text:
Talk:Clique problem

Untitled
I thought a clique was a fully connected sub-graph? The way it is described here makes me think a clique is two adjacent vertices... --Bryanlharris 19:21, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Pairwise adjacent means every pair of vertices in the set are adjacent. This is equivalent to your definition. Deco 19:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose we move this to maximum clique problem, which is a commonly used name that is more accurate and specific. I put a redirect in the way, but I'll take care of the move if there's consent. Deco 23:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea. MathMartin 09:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed proof
I removed the proof that maximum clique is NP-complete and replaced it by an appeal to the NP-completeness of independent set. It was a good proof, but I think it's easier to go through independent set, because there's a lot less edges to talk about filling in. Admittedly the proof on independent set problem isn't all that nice, and any improvement to it would be great. Deco 01:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrote independent set problem now. Should be somewhat better. Deco 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Algorithm feedback
I suggest a algorithm here. http://insaint03.cafe24.com/clique-en.html I can't be sure it's correct, I need some comment. --insaint 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem is proven NP-complete, your algorithm runs in O(n^3) - either you deserve $1million prize or the algorithm is wrong. You might try on one of the larger examples given in the link at the bottom of the article and see whether you find the known answer.

Reference
Can anyone find a source for the 3-clique algorithm mentioned in version 111018197? Some special cases may be solved in less than exponential time. For k = 3, there exists an O(n1.41) algorithm where n is the number of edges. -- Rampion (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now. If anyone wants to restore it, please note the reference. -- Rampion (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with maximal clique heuristic
This section seems to state that arbitrarily merging cliques will always find a maximal (as opposed to maximum) clique. This is not true. Consider 2 disjoint cliques A and B produced by merging. Assume that there is some edge missing between A and B so that they cannot be merged, but that there are vertices u in A and v in B such that u is adjacent to every vertex in B and v is adjacent to every vertex in A. Then A is contained in A union v and B is contained in B union u, so neither are maximal, but no further merging can be done. Merging in some intelligent order may work, but the algorithm as stated does not necessarily find any maximal cliques. Bjoeris (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems wrong indeed. I've removed the passage. --Mellum (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article title
Maybe this is a good time to think about what this article should be called?

Currently, there are at least two problems I know that qualify as Clique problem. One is Algorithms for finding a clique or Computing a clique or Algorithmic aspects of finding a large complete subgraph or its complement. The other is the Party problem or the Ramsey number problem. Both terminologies can be found in the literature, but the algorithmic interpretation of course wins a google fight, though Mathworld uses the Ramsey interpretation.

Currently, Party problem redirects to Clique problem, and that’s something we clearly need to rectify. One solution is to let the current algorithm (under the current headline) describe both interpretations, but I can’t see how that would work. An easy alternative is to just fix the redirect. That being said, I am mildly in favour to a more descriptive, and exclusive, article title. Algorithms for clique or Finding a clique sound good (but not quite perfect) to me. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to changing the name. The imperfection in those titles, to me, is that they omit the complexity theoretic side of research on the clique problem, since that's less about finding a clique and more about not finding a clique. One possibility, though it doesn't excite me very much, would be Clique (computer science). One issue is whether we should choose a name such as the one we have now that refers only to cliques, or whether the name should also include independent sets (in which case, there's more material that needs to be added to the article, as the clique and independent set problems are quite different in most graph families and I omitted anything that was only about independent sets in my rewrite). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, approximation algorithms in bounded-degree graphs are a fairly natural example... And let's not forget other models of computation. From the perspective of distributed computing, independent sets and cliques are very different things. On the one hand, finding a maximal independent set is a truly central and classical problem in the field (and also closely related to Graph coloring). There are many seminal positive and negative results, and numerous reductions to and from maximal (or near-maximum) independent sets. To someone studying distributed computing, independent set problems are as central as, say, SAT and linear programming together to someone studying polynomial-time computation. On the other hand, I can't say much about clique-finding algorithms from the perspective of distributed computing – it isn't even obvious how one should formulate a "clique problem" so that it'd be interesting and relevant from the perspective of distributed computing. Hence if we try to cover all computational aspects of cliques and independent sets in one article, at least from this perspective it'd be strange if the article was called "Clique problem". — Miym (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think expanding the scope of the article is probably not what we need to do right now. Also, based on the large recent expansion, it looks like we're set to get a link to this article from the front page via "Did you know?" some time in the next week or so, so if we do make a decision on a better name we should probably hold off on changing it until later. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable approach would be to merge Independent set problem into Independent set (graph theory), explain the computational aspects that are specific to independent sets in Independent set (graph theory) (or Maximal independent set), and refer to Clique problem for everything else. That way no changes are needed here. — Miym (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the last suggestion is reasonable. Let this article be only about cliques (and things that are common to clique and independent set). Things that only apply to independent sets, can go in Independent set (graph theory) or Maximal independent set. The Independent set articles can link to this article for common algorithms. That way we can still call this article "clique problem", and let it be a comprehensive article which has everything there is to know about cliques (from an algorithms and complexity point of view). --Robin (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some details
Some minor details: — Miym (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Figure caption: "Adapted from Sipser." It'd be nice to have a proper citation; we don't have Sipser in the list of references. I guess it refers to the textbook "Introduction to the Theory of Computation", but I don't have it here now.
 * "Parameterized complexity[33] is the complexity-theoretic study of problems such as finding k-cliques in graphs that are naturally equipped with a small integer parameter k, and for which the problem becomes more difficult as k increases": I guess this should be parsed "... study of problems ... that are naturally equipped with ...", but it's easy to read it "... in graphs that are naturally equipped with ..." Is it just me or should we rephrase this somehow?
 * "due to the fact that the clique number takes on integer values and is NP-hard to compute, it cannot have a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme": Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be "small integer values" instead of "integer values"?
 * I handled your second and third points. I'll let Thore address the first since he drew the figure and knows better than I where it came from. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Accessible head
The topic of this article lives on the borderline of what might want to be accessed by a general audience, so I suggest we at least try to give a non-technical introduction in the article head. Here’s just an idea, to get the ball rolling.

In computer science, the clique problem is to find a complete subgraph in a graph, i.e., a set of elements that are pairwise connected. An example is a social network, where the graph’s vertices represent individuals, and the graph’s edges represent mutual acquaintance. To find a largest subset of individuals, all of which know each other, one can systematically inspect all subsets, a process that is too time-consuming to be practical for instances with more than a few dozen individuals. Despite many attempts to find better algorithms for this problem, no significantly better approach is known, and much of the theory about the clique problem is devoted to establish its computational hardness in many models of computation.

What I aim to convey is what the problem is about, what it models, how an algorithm could look, and what kind of phenomenon the theory tries to address. I think the brute-force illustration is pretty informative; it should be clear both what we’re looking for, what the algorithm is doing, and that it would take a long time. An attractive alternative would be instead to illustrate the behaviour of a poly-time algorithm on a restricted graph class; the message here would then have to be that in general, we can’t get this approach to work. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed new lede looks good to me. I agree that the existing one is too technical. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox?
I made an infobox for Graph coloring once, and maybe we want one here as well. In truth, I still don’t know if this kind of thing is a good idea. It’s certainly a quick way to get some information about the problem (for example, I’ve always found the compendia like Garey–Johnsson or Crescenzi et al. actually useful), but there are lots of problems about what information should go into such a box in the first place. Maybe its just spam or chemistry envy. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not a huge fan of infoboxes, because it is difficult to convey any nuance in them. For instance, under "decision problem" "running time", you have O(n^k k^2), the running time of the most naive brute force algorithm for the problem. But it doesn't say "running time for the most naive brute force algorithm", it just says "running time". There are algorithms with better worst case running times known (though still with an exponent that's linear in k). And for some algorithms, what we list as the running time isn't necessarily the actual running time of the algorithm even when considered on worst case inputs: it's the best upper bound that we know how to prove, a quite different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the infobox serves to present the abstracted common properties of problems (like approximability) in a structured way. The most important information here can be fairly condense ("approximation factor: 2" versus several sections of text on the Vertex Cover page that would be vague for someone who just wants the constant). Whoever wants to know more can read the full wikipedia article, go for the technical paper abstracts, or the papers themselves; whichever level of detail they wish to work on. I personally find the highly-condensed resources that Thore listed to be useful and I lament that Wikipedia does not serve that purpose, especially since the general repositories that exist are rarely, if ever, updated and should exist in wiki format.
 * What David Eppstein explained is precisely how I would interpret the "running time" field -- the best known (proven) upper bound on running time that someone has taken the time to add to Wikipedia, with an somewhat arbitrarily chosen level of detail (e.g. big-oh). I see no problem with the field as it is and, if necessary, a general template explanation or a simple foonote could be given. I see more issues with packing in too much information (e.g. parametrization) or vagueness (e.g. deterministic versus expected or heuristic running time). An example of these issues: [User:C._lorenz/sandbox]. Although I find an arbitrary policy for these problems sufficient for making infoboxes an asset.
 * Some fields that I am uncertain about are "Input&output" (could be lengthy and perhaps better given in text), "W[1]-complete" in "Complexity" seems like too much detail (we could add a lot more), and "Garey-Johnsson" - is this really useful? —C. lorenz (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the Garey–Johnsson. It’s there because the original motivation to cook up an infobox in the first place is that I’d like Wikipedia’s entries to be at least as useful and informative as, say, the Maximum Clique entry in the Viggopendium, so I started from that framework, minus the comments. I admit that the Garey–Johnsson number is the clearest example of my chemistry envy. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the infobox can be put in, it does present a lot of useful info in short. I like infoboxes that present the hardness of approximation result along with the best known approximation algorithm so one can compare them. W[1]-completeness might be more detail than needed in an infobox though. --Robin (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maximal cliques
Since there is so much information about listing all maximal cliques, the article should say somewhere that finding a single maximal clique is really easy (linear time). I don't know where to put this information though. --Robin (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I guess Maximal cliques could form a section, consisting of the (easy) algorithm for finding one, and the listing/enumeration results. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Example implementation
I have a more in depth description of the Tsukiyama et al. algorithm along with a C++ implementation. Since I put quite an effort into understanding the tiny details of the algorithm, I'd add it to references so others don't have to. Can some one please advise me if that would be appropriate? (I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I'm not sure about the rules yet.) Here is the link: http://c0de-x.com/how-to-find-maximal-cliques/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devillmeister (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: Perhaps there should be more explanation on why the algorithim for finding a single maximum clique runs in linear time? I cannot immediately see why. Whether you store a graph as an adjacency matrix or an adjacency list the cost of constructing the sub-graph on K vertices is O(K^2) so one cannot just look at sub-graphs. The obvious implementation of the algorithim requires finding the interesection of two sets of integers. If the sets are stored as lists this is O(n+k) and even if they are stored as hash tables its O(min(n,k)) where n,k are the sizes of the sets.

