weapons mounted on a helicopter etc....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Grenades explode if being sawn
There were several occasions in Vietnam in which people died when trying to saw grenades. They did that to sell the metals as recyclable materials or to get the explosives. Is there any possible way to saw a grenade without causing an explosion? I wonder if it's 100% sure that sawing a grenade will cause it to explode, no matter whether the safety pin is removed or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It would be nice to have a newspaper citation for your Vietnam statement, then we could add it to the article. Let us know what you find out on your other question.  --CliffC (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, as in there is some explosives in it(i think most used CompB (RDX and TNT) ). In the last 20 years, most armies have stopped making grenades with these, as they arent very stable (read: likely to go off ig you try and bloody saw it in half)86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

'Sawing' links, in Vietnamese
People died when trying to saw grenades (http://vnexpress.net/GL/Xa-hoi/2007/12/3B9FD40B/ and saw 105-mm shells as well (http://vnexpress.net/GL/Xa-hoi/2008/06/3BA0308E/ and http://www.tin247.com/thiet_mang_vi_cua_dan_105_ly-1-21329722.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talk • contribs) Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but unfortunately these links would not be of use in the English language Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

can you learn me.wich taype made by hand grenade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.112.137 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Incendiary grenades are not indended to be thrown.
Because they are not intended to be thrown, thermate incendiary grenades generally have a shorter delay fuse than other grenades (e.g. two seconds).

And if they're not thrown, they're used how? Teleportation? It would make sense to explain how it's supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.109.190 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have wrote and researched defense articles since the early 1980s. The person is right. Thermite grenades, while they look like smoke grenades were never intended to be thrown. Their original use was for for destruction of tank cannons and artillery pieces if they could not be withdrawn or abandoned. The breach is opened, the Thermite grenade is put inside and the breach is closed. It will melt the breach and slide cover together. Thermite grenades will also, do a number on vehicle engines. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Photo
Is there a reason why this photo is up-side-down? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RGD5_b.jpg 68.52.114.60 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos moved and/or removed
I made a few edits to the article, and moved or removed pictures to reduce a lot of white space. Also seemed to be too many pictures (was ≈27 now ≈22), some of which were not referred to in the text. Here is what I have left out, 5 of the 6 photos that were towards the top of the page:

 * [[File:US Navy 080128-N-7415V-001 Petty Officer 2nd Class David Crabb, assigned to Navy Embedded Training Team 3-205th Garrison, throws a hand grenade during weapons familiarization training.jpg|thumb|[[M67 grenade]].]]

 * F1 grenade DoD.jpg.]]

 * Grenade RGD-5 Navy.jpg]]

 * M67b.jpg, used primarily by the U.S. and Canadian military.]]

 * IDET2007-grenades-cutaway-detail.jpg

- 220.101 talk\Contribs 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hand grenade → Grenade — The hand prefix is seldom used. Hand grenade gets 119,000 hits and a search for publications using the word grenade but omitting the phase "hand grenade" gets 904,000 hits. The article should be renamed per WP:Common name. Marcus Qwertyus   04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other sorts of grenade, e.g. rifle grenade. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And multipurpose grenades that can either be thrown or fired. Marcus Qwertyus   20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Rocket propelled grenade, so I oppose this move, as the phrase "hand grenade" is the correct name and serves as a useful disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article covers all of those so that sounds more like an argument for moving it. Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   05:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support, since grenade already redirects here <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack 89   04:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are many types of grenades, hand grenades being only one type. A disambiguation page should sit at the primary name. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The comments by by Anthony Appleyard and the editor from IP 76.66.194.212 are correct, but not even a complete survey of the various sorts of grenade. The more precise title is necessary. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Most people use the term "grenade" to cover a whole history and family of weapons.  A move would confuse a lot of people and accomplish little. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There should be an article at Grenade with this one providing more detail about Hand grenades just as there's one for Anti-tank grenade's. A temporary move of this one to Grenade then splitting out most of the voluminous detail about hand grenades into its own Hand grenade article might be a good idea, though. Jamesday (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two articles
<Strike>Is anyone aware that there's a page called 'Grenade' Something makes me feel like that should be merged into this... Anyone want to look into it? --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is about all types of grenade. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   04:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I missed the recent move request. Never mind.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Grenade Fishing...
I've spoken to two vietnam vets who've told me stories of throwing concussion or frag grenades into rivers to stun/kill fish (and then cooked them on a C4 brick...) Never heard of them doing this to kill swimmers. It seems reasonable to me, but...it just doesn't seem likely that the only reason they threw grenades in the river was to kill VC. I don't know if there should be something about this, but...the 'unofficial' story sounds slightly different to me. Khallus Maximus (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My dad was in Vietnam I remember him telling me about this I never heard about them cooking it on C4 bricks but the did float out in the rivers and use "fishing grenades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Schlarb (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 April 2015

