text:
Talk:Quark

Footnote about generations and neutrinos
Footnote 1 currently says The main evidence is based on the resonance width of the Z0 boson, which constrains the 4th generation neutrino to have a mass greater than ~45 GeV/c². This would be highly contrasting with the other three generations' neutrinos, whose masses cannot exceed 2 MeV/c². but as far as I can tell in the Standard Model there's no obvious reason why there should be as many generation of quarks as of leptons (though GUTs do predict that). Am I missing something? If not, I propose to remove that footnote as misleading. — A. di M.  18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Anomaly cancelation (TTY) in the standard model pegs the numbers of EW lepton doublets to those of quark doublets (acounting for color triplication). This is the very cornerstone of the SM generation structure. Is this what you might be missing? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How reliable is the Quark hypothesis?

First I would remaind you on the failure of the LHC-experiment at CERN. It was made to prove "Quarks" definitively.

Second: As we know were this particles predicted by theory. They have therefore merely theoretical need. It is questionable to declare the reality (in this case the world of particles and nuclei) by theoretical considerations. We have to be close to the experimental facts and observations.

Third it is possible to describe the world of particles and nuclei using the most elementary particles electron and positron. The world of particles is probably substantial differnt from the accepted theoretical description.

Some links:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301614262_The_Reason_of_a_realistic_View_to_Particles_and_Atomic_Nuclei?_sg=hdVJqrb66numVZAqlGaR7wxlIU3O419A59IZN6SIg5a8YFpSRRNRXNQq39vIoKaR-CixThpeoPn2dw.oloZG9HAv2x3YqOSTaOnLYKfe7IECdwDLd-hXeIiGSpUsT1bfduXO5Vh3IuNqhlArFxyIlWE7_-hblBXT_jsTg&_sgd%5Bnc%5D=0&_sgd%5Bncwor%5D=0