Can someone explain more details of this algorithim and hy its running time is O(n) for non-sparse graphs? (I can see why it is O(n) for sparse graphs). Alternsatively maybe the author means linear in the size of the graph (so vertices ^ 2) in which case I can see the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess stargirl (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Decision tree, help with SVG
I played around with drawing a decision tree, mainly because I think it’s a very accessible model of computation and makes a pretty picture. (Possibly too large.) Something is messed up in the SVG rendering (the file look alright when I let Safari’s SVG engine render it.) Any pointers to what I can do? Thore Husfeldt (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's different between what it looks like here and what it's supposed to look like? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, I think the arrows don't look right. But when I render it in Firefox, it looks great. I think this is what Thore Husfeldt is referring to. See this blown up png for instance: --Robin (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GA-class
Since this article is in pretty good shape right now, has pictures, very detailed references, and at least a few editors actively editing it in the last few days, is anyone up for improving this article further and nominating it for GA-class? (Maybe it is more useful to bring 2 articles up to B-class, than one up to GA-class, so perhaps that isn't such a great idea.) --Robin (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I’d be eager to hear David’s opinion on this, he’s got a few GAs under his belt. But in principle I think the article deserves a much higher rating and in many respects proudly stands as an example of what this medium can accomplish.

 * However, stability is an issue for GA-ing, and I would like to propose at least two larger changes to this article. So ’d like to wait. To tip my hand: 1. I’d like this article to be about Algorithms for clique and independent set (though not necessarily under that title) and 2. I’d like the structure to abandon the current Algorithm—Lower bounds dichotomy (reasons include (a) the lower bounds are mostly hardness results, not lower bounds, (b) some of the issues don’t really benefit from splitting along this fault line, such as circuit complexity, decision trees, the yet-to-be-written section on counting, etc.).

 * These proposals are connected—for example, I’d want a section each on Clique algorithms for special graph classes and Independent set algorithms for special graph classes, rather than the current awkward things like “finding cliques in the complement of bipartite graphs”—but need somewhat more time than I can devote to them in the next few days, so we’ll have to wait. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree about the lower bound vs algorithms dichotomy. I don't like this split either. For example, instead of splitting the best algorithm and best bounds known for the decision problem, I would prefer a section on the decision problem which gives the best algorithms and gives the NP-completeness proof. Similarly, a section on the approximation problem, which states the best factor achievable and the best hardness result. Some topics are already covered like this, like decision tree complexity and circuit complexity.
 * I also agree about what the article should be about, but the article title should probably not be Algorithms for clique and independent set. I can't think of a good name off the top of my head.
 * About the other sections you want to add, that's great. I'm in no hurry at all, and of course we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. I just mentioned this GA-class idea to get everyone's opinions on it. --Robin (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So in this proposed revision, would you have a separate article for hardness results? Or would you include all the current material as well as the algorithmic parts of Independent set (graph theory) and maximal independent set? I think separating out algorithms from hardness makes sense as a way of organizing the material (more sense than splitting cliques from independent sets) but that split could be into separate articles rather than as now separate sections of the same article, and the article we have now is already large and unwieldy. As for calling it "hardness" rather than "lower bounds", I have no objection to that. I do think the hardness bounds are important, though (at least the inapproximability and FPT ones) and wouldn't want to see them tacked on as a disconnected appendix to an article that's mostly about algorithms. As for GA: I think we have enough material here, written at a high enough level of quality, that we should seriously consider this, but a GA review is mostly going to cover low-level issues of grammar and wording; we need to find the best organization for the material ourselves first. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have hoped to have had more time for a more though-out proposal, but the sections I envision are

 * Algorithms (exact algorithms for fixed size and maximum cliques) these are agnostic about whether we look for cliques or independent sets

 * Special graph classes algorithms for cliques, algorithms for indpendent sets. This could also be a subsection of Algorithms

 * Hardness (NPC, W[1])

 * Approximation (current 3.3 and 3.6)

 * Enumeration (listing maximal cliques, #cliques is #P-complete, but FPRASable for some special cases)

 * Other models of computation (decision trees, circuits)

 * (never mind the ordering and the titles) So basically it’s about moving some of the current subsections out of the current two-section Upper/Lower bound structure. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * First, making Other models of computation a separate section is a nice idea. That makes it clear that the rest of the article is about algorithms on real computers (or Turing machines). As far as the other secions go, I think there are 3 different clique problems, the decision problem, the optimization problem and the enumeration/counting problem. Each seems to have its own set of algorithms, and hardness results. In that order, the hardness results would be NP-completeness, inapproximability results, and #P-completeness. We do have a lot more to say about the decision problem, since it is well-studied, and is well-studied in several restricted settings: fixed parameter tractability, special graph classes, etc. So I would propose a structure which first deals with the decision problem, including all algorithms for fixed size, max clique, special graph classes, FPTs, etc. and includes all relevant hardness results about the decision problem. This section might be the largest of all. Then a section on the approximation problem, then a section on the counting problem, and then other models.
 * In short, all I'm saying is that Algorithms + Special graph classes + Hardness, in the suggestion above should be merged into one section with the theme of "decision problem" and hardness results should be presented along with the best algorithms. For instance, after stating that the best algorithm for maximum clique is like O(1.2^n), we give the NP-completeness proof, which explains why the best known algorithm is exponential time. The other sections are fine. But if this proposal will make one section very large compared to the others, or if this view of combining hardness+algorithms isn't shared by others, I'm fine with Thore's proposal above. --Robin (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "I think there are 3 different clique problems": There are many more than three algorithmic versions of the problem about which one can find published papers: (1) yes/no, is there a clique of a given size, (2) list all cliques of a given (typically constant) size, (3) find a single maximal clique (not very interesting on a sequential computer but has been studied in parallel algorithms), (4) list all maximal cliques, (5) find a maximum clique, (6) find a minimum-sized maximal clique (more often studied in the complementary form of finding a minimum independent dominating set), (7) count the cliques of a given size (e.g. my WADS'09 paper with Spiro on counting triangles), (8) list all maximal cliques (or maximal independent sets) whose size is smaller than some bound (e.g. my older paper "Small maximal independent sets and faster exact graph coloring"). In addition I could imagine that there might be algorithms for counting maximal cliques or maximum cliques more quickly than listing them all — listing and counting are in general two different things — but I don't know of any published research on that variant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we can have more sections for the problems. I guess my main point is that for a given problem, I would prefer an organization where the best algorithm and hardness result are stated together, rather than in different parts of the article. Organizing results by the problem solved, i.e. listing max cliques or decision version of max ind. set on planar graphs, (rather than the nature of the result — algorithmic or hardness) seems more natural to me. --Robin (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would we cover the distributed computing [and parallel computing] aspects: distributed algorithms for finding independent sets, lower bound results for these problems, the connection to distributed graph colouring, other applications of distributed independent set algorithms, etc.? Some possibilities might be:
 * A subsection on distributed algorithms in the "Other models of computation" section. (Might be a fairly long subsection.)
 * Together with the centralised algorithms and hardness results when we discuss the relevant problems. (I think the most relevant problems are "find a maximal independent set" and "find a large [near-maximum] independent set", both in general graphs and in special graph classes. I'm worried that covering distributed computing aspects in different places might make the text more difficult to follow.)
 * Somewhere else, e.g. Independent set (graph theory) + Maximal independent set?
 * — Miym (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I supported the proposal to have only clique-related problems in this article, I would choose option 3. There is a lot of literature on maximal independent sets (and its connection with vertex coloring), which would make a fine addition to an independent set article. Adding it here would make this article too long. Also, the distributed algorithms are really specific to finding an independent set (and not clique), so I think it's fair to put all those results in a different article. --Robin (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Structure and scope
Since this discussion stopped (more than a month ago) before reaching a conclusion that we all agree with, I thought I should start the discussion again. So the question is, what is the scope of this article, and how should we structure it?