Anti-tank grenade and slat armour
Copied here from Sjö's talk page:

Hi Sjö,

I saw your revert of the edit on the page & you asked me to come to talk. While Stars & Stripes is the "independent news and information to the U.S. military community" they're staffed by journalists who often do not have the depth of knowledge of munitions that serving soldiers do, this is the same for newspapers, military or otherwise, in most countries. I'm sure you've noticed this in Sweden too. The threat for which slat armour had been developed was the anti-armour RPG which, for the unitiated, may easily be confused with anti-armour RKG.

Further to that I've been in many MRAPs and seen far more but have yet to find any with overhead slat armour. I believe when Specialist Parrish of the 5th Eng Bn, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Bde was killed it was again a top attack. The RKG-3 is as you know a hand deployed anti-armour device of about one kilo in weight. and it is extremely difficult to obtain an effective side impact on a vehicle, moving or otherwise. Coupled with this the frag radius of the RPK-3 exceeds it's accurate range making anything but a top attack a questionable and dangerous operation.

The armed forces are also limited by budgetary constraints, and modifying a complete series of vehs from one single fatal incident is not something they'd usually consider.

I'd be interested in your comments.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredcleangate3 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi! Well, Wikipedia is very much about using reliable sources to support the statements in the article. Personal experience is valuable to vet and interpret the sources, but it's not really enough on its own. I'm going to put a "dubious" tag on the section to flag it as questionable, and I'll take the liberty of copying this section to Talk:Hand grenade so more editors can join the discussion. What you could do in the mean time is to find a reliable source that says that the slat armour on these lightly armoured vehicles s against RPGs. There are just a couple of things I'd like to say. First, I think the article could mention that anti-tank grenades have been used recently, even if they are rather obsolete. Second, I think that a reporter for Stars and Stripes is in a better position to get the facts right than a reporter from a common newspaper, due to contacts and experience. That makes that source more reliable than an article from, say, a small-town newspaper written by a reporter without special knowledge. Sjö (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Tiredcleangate posted some links at my talk page. The show that anti-tank grenades aren't mentioned as a reason for fitting slat armour, so I'm removing that statement. http://www.vietvet.org/bararmor.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/baes-lrod-cage-armor-03473/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker2.htm http://gizmodo.com/how-armor-is-evolving-to-beat-tank-smashing-rpgs-1555422743 . Sjö (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
The French word for "pomegranate" is "grenade." The Old French name was "pome grenate," not "pomegranate."

Googling "etymology of pomegranate" gets this as the top answer:

''pome·gran·ate Origin Middle English: from Old French pome grenate, from pome ‘apple’ + grenate ‘pomegranate’ (from Latin (malum) granatum ‘(apple) having many seeds,’ from granum ‘seed’).''

Second, looking online, I don't find any evidence that "'grenade' derives from the French word for a 'small explosive shell.'" It seems more likely that they named "hand grenades" after "grenades" (pomegranates), and that the English copied that.