http://www.erkennbare-welt.de/Teilchen&Kerne

hg.hil2003:CE:ABC5:3FDB:888A:C133:AA37:8E4D (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I should remind you of the rule on the very second line of this page. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Video of Gell-Mann explaining the pronunciation and origin of the word quark
https://youtube.com/watch?v=po-SQ33Kn6U --Espoo (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Free quark
This source clearly states that they're doing experiment with free quark, which exists in a state called quark-gluon plasma. Free quark means that it's no longer in confinement. Free quark = isolated quark. In color confinement, it clearly states that quark "cannot be isolated, and therefore cannot be directly observed in normal conditions below the Hagedorn temperature". It means that ABOVE the Hagedorn temperature, quark can be isolated and observed directly. Stop reverting my edits. You guys are probably amatuer in physics at best. Do you even know what I do for a living? I came across this article and saw a glaring error, so I decided to fix it.2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Free has come to mean ‘’isolated’’ and quarks in plasma are not isolated. Please read up. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote from the source, "however, quarks and gluons were bound only weakly, free to move on their own in what’s called a quark-gluon plasma." This directly contradicts the statement you're trying to keep, "they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons." Free and isolated mean the same thing in this case. It means that the quarks are no longer in confinement. You also conpletely ignored above the Hagedorn temperature part, which also proves my point.2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Your knowledge of physics is really bad, no offense. First of all, this is not just any plasma, which is one of the four basic states of matter. There are many more states of matter than the basic four. This state of matter is called "quark-gluon plasma", which is not the same as your ordinary plasma state that you probably learned in high school. You should take a course or two in quantum mechanics to broaden your knowledge. Perhaps, take my course too. 2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Quarks in plasma are not isolated. You are misreading the source you quote. They are weakly interacting. Please read something above a press release.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep misinterpreting my words based on your poor understanding of physics. They are weakly interacting, yes. But, they are also "free to move on their own". This MEANS that they are no longer in color confinement scheme. This contradicts directly the statement you're trying to keep, "they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons."2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also these jets occurring in the quark-gluon plasma. By measuring the "jets' orientation, directionality, composition, and how they transfer energy and momentum to the medium", you can observe the quarks directly. Do you even know how scientists observe an electron directly?2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You also keep ignoring one of my key arguments, "ABOVE the Hagedorn temperature, quark can be isolated and observed directly." You actually need to read the Hagedorn temperature article on Wikipedia instead of ignoring my valid point.2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Leave the lede alone. The final section addresses QGP without misleading flourishes. I first read Hagedorn’s paper in 1975; publishing in professional HEP literature since. You need to read up. This is not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cited my source. This is not a forum to espouse your poor understanding of physics. If you actually read Hagedorn's paper in 1975, you should reread it now (I doubt you did). It's 2020 now, 45 years has since passed. Also, I highly doubt you've published anything in HEP literature due to your poor understanding of particle physics.
 * This statement is clearly scientific incorrect: "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived." This statement is incorrect and misleading. Just because QGP is addressed at the end, it doesn't mean we should leave a scientific incorrect statement in the opening section. Also, this article became a featured article in 2009, which means it hasn't been edited a lot for 11 years. A lot of things have changed since then within the physics community.
 * You literally have been ignoring every scientific fact I provided here and continue to revert my edit based on your poor, ignorant understanding of particle physics. So far, you have provided ZERO scientific fact to back up your claim. The idea that "quarks are always in color confinement" is outdated and needs to be updated as in with every single field in science. As scientists delve deeper into nature, things that we thought were true are no longer correct based on new experimental data. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoted from another source, "If the conditions for forming a bound state aren't met, then confinement is impossible. The four ways we know how to get there are to create a top quark, to look to the early stages of the hot Big Bang, to collide heavy ions together at relativistic speeds, or to look inside the densest objects (like neutron stars or the hypothetical strange quark stars) to find the quark-gluon plasma inside." It clearly states there are four different ways to create free quarks, unbound from color confinement. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... Isolated quarks means asymptotic states, and not  "asymptotically free quarks", as you might well be misconstruing them. You must be confused about the meaning of asymptotic freedom. Please go to the Quark–gluon plasma page for clarification. This is not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When I said isolated quarks, I mean free quarks. The quarks are free from their color confinement. A quote, "This state is thought to consist of asymptotically free strong-interacting quarks and gluons, which are ordinarily confined by color confinement inside atomic nuclei or other hadrons" from the quark-gluon plasma article. Asymptotically free quarks = quarks that are no longer in color confinement. Please read Asymptotic freedom. Again, you repeatedly ignore my sources and my other points. You offer nothing to dispute my claim beside circular argument and some fancy words that you probably have 0 understanding. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"I mean free quarks" may be at the root of your misconception. An asymptotic state is completely isolated from any other quarks or excitations, here, colored ones. QGP is a medium replete with color degrees of freedom. While you might split hairs in the suitable section or article, messing with the lede in an important article to service tendentious misunderstandings is simply not OK. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand anything. I fixed a fact about free quarks, and you reverted them without a deep understanding of particle physics. You ignored all my valid points and argued non-sense. Keeping a scientifically incorrect statement in the lede is not OK.
 * "An asymptotic state is completely isolated from any other quarks or excitations, here, colored ones." This statement is blatantly wrong. Asymptotic state is a state where quark and gluon are moving freely unbound by color confinement. Quark-gluon plasma IS an asymptotic state. Asymptotic free quarks are free particles for all intended purposes in science. Read up Asymptotic freedom.