My viewpoint, in short, is the following: This article should only contain results related to cliques -- maximal cliques, counting cliques, listing cliques, decision trees, monotone circuit complexity of max clique, etc. Results that work for clique and ind. set. should be present in this article. Results that only work for ind. set., like ind. set. on planar graphs, or the distributed computing version should be elsewhere. As for structure, I would suggest a problem-oriented structure, where we list a problem, like "list all maximal cliques" and then present algorithms and hardness results. --Robin (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What does "m" stand for exactly here? number of edges or vertices?
In the section "Cliques of fixed size" it says:

"In a graph with m vertices..." and in the same paragraph "...the time for this algorithm is proportional to the arboricity of the graph (a(G)) times the number of edges, which is O(m a(G))".

Please, what does "m" now stand for exactly in this context? The number of edges of vertices? It is crucial to make this clear, as in a later paragraph it says "...to find triangles in time O(n2.376), which may be faster than O(m3/2) for sufficiently dense graphs.". It makes quite a difference if one assumes the number of edges to be m or to be n in this scenario.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.185.46 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It's the number of edges. I've fixed that now. --Robin (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cliques of fixed size algorithm
It says, "there are O(nk) subgraphs..."

I think it's a combination (select k vertices from n), that's: $$ \binom nk$$, that means O(n) (the worst case if k = 1 is n)

--Vojta.jina (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should you assume k = 1?? It's certainly not O(n) when k > 1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, my assumption was wrong: k=1 is definitely not the worst case (that's around k = n/2). I guess, I should remove this paragraph. Thanks for pointing this out... --Vojta.jina (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Whatever the worst case exactly is, "n choose k" is equal to n!/(k!*(n-k)!) and hence much worse than O(n) even if k=1. Even worse than O(n^k), which is mentioned in the article, so I don't see why it says that there. Can someone explain that or change the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * $$\binom{n}{k} = \frac{1}{k!} n\cdot(n-1)\cdot(n-2)\dots(n-k+1) \le \frac{1}{k!} n\cdot n\cdot n\cdot n\dots n = \frac{n^k}{k!}\le n^k.$$ It's a crude estimate but it's always valid and when k is a constant then it's within a constant factor of the truth. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsukiyama algorithm stated incorrectly
The article says that, given the maximal cliques in G\v, the maximal cliques in G are these plus those sets formed from them by adding v and removing nodes not connected to v. Let G={12,13,23,24,34,35,45}. Then the maximal cliques in G\{5} are {123} and {234}. If I add 5 to {123} and remove the nodes not connected to 5 then I get {35}, but this is not maximal in G since it's contained in {345}. I'm guessing that what the article should say is that the cliques of G are the cliques of G\v plus sets formed by adding v to the cliques of G(v), where G(v) is the set of nodes connected to v. --RDBury (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured this out. The words "a maximal clique C" in "... each maximal clique in G that does contain v can be formed from a maximal clique C in G \ v by adding v and removing the non-neighbors of v from C," should read "some maximal clique C", not "any maximal clique C" as I was interpreting it. So the lexicographic ordering not only prevents duplicates from appearing, as it states in the next paragraph, but also prevents non-maximal cliques from appearing, since lexicographic maximum implies maximal. I'll try to rephrase this section when a get a firmer grasp on how the algorithm actually works. --RDBury (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

NY Times reference
I followed The NY Times reference in the article and I don’t think it refers to the Feige et. al. article. The NYT refers to a series of papers listed here https://tc.computer.org/tcmf/test-time-1990-awards/ 72.219.138.131 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Feige et al. is part of the same line of research, roughly a year after the earlier results reported in the New York Times article. It is the first to apply that line of research to the clique problem. Probably the "reported in the NYT" claim should be removed, because it is not about clique. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clique problem


text: User talk:81.131.29.213

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

title: User talk:81.131.29.213


text:
Pendentive

In architecture, a pendentive is a constructional device permitting the placing of a circular dome over a square room or of an elliptical dome over a rectangular room. The pendentives, which are triangular segments of a sphere, taper to points at the bottom and spread at the top to establish the continuous circular or elliptical base needed for a dome. In masonry the pendentives thus receive the weight of the dome, concentrating it at the four corners where it can be received by the piers beneath.

Prior to the pendentive's development, builders used the device of corbelling or squinches in the corners of a room. Pendentives commonly occurred in Orthodox, Renaissance, and Baroque churches, with a drum with windows often inserted between the pendentives and the dome. The first experimentation with pendentives began with Roman dome construction in the 2nd–3rd century AD, while full development of the form came in the 6th-century Eastern Roman Hagia Sophia at Constantinople.

title: Pendentive


text:
User:Irune Berdún

Stop with all this copyviolations and non-encyclopedia articles, please!

Please take a moment to see how Wikipedia works before forcing everybody else to clean up your effort. DavidWBrooks 19:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Irune Berdún


text:
Cornu

Cornu (pl. cornua) is a Latin word for horn. Cornu may also refer to:

 * Cornu (horn), an ancient musical instrument

People

 * Dominique Cornu (born 1985), Belgian road and track cyclist
 * Marie Alfred Cornu (1841–1902), French physicist for whom the Cornu spiral (also known as the Euler spiral) is named
 * Paul Cornu (1881–1944), French engineer sometimes credited as the creator of the first helicopter

Places

 * Cornu, Prahova, a commune in Prahova County, Romania
 * Cornu Luncii, a commune in Suceava County, Romania
 * Cornu, a village in Bucerdea Grânoasă Commune, Alba County, Romania
 * Cornu, a village in Orodel Commune, Dolj County, Romania
 * Cornu de Jos (disambiguation), multiple places
 * Cornu–, a prefix used to indicate a relation to Cornwall

Science and medicine

 * Euler spiral, also known as a Cornu spiral
 * Latin name for a cutaneous horn, an eruption of the skin, mostly in fair skinned persons which can be benign but is often a precursor of skin cancer

Anatomy

 * Cornu ammonis, a part of the hippocampus of the brain
 * Cornu coccygeum, one of two upward projecting processes which articulate with the sacrum
 * Cornua of the hyoid, the greater and lesser horns of the hyoid bones
 * Cornu anterius and cornu posterius, parts of the lateral ventricles of the brain
 * Horns of the spinal cord
 * Cornu anterius medullae spinalis
 * Cornu posterius medullae spinalis
 * Sacral Cornua, two small processes projecting inferiorly on either side of the sacral hiatus leading into the sacral canal
 * Uterine cornu, one of two uterine horns, located near the entry of the fallopian tube

Zoology

 * Cornu (gastropod), a genus of snails
 * Cornu aspersum, species of brown garden snail, formerly known as Helix aspersa
 * One of two horn claspers associated with the penis of a bee drone

title: Cornu


text:
Talk:Five pounds (British coin)

Got some 2004 Entente cordiale ones today at the Post Office. Too lazy to do scans.... -- Kaihsu 19:28, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
 * (Mrs Doyle) Oh, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.... -- Arwel 20:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Scanned (see article). -- Kaihsu 13:00, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
 * Nice! Arwel 14:29, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Got one of the Nelson ones today - I'll scan it if I get a chance in the next couple of weeks. Shimgray | talk | 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Euro 96
I remember seeing £2, £3 and £5 coins on sale in a post office commemorating euro '96... The £2 coins looked as they do now, the £3 and £5 were similiarly fashioned, with the gold and silver mix. Also, i think they had some pictures of footballs on. 82.46.179.159 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * There's a £3 coin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.177 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you may be mistaken, there was a Euro 96 two pound coin, it was the same size as the current two pound coin but was single alloy the same as the one pound coin. I have never heard of a modern three pound coin existing, and know of no £5 coins relating to Euro 96. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was never a £3 coin and neither was there a £5 coin commemorating Euro '96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.34.35 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Millenium coins
Going from the descriptions, the reverse of the 2000 coin is exactly the same as the 1999 one, so I'v used the 1999 image for it. Also it seems the only difference on the obverse is the date, which would make it identical to that of the Queen Mother's Birthday coin. Does anyone object to me cheating a bit and presenting this image again as being the 2000 version of the Millenium coin? boffy b
 * It's been three days, I'l take that as a no. Boffy b 22:38, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