JMassengale (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hand grenade


text:
Talk:Oskar Klein

Untitled
Is this the Klein that did Kaluza-Klein theory?

And is this the Klein of the "Klein Bottle"? \Mikez 22:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is the Klein of Kaluza-Klein theory but not of the Klein bottle. That's Felix Klein. It is also the Klein of the Klein-Nishina formula and the Klein-Gordon equation... RE 21:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time travel theory?
What's this about a time travel theory? I'm familiar with some of Klein's work but have never heard about this. Also, the way the few sentences on this are written is a little weasely. Can we get a reference on this? Joshua Davis (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I had the same reaction, and can't find anything linking Klein to time travel in the way that the text suggests. Also "tiny invisible particles orbiting atoms" (what?) are clearly irrelevant. I have therefore removed this: "He is also well known for his theory on time travel which involves tiny invisible particles orbiting atoms. Although widely respected as a theory it has been established that the current technology involving the examination of subatomic particles does not allow for this theory to be proven or refuted." Harold f (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oskar Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928085044/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v30/i6/p67_s2?bypassSSO=1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v30/i6/p67_s2?bypassSSO=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oskar Klein


text:
Initial value problem

In multivariable calculus, an initial value problem (IVP) is an ordinary differential equation together with an initial condition which specifies the value of the unknown function at a given point in the domain. Modeling a system in physics or other sciences frequently amounts to solving an initial value problem. In that context, the differential initial value is an equation which specifies how the system evolves with time given the initial conditions of the problem.

Definition
An initial value problem is a differential equation
 * $$y'(t) = f(t, y(t))$$ with  $$f\colon \Omega \subset \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$$ where $$\Omega$$ is an open set of $$\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n$$,

together with a point in the domain of $$f$$
 * $$(t_0, y_0) \in \Omega,$$

called the initial condition.

A solution to an initial value problem is a function $$y$$ that is a solution to the differential equation and satisfies
 * $$y(t_0) = y_0.$$

In higher dimensions, the differential equation is replaced with a family of equations $$y_i'(t)=f_i(t, y_1(t), y_2(t), \dotsc)$$, and $$y(t)$$ is viewed as the vector $$(y_1(t), \dotsc, y_n(t))$$, most commonly associated with the position in space. More generally, the unknown function $$y$$ can take values on infinite dimensional spaces, such as Banach spaces or spaces of distributions.

Initial value problems are extended to higher orders by treating the derivatives in the same way as an independent function, e.g. $$y''(t)=f(t,y(t),y'(t))$$.

Existence and uniqueness of solutions
The Picard–Lindelöf theorem guarantees a unique solution on some interval containing t0 if f is continuous on a region containing t0 and y0 and satisfies the Lipschitz condition on the variable y. The proof of this theorem proceeds by reformulating the problem as an equivalent integral equation. The integral can be considered an operator which maps one function into another, such that the solution is a fixed point of the operator. The Banach fixed point theorem is then invoked to show that there exists a unique fixed point, which is the solution of the initial value problem.

An older proof of the Picard–Lindelöf theorem constructs a sequence of functions which converge to the solution of the integral equation, and thus, the solution of the initial value problem. Such a construction is sometimes called "Picard's method" or "the method of successive approximations". This version is essentially a special case of the Banach fixed point theorem.

Hiroshi Okamura obtained a necessary and sufficient condition for the solution of an initial value problem to be unique. This condition has to do with the existence of a Lyapunov function for the system.

In some situations, the function f is not of class C1, or even Lipschitz, so the usual result guaranteeing the local existence of a unique solution does not apply. The Peano existence theorem however proves that even for f merely continuous, solutions are guaranteed to exist locally in time; the problem is that there is no guarantee of uniqueness. The result may be found in Coddington & Levinson (1955, Theorem 1.3) or Robinson (2001, Theorem 2.6). An even more general result is the Carathéodory existence theorem, which proves existence for some discontinuous functions f.