 * "QGP is a medium replete with color degrees of freedom." This is just nonsense. Color in color refinement refers to particles that are color-charged namely quarks and gluons. QGP is when color-charged particles break free from their confinement. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The more you talk the more it exposes that you REALLY don't know what you're talking about and lack a deep understanding of physics. You said, "free in a limit: they have to thermalize." Yes, it's a limit. Physicists use math to describe nature. It is simply a construct that helps us to explain nature better. Above the Hagedorn temperature, this limit is reached, and quarks act as free particles. I provide 3 sources that support this (there are many many more). Limit or math is just a construct. When you do the experiment, it shows that quarks act like free particle, so they are free by definition under the conditions of the experiment. And, it doesn't matter if they have to thermalize to be free (in the end, they are still free particles). Your argument is moot at this point. "They can be found only within hadrons" claim is simply WRONG. That's what we thought many decades ago, but now that idea has been discarded through repeated experiments around the world.14.169.212.232 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, do not attack other editors otherwise your editing privileges may be withdrawn. Ruslik_ Zero 05:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I understand what is being discussed. I hope nobody here denies that whereas at the ambient conditions quarks are bound (by gluons) into baryons and mesons, at high energy baryons and mesons become quark-gluon plasma, and for example this is what was believed to during the Big Bang. I am not familiar with the details of this CERN experiment (and I would have preferred to have a look at the paper if it is out), but it is just a matter of writing this in a semantically correct way.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is actually a section on quark-gluon plasma already in the article. May be indeed adding a sentence to the lede would be beneficial?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter yes, please. Because claiming quarks "can be found only within hadrons" is simply just scientifically incorrect because they're obviously found outside of hadrons (such as in quark-gluon plasma). Also, claiming quarks can never exist outside of color confinement is also incorrect (equivalent of saying quarks can never be found in isolation -> incorrect). Quarks found in isolation means free quarks unbound by color confinement, which happens in the quark-gluon plasma.
 * Please take a look at my edit before it was reverted (I added 3 reliable sources). That was my proposal to clarify the nature of quarks to be more scientifically correct. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The footnote nb1 adducing QGP is still there!Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cuzkatzimhut, User:Ymblanter fine, I would no longer object to it if "below the Hagedorn temperature" is added after the word isolation. And the word only is deleted from "they can be found only within hadrons." You can't use the word only when that is not the only place that you find quarks! Thank you all for the help. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the top quark has been observed DIRECTLY. Therefore, claiming quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. Like I said the information in the lede is outdated. It needs to be updated as physicists dig deeper into nature. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are (again) misreading the sentences "Quarks carry color charge and cannot be observed directly as they hadronize to colorless particles before decaying. One exception is the top quark, as it decays before hadronization due to its short lifetime. " The exception is not to the directness, but to the hadronization, obviously. Most observations in HEP are indirect, but this one takes the prize. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't misread anything. You're just stating the definition of color confinement without proving anything. You admit there is an exception yes? If there is an exception then saying quarks can never be observed directly is clearly a false statement. Not sure what you mean by, "The exception is not to the directness, but to the hadronization." You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Exception is exception, period. It's just a fact that a top quark has been observed directly; this fact refutes your statement in the article. A top quark IS a quark.
 * And the claim quarks can only be found within hadrons is incorrect that hasn't been fixed. The word "only" needs to be deleted. And, quarks have been found in isolation, which means it's no longer bound by color confinement. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... The exception is in that the top decays before it hadronizes, so it cannot fail to be detected directly because of hadronization! That is, it has disappeared at a distance scale shorter than the size of the hadron in which it would be included, and certainly that of its decay products, b, etc. It has spent its entire life in the hadronic fireball in which it was created, of size smaller than a fermi, and certainly it has not "beaten confinement" in this blob! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. However, I can argue the same opposite thing. Hadronization fails because the top quark decays quicker than the time it takes to hadronize. Exception is an exception. There is no way to get around it. Claiming all quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, your are, in fact, arguing for the same thing! You observe the t indirectly, in the same way you are observing the s quark in a K decaying to pions, or the c quark in Ds. The authors never intended anyone to understand the decay of the t is not conventional, and indirect. You are investing "directly" with an eccentric meaning never intended. c (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The authors never intended anyone to understand the decay of the t is not conventional, and indirect." This sounds like your own original research (they didn't say it; you synthesized it out of thin air). No original research please, according to Wikipedia policy. And no, it's not the same thing. Top quark spin's effect is measurable. It's the same way when we observe a photon emitted from an electron. That's a direct observation of the electron. That's as direct as you can get in particle physics.
 * Other physicists around the world agree with me, not you. They take the result and say that's direct observation of the top quark. source 1 (a published book in particle physics), source 2 (another published book in particle physics). You need to start providing reliable sources to back up your claim, of which I haven't seen a single reliable source provided by you, and stop making up stuffs (or espousing your own original research). I, on the other hands, have provided A LOT of reliable sources (there are a lot more on the internet; I just picked a few of them). 14.169.212.232 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with here. The current version of the opening paragraph seems satisfactory to me, hitting the appropriate level of detail and covering the basic facts, bringing in baryons, mesons and QGP at the appropriate point. The discussion is also ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Appropriation is not the same as scientifically correct. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