2006 Iteration
Should there perhaps be some info on the 2006 version that will be celebrating the 80th Birthday of Queen Elizabeth II? (Darien Shields 19:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

I got one of these at the Post Office today, and I've updated as much as I could (I'm not a coin expert, I'm afraid!), but there isn't anything on the Royal Mint site, so no pictures. Here are some rather blurred pictures I took of the one I got. Flick 217.146.126.149 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:5PoundCoin.jpeg
Image:5PoundCoin.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EII2006coin.jpg
Image:EII2006coin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 crown (circuation coin)
The circulation version of the coin appears to have a plain milled edge as opposed to being like the collector crown. In addition all the examples I have seen are of quite a low quality. Lacking detail and having a lot of blemishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone please provide a citation for this general circulation coin? Maybe I'm not entering the right search parameters, but I can't find evidence of this coin anywhere.  Moreover, the Royal Mint site is still claiming as of today that the coin is not intended for general circulation, and that merchants are not obliged to consider it legal tender.  Perhaps "general circulation" has a different meaning in the UK; to me, it means the coin is legal tender and therefore can be used at, say, a grocery store to satisfy a debt.  Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  07:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The "circulation version" I speak of is simply the worst of the bunch sold of at face value. The edge of it is not enscribed and is simply milled like a standard coin. As to legal tender, the coin IS legal tender, however the term in the UK only relates to court debts. In the UK a merchant can accept anything as payment and likewise refuse legal tender if they wish. In Scotland 80% of cash transactions are made with non-legal tender (Banknotes are not legal tender at all in Scotland). I have spent a number of these £5 coins and have only been refused on one occasion, ironicly the merchant accepted a non-legal tender banknote instead! 86.111.162.127 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that this paragraph is misleading and I've removed it. Regardless of any technical quibbles about legal tender, "general circulation" to most people means that the coin is encountered reasonably frequently in circulation, which is not the case here. 81.151.231.66 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

 * The section you removed did not state they where released into large scale circulation, its simply stated that the 2007 issues where available at face value, I see no reason why there was a need to remove it, a minor rewording would have cleared up any confusion. I still think that this fact is worth noting. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"most retailers will refuse to accept them"
The text states that "most retailers will refuse to accept them". I'm not so sure this should be in there. I acquired 18 of the 2007 issues, I spent 16 of them and was refused on only two occasions. Most of the time the recipients take a second or two to look at them out of interest but accept them quite happily. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some years ago I also had five five-pound coins (offered by a credit card company for 25 pounds) and spent 4 successfully at various retailers, keeping one for curiosity value.

 * I also recieved a £5 coin as change from a petrol station in Newport. I later spent it at a Burger King in Cardiff. The retailers treated it like a £5 note, when I recieved the coin I initially dismissed it as "perhaps they're introducing a new coin". 81.102.29.35 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.29.35 (talk)

There has been some media comment some years ago that due to the then relative scarcity of £5 notes there was evidence of £5 coins starting to circulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.84.92 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

2007 obverse description
The 2007 obverse description currently says:

 * Obverse: Rank-Broadley head (IRB). ELIZABETH·II D·G·REG·F·D

Is this quite accurate? It's a double head, and the Queen's head looks different from the usual IRB head. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accoring to the Royal Mint website it is indeed a Rank-Broadley obverse. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * My problem is not so much the IRB part as the "head" part, because it is plainly not the Queen's head on the coin.
 * The quote says "Portrait of Her Majesty the Queen 1990-1997 Raphael Maklouf 1998 to date Ian Rank-Broadley". I have a feeling the Royal Mint used the obverse description for £5 coins without taking note of the changed design for this coin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The div's dont work!
We need to format this table a bit better. The way the images are done does not scale well. Perhaps it should be updated to be more like the two pound coin page. --Delta-NC (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2011 Issue
There needs to be mention made in this list of the third and fourth in the 'Countdown to 2012' coins issued in 2011 and 2012 respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.34.35 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

photos
Is anybody interested in getting photographs of the coins to put in the table? I'd be happy to contribute photos of the coins I possess. Kelly elf (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" section
What it the first sentence of the "Criticism" section supposed to mean?

While the coins being stopped on 16 January 2020 (because of COVID-19), the number of commemorative £5 coins has been criticised in some quarters.

I don't think it was written by an English speaker. The only citation is at the end of the paragraph, which is a physical book from 2019, so I doubt it will be illuminating as that's from before COVID.

DDFoster96 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and deleted it as an incoherent rant and because the citation given appears to be the opinion of a non-notable author. If anyone believes that it was worthy of inclusion, would they explain why? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested move
It seems to me this should be moved to five pounds or, possibly, five pounds (coin). Whilst entities such as Jersey have issued five pound coins, this is the primary topic. It might need a parenthetical due to the five pound banknote. Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Five pounds (British coin" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_pounds_(British_coin&redirect=no Five pounds (British coin] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Five pounds (British coin)


text:
Talk:Noachide Laws

Needs merged w Noahide Laws Sam Spade 19:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Done  JFW |  T@lk  21:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Noachide Laws