Examples
A simple example is to solve $$y'(t) = 0.85 y(t)$$ and $$y(0) = 19$$. We are trying to find a formula for $$y(t)$$ that satisfies these two equations.

Rearrange the equation so that $$y$$ is on the left hand side

 * $$\frac{y'(t)}{y(t)} = 0.85$$

Now integrate both sides with respect to $$t$$ (this introduces an unknown constant $$B$$).

 * $$\int \frac{y'(t)}{y(t)}\,dt = \int 0.85\,dt$$
 * $$\ln |y(t)| = 0.85t + B $$

Eliminate the logarithm with exponentiation on both sides

 * $$ | y(t) | = e^Be^{0.85t} $$

Let $$C$$ be a new unknown constant, $$C = \pm e^B$$, so

 * $$ y(t) = Ce^{0.85t} $$

Now we need to find a value for $$C$$. Use $$y(0) = 19$$ as given at the start and substitute 0 for $$t$$ and 19 for $$y$$

 * $$ 19 = C e^{0.85 \cdot 0}$$
 * $$ C = 19 $$

this gives the final solution of $$ y(t) = 19e^{0.85t}$$.

The solution of
 * Second example

 * $$y'+3y=6t+5,\qquad y(0)=3$$

can be found to be

 * $$y(t)=2e^{-3t}+2t+1. \,$$

Indeed,

 * $$ \begin{align}

y'+3y &= \tfrac{d}{dt} (2e^{-3t}+2t+1)+3(2e^{-3t}+2t+1) \\ &= (-6e^{-3t}+2)+(6e^{-3t}+6t+3) \\ &= 6t+5. \end{align} $$ Third example

The solution of

$$y'=y^{\frac 2 3},\qquad y(0)=0 $$

$$\int \frac{y'}{y^{\frac 2 3}}\,dt = \int y^{-\frac 2 3}\,dy =\int 1\,dt$$

$$3 (y(t))^{\frac 1 3}=t+B $$

Applying initial conditions we get $$ B=0 $$, hence the solution:

$$y(t)= \frac {t^3} {27} $$.

However, the following function is also a solution of the initial value problem:

$$f(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \frac{(t-t_1)^3}{27} & \text{if} & t \leq t_1 \\ 0   & \text{if} & t_1 \leq x \leq t_2 \\ \frac{(t-t_2)^3}{27} & \text{if} & t_2 \leq t \\ \end{array} \right.$$

The function is differentiable everywhere and continuous, while satisfying the differential equation as well as the initial value problem. Thus, this is an example of such a problem with infinite number of solutions.

title: Initial value problem


text:
Talk:Initial value problem

Organization
Hello. It's not clear to me how this article & the other articles on diff eqs should be organized. One approach would be to put a short defn here, and then link to the main diff eq article. However, it might be neater to have the main page give an overview of several topics, one of which is the IVP, and then hand it off to this page, and put a detailed treatment of the IVP here. Maybe someone would like to comment on this question. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Generally, I would say that differential equations is such a large topic that we should be selective in what we put in the Differential Equation article. Specifically, I am wondering what you want to say about IVPs. The only thing that comes to my mind is that they have a unique solution, which is such an important property that it should be in the Differential Equation page, in my opinion. By the way, nice work on the ODE-related pages. -- Jitse Niesen 15:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have changed some things that I think are important on the definition. An IVP for a DE is in fact, more generally, a relation between a function in $$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n \,$$ and its derivatives with respect to time $$t \,$$, actually $$f \,$$ is defined on an open set, here we see just the one-dimensional case, I changed it to n-dimensional case, I don't think engineers have any problem to change n by 1 to understand the same problem in the one-dimensional case :). Another thing is that the Picard's existence and uniqueness of solutions of the Cauchy's Problem or IVP states that if $$f \,$$ is continious and Lipschitz with respect to $$y \,$$ then we have existence and uniqueness in a neighbourhood of $$t_0 \,$$ which actually can be found explicitly. It is not necessary to claim any kind of smoothness on $$f \,$$! Of course smoothness on $$y \,$$ implies Lipschitzian condition with respect to $$y \,$$.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouri87 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficulties and Confusion
Great job on the article writers on making a text book example of a text book definition. How many articles are there on the internet that make a simple concept so complex and scientific so that the average person goes "wow, I hate math, maybe I should pick a degree in Business or Writing". Articles like these contribute to the lowering of the number of engineers, mathematicians, scientists around the world. When will you guys understand you have to think with a newbie head to teach a newbie. At least people in the programming and web development field have figured out ways to make things so much more simpler to explain.