To the extent that it needs repeating, Gell-Mann was diffident about quarks for 10 years, because of the (ultimately 30-year long) failure of isolated fractionally-charged particles' searches to bear fruit. This is the first feature a physics student or a layman should see about quarks, happening nowhere else in physics. Hitting them right away with qualifications, hair-splittings, and notional prestidigitations detracts from the central key point. There is plenty of room for finessing Hagedorn temps and their more usable analogs (!) later in the article, and in the penumbral technical articles linked. The key point is to not puzzle and confuse the eager novice with "ifs" and "but"s. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said Wikipedia is written for a layman (it's Simple English Wikipedia job)? Also, it's imperative for a physics student to learn the correct thing right away. So later on, they don't have to go through the "wait, what!" moment. Fact is fact. They'll just have to deal with it.
 * Fine, keep your "only". However, "below the Hagedorn temperature" needs to be added, and "directly observed or" needs to be deleted. I don't think adding 4 words and deleting 3 words to the article is "hitting them right away with qualifications, hair-splittings, and notional prestidigitations." It won't hurt to add 4 words into the article. Deal? I'm ready to move on from Wikipedia editing and go back to my daily routine. It's basically the same statement taken from color confinement. 2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Above the Hagedorn temperature, quarks break out of hadronic bound states and propagate as quasi-free excitations in an extended colored medium, not in the vacuum: they may not be said to be isolated. One infers their properties, not too differently than inferring the scattered quark properties from the features of a hadronic QCD jet. The statement of the color confinement article is muddy and misleading, in my view, but I have no experience with that page--it certainly didn't come out of Barger and Phillips cited! I believe it should be improved, but the novice hardly stumbles there. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, free quarks can be observed directly in the quark-gluon plasma. They haven't been successful on that, but they're working on it. I know they're working on it because I read it in a source somewhere. The current problem is that they cannot sustain the quark-gluon plasma state for very long to observe free quarks directly. Maybe, in a few years? The Large Hadron Collider is constantly being upgraded. Anyway, this is beside the point being discussed. Top quark alone proves that claiming all quarks are never directly observed is not true.
 * Free quarks or isolated quarks mean the same thing in this case. It means they are free from color confinement. It doesn't matter if they're in the vacuum or in the quark-gluon plasma. The result is the same; they are free or isolated from color confinement. This interpretation of free quarks (isolated quarks) is supported by CERN and Nature journal (and other sources). 2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The two sources that support this statement, "color-charged particles (such as quarks and gluons) cannot be isolated, and therefore cannot be directly observed in normal conditions below the Hagedorn temperature" from color confinement seem reliable to me. 1 is from a published book, second one is from published lecture notes. It's as legit as Feynman lecture notes. 2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is your reliable source saying it has to be in the vacuum for it to be considered free (or isolated)? If you can't provide a reliable source, your argument would be invalid. No original research please and no original interpretation. 2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A free quark in Gell-Mann's, Zweig's, and Feynman's usage (no sources: I worked for them), and everybody else's (indeed), is an isolated quark coming from outer space, or hovering in space, or hitting a detector which thereby registers fractional charge, so, not hadronized; these were searched for for decades, unsuccessfully. They don't exist for a reason. QGP is normally a blob of no more than a few fermis wide, produced by the collision of hadrons or nuclei, and so, could be thought of as an extreme bag of colored entities. The fact that quarks propagate "freely" in it is hardly different, conceptually, than partons in a hadron struck at extreme $$Q^2$$s, so a huge contrast. That's just why the "free" terminology is deprecated in favor of "isolated". I'd be flattered to consider any of this as original research or interpretations! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still believe isolation in this case means isolated or free from color confinement (all my sources have different interpretation of free quarks than yours). However, if you really want to keep your argument of isolated as in the vacuum then for better clarification, I suggest adding "in the vacuum" after "found in isolation". Or you can say "quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum." 14.169.100.161 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 * You are chasing a red herring by looking for the "correct" technical meaning of "in isolation". This is the lede of a highly visible Wikipedia article. Therefore it is written in non-technical language, as far as possible. "In isolation" here is used in the "lay" English sense of "far removed other things". Quark-gluon plasmas and particle decays in a collider, do not fall in this common understanding of "isolated". TR 12:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you need to say, "quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum" to make it a scientific correct statement. Wikipedia serves not only the layman but also the experts in particle physics. A little clarification can't ever hurt. 2402:800:4329:851A:B1B5:E074:25A3:4DC5 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be more problematic as there is no such thing as "the vacuum". An important aspect of writing an accessible lede is being sufficiently imprecise as to still be accurate (but not more so). (Also nice double negative.) TR 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is, but yea, it can never be completely empty due to quantum fluctuation, dark matter, dark energy, and maybe more things that we just don't know yet. It depends on your definition of the vacuum, which would lead to another rabbit hole. In any case, most of my concerns have been addressed thanks mostly to your edits. I'm not completely satisfied with this last bit but, but I guess that's life (can't have everything my way). It's time we say farewell to each other. 14.169.171.239 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Quark structure of nuclei, e.g. deuteron having large quadrupole moment?
What happens with quark structure e.g. of proton + neutron when they bind into deuteron?