text:
Talk:Seven Laws of Noah

Hebrew and english versions
I find it very strang that the hebrew and english versions of this page give a differnet set of laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Could you clarify which differences you find particularly important to address? JFW | T@lk  17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For starter the 1st law is no to not worship idols, but to worship BibleGawd. Therefor those who are let to live as slave-race are christians and such, not atheists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:D019:2F69:C66A:8462 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have recent-ish statements of rabbis, eg. Yosef Mitzrahi, who claim that Christianity counts as idol worshipping, and thus, Christians quote "have no right to live", just as any other religionists, who are neither Jewish nor muslim. The muslims are going to be the slaves, according to those laws, because Islam is not idol worshipping from a Jewish perspective. Everyone else is just going to die, if the Jews can have their way. 2A02:C7C:399B:9700:77F6:96ED:55D3:23BB (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Judaism
The article says that people are not "obligated" to convert to Judaism. This is pretty much a contortion of facts, as Judaism does not only not "obligate" people to convert, but rather by and large even discourages conversion, except for a very small sect of "messianic Jews" who try to prosetylize, and who are not recognized as proper Jews. 2A02:C7C:399B:9700:77F6:96ED:55D3:23BB (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Noahides = Gentiles
With superfiscial knowledge one can think Noahides refer to all humans, but that is simply a mistake. It only refers to the gentiles, who have to keep the 7 Noahide laws, but not on Israelites, who have the (Oral and Written) Torah as law. For reference check Sanhedrin Chapter 7. The Soncino edition (= Talmud Bavli) can be found here for example: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.27.75 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The Jewish law incorporates the 7 Noahide Laws. You are correct that the term "Noahides" does not usually include the Jewish people. Is that a problem? By the way, Come and Hear is hosted by a bunch of rabid anti-Semites, so be careful. JFW | T@lk  19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Your reservations against www.come-and-hear.com are well understood, but it is correct: Noachides are non-Jews who have decided to keep the seven laws. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Warshy I see you've promptly rolled back my change to the lede (from "that is, all of humanity" to "gentiles"). It was made in good faith, as it seems both from the text in the given reference and from this discussion (in which both parties seem to agree on the point) that Noachides are non-Jews. If the laws apply also to Jews because they're incorporated in the Torah I think it should be expressed in a different, more precise way. By the way, the lede of the Hebrew version of this same page states that "The Seven commandments of Noah are commandments that according to the Sages tradition, the Gentiles were commanded, as opposed to the commandments commanded by the Israelites." Udippuy (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 * This editor seems to have a point. I would also be interested in an explanation. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did not go into the main page of this article and I did not revert the edit by User talk:Udippuy. I have no idea how Wikipedia reverted this edit and then attributed the act to my User ID. I am a little concerned that my ID may have become compromised, and I am checking on it and making sure other actions I did not take get attributed to me. Something like this never happened to me on Wikipedia before. If the mashgiah hayahadut haklali on Wikipedia from the Chabad sect of Judaism thinks the edit is warranted, then apparently it must be. And he can also reinstate it, if he so wishes. I myself have not yet formed an opinion on the issue, and so again, I could not have changed it. Second of all, this discussion should have been added as a new section at the bottom of the page, not on a random section that had last been updated in 2010. But let this also be. Be well, both of you. warshy (¥¥) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your last point, and had that thought myself. Did I detect a certain amount of sarcasm in the second point of your post? Alas. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? If you read what I wrote and apparently understood it (since you are not asking me any question about it), I would not say sarcasm. I mean what I wrote and I am willing to follow your lead on this particular edit/issue. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just recently added this issue (of Noachide laws) and the pages related to it to my watchlist, and while skimming them a little before adding them I first became aware that this is one of the issues that was taken on by the late Lubavitcher rebbe while he was still alive. I was a little surprised, since as a student of Jewish history my impression of him was never as of him being close to a strong intellectual force in Judaism. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I though that calling me the mashgiah hayahadut haklali was a bit of sarcasm.
 * By the way, according to my understanding and the understanding of the expert I asked, Chabad does not fit the definition of a sect. Our Wikipedia article calls it "an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement".
 * What would you call a "strong intellectual force in Judaism"? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a fitting title, and it describes pretty well what I see you doing around here. There are all sorts of experts and all sorts of definitions. According to some of these it certainly has many characteristics of a separate sect. A sect that separates itself from the community at large, and that has its own set of particular beliefs. I was always more impressed by the intellectual cogency of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki's thinking than that of Menahem Schneerson. Looking at old videos of his live appearances, he always struck me as rather weak and incoherent intellectually. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, since you, I think, mean this complimentary, or at least not derogatory, I'll take it as a compliment. As a matter of fact, there are many editors who used to be more active on WP:JUDAISM and, in general, Jewish articles, but for the last 4-5 years or so, activity has been low. Those editors were mostly not Chabad, rather Litvish, although 1 or 2 Chabadniks also used to frequent Wikipedia in those days.
 * Chabad does not separate itself. To the contrary. Some beliefs are stressed more in Chabad than in other Jewish denominations and Hasidic courts, but nothing that would warrant the use of the word "sect", as in its sociological definition.
 * As one who has studied the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I am quite impressed. I think you can't compare coherency of somebody who lived about 450 years ago and who wrote one book (if I understand correctly), with somebody who lived in our age and wrote several shelves of books over a 40 years period. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, I can't compare a poor karaite thinker of the sixteenth century with a twentieth century rich and powerful king that had a whole court working for him. As for "several shelves of books" I will still need to check that and try to ascertain if any of them was written by his own hand, or they were simply put together by his publishing empire under his name. This was actually an hereditary modern king that ruled over a pretty vast empire all over the world. But like the kings and dynasties that ruled the world until the modern age, how many of them were really talented and intellectually gifted, as opposed to most of them, who just had talented courtiers serving them and administering their empires. warshy (¥¥) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS - I was also thinking. Among the Litvish editors that used to be active in the Judaism area of WP and have not been any more for the past 4 or 5 years, I believe you might be referring to User:Shirulashem, whose last edit here appears to have been in 2015. warshy (¥¥) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those shelves are not literally his words, but based on his words and close to them. I detect a certain animosity in your words today and yesterday regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which surprises me.
 * And others, like User:IZAK, User:Avraham, User:Chesdovi. And then there were User:Lisa, User:In ictu oculi, User:Ravpapa, User:Slrubenshtein, User:Mzk1 and others.
 * Animosity? I witnessed his claims when he was alive, and I've witnessed the claims of his followers when he was alive and after he died. Besides these claims to greatness and to a monopoly on the only correct and acceptable way of practicing the Jewish religion, this leader and his sect of followers also had considerable economic and political power, power that manifested itself in national and international events in Russia and in Eastern Europe, in the US, and in Israel. Such powerful historical agents and actors cannot expect to be only admired by followers. They also need to be judged on the historical consequences and on the validity of their actions and religious dogmas. I was only trying to hint at some of these neutral historical and intellectual analyses that still need to be developed regarding the Rebbe and the Chabad movement. Thanks for the quite extensive list of editors in the Judaism area on WP. Be well. warshy (¥¥) 01:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Change the term of to on
Change the term of to on, and added a, there being NO absolutism implied in those commandments.

Noahide or Noachide?
The article jumps back and forth between "noahide" and "noachide". If these mean different things could the article please elaborate? If they don't, could the article please standardize on one or the other so as to avoid the implication that they mean different things? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Standarised as Noahide, which is more frequently used both in the article to date and in wider literature. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of non-encyclopedic content
Can you explain why you are edit warring to restore this non-encyclopedic content to the article? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Laws_of_Noah&diff=871692979&oldid=871689183&diffmode=source] Chabad.org is not a WP:RS for whether someone is regarded as a "righteous gentile" by God (stated in Wikivoice), at most it is only a reliable source for the sect's opinion, and that is WP:UNDUE for the lede. The entire thing needs to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone. You are an experienced editor, so you should be aware of the standards of enyclopedic writing and perspective for religious articles that are enforced throughout the encyclopedia. And bandying about accusations of removing "well-sourced" sections is non-persuasive. There is no policy based justification for restoring something like is assured of a place in the world to come, stated in Wikivoice, to an article live in mainspace. The entire thing needs to be rewritten or removed, but it can't stay in the article as it is. If you want it in the article, the burden is on you to make sure it meets basic standards for inclusion. I will give you some time to fix it, but if the issues aren't addressed I plan to remove this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you are edit warring to remove something which as you yourself claimed in the edit summary "does not seem neutrally written or adhering to encyclopedic tone"? Issues like that can be tagged with POV statement and Tone, however, you can not remove them. Especially since they are sourced.
 * I asked you twice to specify what you think is not neutrally worded or uses an unencyclopedical tone, yet you have still not done so. Till such time as you do, I can do nothing to improve this paragraph. Referring to me as an "experienced editor" is not going to earn you any cookies in this regard.
 * 1. Chabad is not a sect. 2. Chabad.org is a reliable source for Judaism articles, and is in use on many Wikipedia articles.
 * You claim that I need to prove anything is bogus. To the contrary, you need to show that there is any basis to your 3 claims (POV, tone, RS), and you have not done so. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. You can not use religious sources to state supernatural things in Wikivoice as though they are well-sourced facts. This includes claims like non-Jews accepting the Ten Commandments are righteous gentiles who will receive the final reward of the righteous. Absolutely not, this is an encyclopedia. This is not a matter for a tag and if it continues, I believe it is grounds for a topic ban. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 * 1) Based on what I've seen after googling it you may be referring to Ger toshav - you of course need to attribute this to Chabad, as the State of Israel does not actually grant people any type of resident alien status based whether or not they adhere to these religious rules.
 * 2) I've seen people invoke the phrase "righteous gentile" in political debates when things were not going their way. I've also heard members of the KKK use it sarcastically to describe themselves. I've seen it used in so many loaded contexts that you definitely need to explain it clearly if you are going to use it. Regarded by whom? All it says is "are regarded as righteous gentiles". I truly believe you are capable of seeing this for yourself if you review the content. There is nothing opaque about it. In my opinion this content is so far outside the norms of an encyclopedic style of writing that tagging would not be a suitable resolution. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your objection is not based on any Wikipedia policy. It's perfectly acceptable to describe religious views on different subjects, provided it's properly sourced and attributed. Wikipedia is full of this because an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of information for the reader, not to make a value judgment or discard ideas that are deemed "religious", "POV" or "supersticious". The concept of Noahide gentiles having a place in the world to come is well-ingrained in Jewish tradition, including Mishneh Torah. I'm sure it also appears in other places such as the Talmud, but Rambam's masterpiece should be enough to justify its inclusion.
 * I don't understand your comparison with the KKK folks, but I'm sure that's not the kind of gentiles the Rambam had in mind. Their world to come is probably much hotter (and I think most Christians agree with that as well).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A topic ban? :):):)
 * In any case, it seems to me that the only thing bothering you is that the paragraph is missing the words "according to Judaism", or something like that. I would have no problem with adding that. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: a mention, in the article's text, of the Ten Commandments, and an explanation of how they relate to the Seven Laws of Noah. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do they? Relate, I mean. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a source saying that the 10 commandments, excluding Shabbat, are the same as the 7. I don't know exactly what to do with this source though, except to put it in the lead, which seems excessive, given the relative unimportance of this connection and the lack of authoritativeness of the source. Ar2332 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even in the article itself the claim is made hesitantly. Not convincing. Nor would I consider it much of a reliable source. I'd just leave it out. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of this seems contradictory...
"The sons of Noah are to be executed by decapitation for most crimes,[31]... In Jewish law, the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the Ineffable Name (Leviticus 24:16).[30]"