Your article should contain simple and effective language and a couple mathematical examples with solutions that are not similar to a text book that seems to skip steps and make things look complicated.198.82.127.163 03:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Worked example
I came to this page after seeing the following problem and agree with the anonymous editor above that this article needs simpler and more effective language. I have added a simple worked example of the 'Fail Blog' problem, following the method at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceMcAdam (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That means what did you do on bayram holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.249.2 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cauchy problem
As far as I know, a Cauchy problem is an initial value problem on unbounded domains with vanish-at-infinity conditions. Is anyone familiar with authors who use the term for any initial value problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingenis (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Exponential smoothing"
I am removing this text because it has nothing to do with initial value problems in ODE theory, and it is probably only here due to somebody misunderstanding the title. I will also copy the text to the Exponential smoothing talk page. --138.38.106.191 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exponential smoothing is a general method for removing noise from a data series, or producing a short term forecast of time series data.
 * Single exponential smoothing is equivalent to computing an exponential moving average. The smoothing parameter is determined automatically, by minimizing the squared difference between the actual and the forecast values. Double exponential smoothing introduces a linear trend, and so has two parameters. For estimating initial value there are several methods. like we use these two formulas;
 * Single exponential smoothing is equivalent to computing an exponential moving average. The smoothing parameter is determined automatically, by minimizing the squared difference between the actual and the forecast values. Double exponential smoothing introduces a linear trend, and so has two parameters. For estimating initial value there are several methods. like we use these two formulas;

 * $$y'_0=\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)a_t+b_t$$
 * $$y''_0=\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)a_t+2b_t$$
 * $$y''_0=\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)a_t+2b_t$$

Problematic text about Existence and Uniqueness from numerical calculation
The text at the start of existence and uniqueness currently (2013 Jun 25) claims that: "For a large class of initial value problems, the existence and uniqueness of a solution can be illustrated through the use of a calculator." This seems misleading and false. Many numerical methods will return "a solution," even if the integration method is unstable. Also, numerical representations are inherently inaccurate at some level of precision, so establishing uniqueness numerically is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.141.62 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is confusing!
''[I'm posting this because I think the language in the opening paragraph of pages should be tailored to people who do not yet know what the page is about. I feel the opening paragraph on this page should be improved by someone who understands this topic. I'm posting my thoughts while do not understand the topic in the hopes that my rambling thoughts will help someone who can edit the page in the future. This is not rigorous criticism but confused impressions.]''

With a basic background in mathematics (first year university) the opening paragraph is pretty confusing. It sounds like describing Hunger as:

 * Hunger is a human condition.
 * Eating takeout is a common way of removing hunger.
 * Takeout is normally ordered by phone.

What is an Initial Value Problem when it's not solved by modelling a system? Outside of "that context" what is an Initial Value Problem? What's the purpose / aim / goal of having this mathematical construct? Why is it useful?