I'm just confused, are people to be executed for most crimes, or is the only crime punishable by death blaspheming the Ineffable Name? 73.142.138.237 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is badly worded. Reading the source linked, I believe this is what is being referred to:
 * ''Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin. It would have been
 * sufficient to say], ‘A man, etc:’ What is taught by the expression any man? The inclusion of
 * heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation .''
 * - Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 56a
 * In other words, the sentence should not read, "Noahides are to be executed by decapitation for most crimes", but rather something along the lines of "According to the Talmud, for Noahides convicted of a capital crime, the only sanctioned method of execution is decapitation" 80.193.47.222 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Punishment
In Punishment there is nothing in the RS that refers to this claim  In practice, Jewish law makes it very difficult to apply the death penalty. It seems to be OR, and needs other sources.Pngeditor (talk)# Pngeditor (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Karaic Jews
Does anyone know if the Karaic jews view the 7 laws in the same way as the rabbinical (Thanaic) jews? 46.117.125.199 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seven Laws of Noah


text:
Talk:Pierre Boulez

Failed verification
, looking at the sourcing for "The author and blogger Norman Lebrecht, who knew Boulez, speculated that he was gay, citing the fact that for many years he shared his home in Baden-Baden with Hans Messmer, whom he sometimes referred to as his valet", I'm somewhat inclined to agree with the IP: While the guardian does mention Messmer, it doesn't talk about Lebrecht, and the edition of Lebrecht I checked out on archive.org (on p.185, and admittedly a different edition) says only "He never married. He had an Austrian companion, Hans Messmer, who occupied a separate apartment in the same block and was sometimes introduced as his valet." I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from that to saying that Lebrecht "speculated that he was gay", although that may be the implication. It also doesn't cite that Lebrecht "knew Boulez". Does the edition cited here say something different? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the otiose tag - the Guardian article confirms the single thing it is cited for - but the main author of the article may have views on the citation to Lebrecht's book for the rest of the sentence.  Tim riley  talk   17:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the citation to the end of the sentence so it's clearer that Lebrecht's book is also citing the rest of the sentence. Would be curious to hear ' thoughts on the matter. They have done great work here-- the article does make very pleasant read on the whole. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I agree this does need looking at. Tim's right that the Guardian article was only cited for the name (which, incidentally, it gets wrong: his name's Messner, not Messmer). I'll have a look over the weekend. I think there's another, more recent source, that gives more nuanced information. Lebrecht is probably not the most reliable source (for anything much...) Dmass (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good old Grauniad! I'm rather with you on Lebrecht. I recall a senior EMI producer comparing him to Senna, the soothsayer in Up Pompeii, with her cries of "Woe, woe and thrice woe", but he is a substantial figure nonetheless.  Tim riley  talk   18:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree - and he’s an excellent interviewer. His series on Radio 3 showed how to ask a good, short question and then shut up and listen. Not as simple as it sounds! On the other hand some of his articles on Slipped Disc are almost comically misleading. All deliberately done to get clicks, I’m sure. Dmass (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring towards FA
@Dmass & Tim riley, if we're looking towards FA, than perhaps some general restructering may be in order. Particularly, I find the sectioning, a bit confusing. Since the "Opera" and "Recording" portions are concerned with Boulez's conducting, they might be more suitable as subsections of conducting? If changed, we would probably move the final paragraph of the opera section elsewhere.

I find the performing section is a bit unnecessary. Boulez is not primarily known as a performer and indeed the first sentence does not identify him as such in any capacity. This would be a good place for trimming; the article currently sits at 11,065 words, a good 1065 above the recommended 10,000. This would certainly be brought up at FA, and detrimental to its prospects of passing. I would say the performing section should be either cut entirely, or trimmed and moved into the biography, either as text or a footnote –  Aza24  (talk)   22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 * My apologies for not responding sooner, I've only just seen this. I agree about the performer section. Of course, a lot of conductors/composers are also pianists and occasionally perform in public but it's not central to their activity and Boulez didn't do it often - although coincidentally I met a friend the other day who was going to Boulez concerts before I started and heard him play the piano for the Debussy Mallarme songs as part of a BBCSO concert, and indeed the harpsichord in the fifth Brandenburg concerto! But I think you're right, it should come out. I'll leave it til the weekend in case anyone wants to object.
 * I'll have a think about the section point, it hadn't occurred to me, but it's certainly worth considering.
 * And Mr Riley, you'll be glad to hear the time has come. I'm taking a week off work at the beginning of October and I think it might be a good moment to put the article up for FA. I may need some guidance from you about the process. I'll try and do some more trimming in the meantime to get the word count down - although in my defence he did live for ninety years and had two major careers (compare Benjamin Britten...). Dmass (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yours to command. Looking forward to it.  Tim riley  talk   11:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Glad to hear this. Please ping me when you go to PR/FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both, that's very kind. Dmass (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As to the length, you may possibly take comfort from the fact that the late Brian Boulton and I got Shaw though FAC at a whisker under 12,000 words. (Even that was a helluva squeeze, accomplished with much baring of teeth and friendly bickering.)  Tim riley  talk   16:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay. I've actioned @Aza24's helpful suggestions above. The Performing section has now gone - I think better out altogether, as word count may be an issue. I've also converted the sections on Opera and Recording into sub-sections of the Conducting section, which I think works well. Strictly speaking there's a paragraph in the Opera section which is about PB's relationship with opera as a composer, but I still think it sits better here than it would elsewhere. Dmass (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ...although on reflection it could go into the Composition section under unfinished works... Dmass (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve done this. I think it works fine. Let me know if you disagree. Dmass (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pierre Boulez


text:
.dwg

DWG (from drawing) is a proprietary binary file format used for storing two- and three- dimensional design data and metadata. It is the native format for several CAD packages including DraftSight, AutoCAD, ZWCAD, IntelliCAD (and its variants), Caddie and Open Design Alliance compliant applications. In addition, DWG is supported non-natively by many other CAD applications. The .bak (drawing backup), .dws (drawing standards), .dwt (drawing template) and .sv$ (temporary automatic save) files are also DWG files.

History
DWG (denoted by the .dwg filename extension) was the native file format for the Interact CAD package, developed by Mike Riddle in the late 1970s, and subsequently licensed by Autodesk in 1982 as the basis for AutoCAD. From 1982 to 2009, Autodesk created versions of AutoCAD which wrote no fewer than 18 major variants of the DWG file format, none of which is publicly documented.

The DWG format is probably the most widely used format for CAD drawings. Autodesk estimates that in 1998 there were in excess of two billion DWG files in existence.

There are several claims to control of the DWG format. As the biggest and most influential creator of DWG files it is Autodesk who designs, defines, and iterates the DWG format as the native format for their CAD applications. Autodesk sells a read/write library, called RealDWG, under selective licensing terms for use in non-competitive applications. Several companies have attempted to reverse engineer Autodesk's DWG format, and offer software libraries to read and write Autodesk DWG files. The most successful is Open Design Alliance, a non-profit consortium created in 1998 by a number of software developers (including competitors to Autodesk), released a read/write/view library called the OpenDWG Toolkit, which was based on the MarComp AUTODIRECT libraries. (ODA has since rewritten and updated that code.)

In 1998, Autodesk added file verification to AutoCAD R14.01, through a function called DWGCHECK. This function was supported by an encrypted checksum and product code (called a "watermark" by Autodesk), written into DWG files created by the program. In 2006 Autodesk modified AutoCAD 2007, to include "TrustedDWG technology", a function which would embed a text string within DWG files written by the program: "Autodesk DWG. This file is a Trusted DWG last saved by an Autodesk application or Autodesk licensed application." This helped Autodesk software users ensure that the files they were opening were created by an Autodesk, or RealDWG application, reducing risk of incompatibilities. AutoCAD would pop up a message, warning of potential stability problems, if a user opened a 2007 version DWG file which did not include this text string.

In 2008 the Free Software Foundation asserted the need for an open replacement for the DWG format, as neither RealDWG nor DWGdirect are licensed on terms that are compatible with free software license like the GNU GPL. Therefore, the FSF placed the goal 'Replacement for OpenDWG libraries' in 10th place on their High Priority Free Software Projects list. Created in late 2009, GNU LibreDWG is a free software library released under the terms of the GNU GPLv3 license. It can read DWG files from version R13 up to 2021, and write R2000 DWG files.

Also in 2008 Autodesk and Bentley Systems agreed on exchange of software libraries, including Autodesk RealDWG, to improve the ability to read and write the companies' respective DWG and DGN formats in mixed environments with greater fidelity. In addition, the two companies will facilitate work process interoperability between their AEC applications through supporting the reciprocal use of available Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

Autodesk trademark
On November 13, 2006, Autodesk sued the Open Design Alliance alleging that its DWGdirect libraries infringed Autodesk's trademark for the word "Autodesk", by writing the TrustedDWG watermark (including the word "AutoCAD") into DWG files it created. Nine days later, Autodesk's attorneys won a broad and deep temporary restraining order against the Open Design Alliance. In April 2007, the suit was settled, essentially on Autodesk's terms, with Autodesk modifying the warning message in AutoCAD 2008 (to make it somewhat less alarming), and the Open Design Alliance removing support for writing the TrustedDWG watermark from its DWGdirect libraries. The effect of the temporary restraining order and subsequent consent decree was to render the Open Design Alliance's DWGdirect libraries, from one point of view, incapable of creating DWG files that are 100% compatible with AutoCAD Unsubstantiated claim. Others point out that the failure of "100% compatibility" means only that loading such a drawing triggers an essentially irrelevant warning message when the file is opened in AutoCAD.