The first sentence is (paraphrasing): An initial value problem is: But both an equation and an initial condition are constraints while 'problem' implies a question - what's the question? "ODE + initial condition" seems like a necessary condition but not sufficient? If it's a class of problems it should say this explicitly, like "An IVP is any problem where XYZ".
 * an ordinary differential equation
 * an initial condition

I don't know how you would rewrite the paragraph to make more sense, but as it is right now it's unclear. - 2A00:23C5:E406:3700:B8C3:B42C:3CCD:32E0 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
For some reason there seems to be an unusually large amount of vandalism. Should the page be protected temporarily? --James Az. H (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Numerical vs analytical solutions
The current article focuses exclusively on analytical solutions despite such solutions not always existing in elementary form. Generally speaking numerical solutions of IVP's are probably at least as commonly discussed as analytical solutions. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Initial value problem


text:
Talk:Music of Saudi Arabia

Saudi artists
The article needs to go beyond the surface. I'm in my early 40s and know of musicians and singers, both male and female, who preceded the ones in the article ( just by listening to my parents). You should also distinguish between recorded artists and those who only performed live, folk music, different musical styles according to region...Najd is very different than Hejaz and Asir for example. If your sources are published articles or tv archives than I'm sorry to say you did the Saudi music and art scene in general a great injustice 2001:16A2:FDA7:EA00:5982:638D:37EB:1939 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Music of Saudi Arabia


text:
List of cities in Oman

This is a list of cities and towns in Oman.

• Adam

• As Sib

• Al Ashkharah

• Al Buraimi

• Al Hamra

• Al Jazer

• Al Madina A'Zarqa (formerly known as Blue City)

• Al Suwaiq

• Bahla

• Barka

• Bidbid

• Bidiya

• Duqm

• Haima

• Ibra

• Ibri

• Izki

• Jabrin

• Jalan Bani Bu Hassan

• Khasab

• Mahooth

• Manah

• Masirah

• Mudhaybi

• Mudhaireb

• Muscat

• Muttrah

• Nizwa

• Quriyat

• Raysut

• Rustaq

• Ruwi

• Saham

• Shinas

• Saiq

• Salalah

• Samail

• Sohar

• Sur

• Tan`am

• Thumrait

title: List of cities in Oman


text:
Uman (disambiguation)

Uman is a city in central Ukraine.

Uman may also refer to:

Places

 * Uman Raion, Ukraine
 * Uman Island, Federated States of Micronesia
 * Uman, Federated States of Micronesia, a municipality
 * Umán, a city in Mexico
 * Umán Municipality, a municipality in Mexico
 * Umán railway station
 * Uman (Peru), a mountain in Peru
 * Uman uezd a subdivision in Russian Empire based on the city of Uman

Surname

 * Alexandr Uman, a founder of the Belarusian alternative rock band Bi-2
 * Just Uman, a founder of the of French music band Ocean Drive
 * Martin A. Uman (born 1936) is an American engineer
 * Naomi Uman, American and Mexican experimental filmmaker and a visual artist

Other uses

 * Uman language, an extinct language of Brazil
 * SS Uman, ship

title: Uman (disambiguation)


text:
List of cities in Yemen

The city is the administrative division which falls under the division of the directorate in the urban, which is the centre of the provinces and the centre of districts as well as every urban population with a population of (5,000) or more people and a basic service or more available. Here is a list of cities in Yemen:

title: List of cities in Yemen


text:
File:Pere Marquette Herald.png

Summary
Pere Marquette Railroad Herald

Licensing
Heralds are "logos" or "slogans" used by railroad companies and displayed on their equipment.

"Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. ... However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark." Excerpt from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Use of such images on Wikipedia arguably meets Fair Use requirements. See also http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Fair use in Pere Marquette Railway
It is believed that use of this image qualifies under fair use because:
 * The image depicts the official logo for the company described in the article.
 * The image is a low resolution, black and white version of the official logo.
 * Use of the image on Wikipedia does not hamper or dilute the copyright owner's use of the image.
 * No free alternative is available.

title: File:Pere Marquette Herald.png