In 2006, Autodesk applied for registration of US trademarks on "DWG", "DWG EXTREME", "DWG TRUECONVERT", "REALDWG", "DWGX", "DWG TRUEVIEW". As early as 1996, Autodesk has disclaimed exclusive use of the DWG mark in US trademark filings. Out of these applications, only TRUSTEDDWG has been registered as a trademark by the USPTO. The REALDWG and DWGX registrations were opposed by SolidWorks. The DWG EXTREME, DWG TRUECONVERT, and DWG TRUEVIEW trademark registration applications all received substantial resistance, with the USPTO examining attorney requiring Autodesk to disclaim exclusive use of DWG as a condition for their registration.

In a non-final action in May 2007, the USPTO examining attorney refused to register the two DWG marks, as they are "merely descriptive" of the use of DWG as a file format name. In September 2007, Autodesk responded, claiming that DWG has gained a "secondary meaning," separate from its use as a generic file format name.

As of June 22, 2008, all of Autodesk's DWG-related trademark registration proceedings were suspended by the USPTO, pending disposition of trademark opposition and cancellation petitions Autodesk had filed against the Open Design Alliance and Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation. The USPTO office actions notifying Autodesk of this noted that Autodesk was not the exclusive source of files with the format name DWG, and Autodesk does not control the use of DWG by others, either as a trademark or as a file format name, among other points.

In 2006, Autodesk filed an opposition with the USPTO to the trademark registration of DWGGATEWAY by SolidWorks. Autodesk subsequently filed a petition for cancellation of SolidWorks' trademark registration for DWGEDITOR. In both cases, Autodesk's basis was that they had "been using the DWG name with its CAD software products since at least as early as 1983." The opposition and cancellation actions were consolidated, and suspended pending disposition of Autodesk's US District Court suit against SolidWorks.

In early 2007, Autodesk petitioned the USPTO to cancel the Open Design Alliance's "OpenDWG" trademarks, claiming that they had been abandoned. This cancellation action was suspended pending disposition of Autodesk's US District Court suit against SolidWorks.

In 2008, Autodesk sued SolidWorks in US District Court, arguing that through its marketing efforts, the term "DWG" has lost its original generic meaning and taken on a secondary meaning referring specifically to Autodesk's proprietary drawing file format, and therefore any use of "DWG" in competitive products amounted to trademark infringement. In January 2010, on the morning that trial was scheduled to begin, Autodesk and SolidWorks settled the suit, with SolidWorks acknowledging Autodesk's trademark rights for DWG, surrendering its trademark registrations for its DWG related projects, and withdrawing its opposition to Autodesk's DWG-related trademark registrations.

In April 2010, Autodesk and the Open Design Alliance settled their suit, with the Open Design Alliance agreeing to cancel its DWG-based trademark registrations and cease use of DWG and DWG-based trademarks in its product marketing and branding. Because there was no adjudication in either case, the agreements between the parties are not binding upon the USPTO. In March 2010, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy at the USPTO determined that evidence submitted by the Open Design Alliance two years earlier was relevant and supported a reasonable ground for refusal to register DWG as a trademark.

In June 2011 the USPTO issued a final refusal to register DWG as a trademark owned by Autodesk. They were quoted as saying:

"DWG is merely descriptive of applicant's goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act for two reasons: (1) DWG is a recognized abbreviation for "drawing," and (2) .dwg is a file format used for computer-aided design (CAD) drawings made both with applicant's CAD software and others' CAD software."

Autodesk appealed the decision. The USPTO affirmed in 2013 their refusal to recognise DWG as a trademark. Despite this, Autodesk websites still claimed DWG as a trademark after the decision.

In late 2014 Autodesk again lost, this time at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The judge dismissed all their arguments.

In 2015 Autodesk's website has a section title About DWG in which they try to make a distinction between .dwg as a file format and the DWG technology environment.

DWG support in freemium and free software
As neither RealDWG nor DWGdirect are licensed on terms that are compatible with free software licenses like the GNU GPL, in 2008 the Free Software Foundation asserted the need for an open replacement for the DWG format. Therefore, the FSF placed the goal 'Replacement for OpenDWG libraries' in 10th place on their High Priority Free Software Projects list. Forked in late 2009 from libDWG, GNU LibreDWG can read all DWG files from version R13 on. But the LibreDWG library, offered under the GNU GPLv3, could initially not be used by most targeted FOSS graphic software, such as FreeCAD, LibreCAD and Blender, because of a GPLv2/GPLv3 license incompatibility. A GPLv2 licensed alternative is the libdxfrw project, which can read simple DWGs. Some of these CAD licenses were only fixed recently to be able to use LibreDWG's GPLv3.

FreeCAD is a free and open-source application that can work with the DWG files by using the proprietary ODA File Converter for .dwg and .dxf files from the Open Design Alliance (ODA). The ODA also provides a freeware stand-alone viewer for .dwg and .dgn files, ODA Drawings Explorer, which runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

LibreCAD is a free and open-source 2D CAD application that can open DWG and DXF files using its own library.

Autodesk DWG TrueView is a freeware, closed source, stand-alone DWG viewer with DWG TrueConvert software included, built on the same viewing engine as AutoCAD software. The freeware Autodesk Design Review software adds a possibility to open DWG files in Design Review to take advantage of measure and markup capabilities, sheet set organization, and status tracking.

title: .dwg


text:
New York, New York (disambiguation)

New York, New York refers to New York City, in the state of New York.

New York, New York, may also refer to:

 * Manhattan, coterminous with New York County, whose post office is designated as New York, New York
 * New York-New York Hotel and Casino, on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada

Music

 * New York, N.Y. (album), a 1959 jazz album by George Russell
 * "Theme from New York, New York", a 1977 song composed by Kander and Ebb for Liza Minnelli, later covered and popularized by Frank Sinatra
 * "New York, New York" (On the Town), a song from the 1944 musical On the Town, also performed by Frank Sinatra and others in the 1949 film adaptation
 * "New York, New York", a song by The Last Poets from their eponymous album, 1970
 * "New York, New York", a song by Duke Ellington from Eastbourne Performance, 1973
 * "New York, New York", a song by Back Street Crawler from The Band Plays On, 1975
 * "New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice)", a 1978 song by Gerard Kenny
 * "New York, New York", a song by Johnny Winter from Raisin' Cain, 1980
 * "New York New York" (Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five song), 1983
 * "New York / N.Y.", a 1983 song by Nina Hagen
 * "New York, New York" (Tha Dogg Pound song), 1995
 * "New York, New York" (Ryan Adams song), 2001
 * "New York, New York" (Ja Rule song), 2004
 * "New York, New York" (Moby song), 2006

Films

 * New York, New York (1977 film), a 1977 drama by Martin Scorsese
 * N.Y., N.Y. (film), a 1957 short by Francis Thompson
 * New York New York (2016 film), a 2016 Chinese–Hong Kong romantic drama film

Literature

 * New York New York (manga), a 1995 manga by Marimo Ragawa

title: New York, New York (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:2004 in games

Untitled
To be included in Wikipedia, facts must be verifiable using secondary sources or widely available primary sources. If the tournament received national press coverage or is otherwise verifiable -- on a respected web site, in a widely published book -- then it can be included.

 * Pagat.com is a respected website on card games of all sorts. Go to this page and read section D, the timeline. It's there.

That page was authored by you. It's not independent verification. UninvitedCompany 19:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The document there was authored by me. It was posted by someone else. I don't own the website. Obviously someone trusted me more than you do.

 * All you said is that it needs to be verifiable. And it is. While I theoretically could've made the claim up (I didn't) the same goes for anything else that is on the Internet, or published, for that matter.

 * If you want further verification, I can put you in contact with others who were at the event, or mail you a flyer for the tournament that circulated on campus. Mike Church 20:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Please see Verifiability for the standards. In part, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them." UninvitedCompany 20:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Since you have justification there, I'm going to let this one go. I won't revert. Mike Church 21:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Format should be like 2004 in video gaming?
Format should be like 2004 in video gaming where there's a nice archive of all the year-specific game articles. WinterSpw (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove video games from list
The following are not board games and should instead be included with 2004 in video gaming (which they all already are)

GTA San Andreas Need for Speed Underground 2 Half-Life 2

Unless there are board game versions of these games which I am not aware of and their respective wikipedia pages don't seem to mention, it is inaccurate to mention them in this list.

TomH42 (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)TomH42

title: Talk:2004 in games


text:
Félix Rodríguez (soldier)

Félix Ismael Rodríguez Mendigutia (born 31 May 1941) is a Cuban American former Central Intelligence Agency Paramilitary Operations Officer in the Special Activities Division, known for his involvement in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the execution of communist revolutionary Che Guevara as well as his close ties to George H. W. Bush during the Iran–Contra affair.

Early life
Rodríguez came from a wealthy family of land owners in his native Cuba. His uncle was the Minister of Public Works during Fulgencio Batista's dictatorship.

He attended the Perkiomen School in Pennsylvania but dropped out to join the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, which had been created by Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo with the intention of ending communism in Cuba.

The invasion of Cuba was a failure, and Rodríguez went back to Perkiomen. He graduated in June 1960 and went to live with his parents in Miami, where thousands of Cuban exiles had moved.

In September 1960, he joined a group of Cuban exiles in Guatemala, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to receive military training. They were called Brigade 2506.

Bay of Pigs Invasion
Rodriguez participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion as a paramilitary operations officer with the CIA's Special Activities Division. He clandestinely entered Cuba a few weeks before the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. Using his familiarity with the country, he was able to gather critical intelligence, which was used in the planning and preparation of the invasion.

Bolivia

In 1967, the CIA again recruited Rodríguez to train and head a team to hunt down Che Guevara, who was attempting to overthrow the US-backed government in Bolivia and to replace it with a communist government.

The last photograph of Guevara alive includes Rodriguez standing by his side, but according to Dino Brugioni, a former senior official at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), it is a photomontage.

Vietnam
He became a US citizen in 1969. During his career with the CIA, he also went by the nom de guerre "Max Gomez" after Máximo Gómez, the Dominican general who fought in the Cuban War of Independence. He was awarded the Intelligence Star for Valor by the CIA and nine Crosses for Gallantry by the South Vietnamese government. He was codenamed Lazarus after his survival of the Bay of Pigs operation.

During the Vietnam War, Rodríguez flew over 300 helicopter missions and was shot down five times. In 1971, Rodríguez trained Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs). They were CIA-sponsored units that worked for the Phoenix Program. The Walsh Report states (Chapter 29): "During the Vietnam War, [Donald] Gregg supervised CIA officer Felix Rodriguez and they kept in contact following the war." Rodríguez also reported to Ted Shackley during the Phoenix Program. Shackley became Bush's top aide for operations when he directed the CIA, and Gregg later became National Security Advisor for Vice-President Bush. Rodríguez was in frequent contact with him regarding arms for the Contras.

In 1970, after the Cambodian incursion, Bien Hoa CIA Spymaster Orrin DeForrest worked with Rodríguez, whom he described as "the CIA's hotshot pilot," and his PRU in rolling up the Viet Cong stronghold of An Tinh in South Vietnam. Rodríguez flew above the village in a Loach light helicopter and marked target houses holding VC suspects with orange smoke, and the PRU then went in and emptied the houses of occupants, lined them up, and identified suspects with the assistance of a former VC leader who had been captured before he began to co-operate with the CIA; DeForrest identified him as "Ba Tung." The operation netted 28 VC cadre who had been living openly among the South Vietnamese but were working to assist the North Vietnamese overthrow their southern neighbors. The mass arrest and detention of Subregion One VC cadre was the largest operation of its type during the war and, for all intents and purposes, broke the VC hold on its stronghold of An Tinh.

Iran-Contra affair
There is extensive documentation of Rodríguez's ties to US Vice-President George H. W. Bush during the Iran–Contra affair from 1983 to 1988. In September 1986, General John K. Singlaub wrote to Oliver North expressing concern about Rodríguez's daily contact with the Bush office and warned of damage to US President Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party. The Walsh Report (Chapter 25) stated that M. Charles Hill took notes at a meeting between George Shultz and Elliott Abrams on 16 October 1986 as follows:

"Felix Rodriguez [sic] – Bush did know him from CIA days. FR [Rodriguez] is ex-CIA. In El Salv[ador] he goes around to bars saying he is buddy of Bush. A y[ea]r ago Pdx [Poindexter] & Ollie [North] told VP staff stop protecting FR as a friend – we want to get rid of him from his involvnt [sic] w[ith] private ops. Nothing was done so he still is there shooting his mouth off. (brackets are in the original)"

Rodríguez met with Donald Gregg, now Bush's National Security advisor. The Walsh Report (Chapter 29) stated, "Gregg introduced Rodriguez to Vice President Bush in January 1985, and Rodriguez met with the Vice President again in Washington, D.C., in May 1986. He also met Vice President Bush briefly in Miami on May 20, 1986." Rodríguez also met and spoke with Bush's advisor Gregg and his deputy, Colonel Samuel J. Watson III.

On 5 October 1986, the Corporate Air Services C-123, carrying Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over Nicaragua, which killed two US pilots, William H. Cooper and Wallace B. Sawyer Jr., and one Latin American crewmember. "Rodriguez unsuccessfully attempted to call Gregg to inform him of the missing plane. He reached Watson, who in turn notified the White House Situation Room. The following day, Rodriguez called Watson again and told him that the airplane was one of North's." Hasenfus told reporters that he worked for "Max Gomez," an alias for Rodríguez, and "Ramon Medina," an alias for Luis Posada Carriles, of the CIA. On 10 October 1986, Clair George, the head of CIA clandestine operations, testified before Congress that he did not know of any direct connection between Hasenfus and Reagan administration officials. In the fall of 1992, George was convicted on two charges of false statements and perjury before Congress but was pardoned on Christmas Eve that year by President Bush.

Allegations regarding Kiki Camarena
In October 2013, two former DEA agents and a pilot who allegedly flew for the CIA claimed to the Mexican journal Proceso and to the US network Fox News that the CIA had been "complicit" in the murder of DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in 1985 and that Rodríguez had played a role. The alleged motive for the crime was that Camarena had supposedly discovered that the US government had collaborated with the Guadalajara Cartel in the importation and the transfer of drugs from Colombia to the United States via Mexico to use the proceeds to sponsor the Contras in Nicaragua in its war against the Sandinista government. Phil Jordan, a former director of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC); Héctor Berrellez, a former agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration who directed Operation Leyenda to clarify the murder; and Tosh Plumlee, allegedly a former pilot for the CIA, claim to have the evidence that the US government itself ordered the capture and interrogation of Camarena, which led to his torture and death.

In July 2020, the documentary The Last Narc shows the testimonies of people like Héctor Berrellez, Phil Jordan, Mike Holm (a member of the DEA for 24 years), Manny Medrano (former assistant US Attorney and lead prosecutor in Camarena case) as well as Camarena's widow and three former police officers and former bodyguards of Ernesto Fonseca. The documentary explores the claims of the details of the torture and the interrogation, including some of the questions that Rodríguez allegedly asked Camarena in relation to the association that the CIA had allegedly reached with the Guadalajara cartel to bring cocaine into the US, the final goal being to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.

In 2013, Jack Lawn, a former head of the DEA, and retired Special Agent Jack Taylor, who investigated the murder, said the CIA had no involvement in Camarena's death. Without mentioning any agents by name, Jack Lawn also stated that "this is [a] fable not worthy of individuals who would serve in DEA." A CIA spokesperson told Fox News that "it's ridiculous to suggest that the CIA had anything to do with the murder of a U.S. federal agent or the escape of his killer."

Activism
In 2004, Rodríguez became president of the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association, a group for Bay of Pigs Invasion survivors.

During the 2004 US presidential election, Rodríguez was highly critical of the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, in part because of their previous meeting at a Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics hearing in 1987 during which Rodríguez was questioned by Kerry about allegations of soliciting a $10 million donation from a Colombian cocaine cartel. The story, which was eventually shown to be false, had come from Ramón Milian Rodríguez, a convicted money launderer from Colombia.

In 2005, Rodríguez oversaw the opening of the Bay of Pigs Museum and Library in Little Havana, Florida, and became the chairman of the board of directors.

Autobiography

 * Shadow Warrior: The CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles, with John Weisman. New York: Simon & Schuster (1989). ISBN 978-0671667214.
 * Review: "Memoirs of the Man the White House Said Didn't Exist." Review of The Shadow Warrior, by Robert Parry. Washington Monthly (Nov. 1989).

Cuba: Che Guevara, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Central America

 * The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba, 1959–1965, Don Bohning, (2005)
 * Bay of Pigs documents and 40th anniversary conference papers at the National Security Archive at George Washington University's Gelman Library.
 * Detail Information on the Bay of Pigs Invasion — Includes maps of the Invasion and Documents.
 * History of Cuba — Bay of Pigs Invasion.
 * "The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era", Eytan Gilboa, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 539–62
 * CIA man recounts Che Guevara's death

Iran-Contra scandal

 * Lawrence E. Walsh, "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters," August 4, 1993, Washington, DC, ISBN 978-0-671-66721-4.
 * "Iran-Contra's Untold Story," by Robert Parry and Peter Kornbluh, Foreign Policy, No. 72 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 3–30

title: Félix Rodríguez (soldier)