We know it has large electric quadrupole moment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium#Magnetic_and_electric_multipoles ), what seems tough to get if thinking about it as just 'pn' (?)

It is explained by adding l=2 angular momentum, but it suggests some dynamics - what exactly?

Couldn't this quadrupole be obtained by just shifting some quarks instead? (I got such suggestion from soliton particle models) Jarek Duda (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If quarks build nucleons, which build nuclei of all atoms around us ... isn't the role of quarks in nuclei a basic question - which should addressed in their Wikipedia article? Jarek Duda (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be an interesting question, if and when a good answer were at hand. WP summarizes clear results, and does not blithely rush to the muddiest of conceptual corners. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Attribution of discovery
It seems odd to attribute the discovery of quarks to SLAC without any mention of the Nobel Prize awarded for that work to Friedman, Kendall, and Taylor. Surely it merits a sentence. 174.62.81.41 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence. --mfb (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quark


text:
Porsche 64

The Porsche 64, also known as the Type 64 and Type 60K10, is considered by many to be the first automobile from what was to become the Porsche company, and a true design precursor to the post-war production model.

Name and origin
The model number comes from the fact that it was built mainly from design drawings for the Type-64 "record car". Most mechanical parts came from the VW 38, the prototype of the KdF-Wagen better known as the Volkswagen Beetle. The chassis was heavily reinforced and the engine also reworked to produce around 40 horsepower. The Type 64 was only a drawing until the three racers were built. The body was also a compromise in that the cab had to look like a KdF car, but the rest was 'record' car. The VW beetle was the Type 60, and the name the "60K10" means body design 10 for the Type 60 Beetle. Its flat-four engine produced between 32 and 40 bhp and gave a top speed of around 160 km/h.

Planned races and scrapping
The body design was made by the Porsche Büro after wind tunnel tests for a planned V10 sports car that never came into existence, the Type 114. Dr. Ingr. Porsche promoted the idea to enter the car into the Berlin-Rome race scheduled for September 1939. The race did not take place but three cars were completed, with aluminium bodies hand shaped by the bodywork company Reutter (which also produced the VW 38 prototypes). One of these, the 38/41, was destroyed early in World War II. The two remaining cars, numbered 38/42 and 38/43, were used by the Porsche family. Eventually they only used one of them and put the other in storage.

Last examples
In May 1945, American troops discovered the one put in storage, cut the roof off and used it for joyriding for a few weeks until the engine gave up and it was scrapped. The last remaining Porsche 64 was owned by Ferry Porsche who had it restored by Battista Farina in 1947. In 1949 it was sold to the Austrian motorcycle racer and with it he won the Alpine Rally in 1950. The last time he drove it in a race was at the Monterey Historic Automobile Races in Monterey, California, in 1982. The scrapped car, chassis 38/42, has also been rebuilt and is now on display in the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles.

Otto Mathé retained possession of 38/43 until his death in 1995, and two years later the Type 64 was sold for the second time in its history to Porsche collector and marque expert Dr. Thomas Gruber of Vienna, Austria. The 1939 Porsche Type 64, was to be auctioned in August 2019 during Monterey Car Week. RM Sotheby's predicted a selling price “in excess of $20 million” but it failed to sell at an auction marred by incorrectly displayed bid amounts.

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

title: Porsche 64


text:
List of particles

This is a list of known and hypothesized particles.

Standard Model elementary particles
Elementary particles are particles with no measurable internal structure; that is, it is unknown whether they are composed of other particles. They are the fundamental objects of quantum field theory. Many families and sub-families of elementary particles exist. Elementary particles are classified according to their spin. Fermions have half-integer spin while bosons have integer spin. All the particles of the Standard Model have been experimentally observed, including the Higgs boson in 2012. Many other hypothetical elementary particles, such as the graviton, have been proposed, but not observed experimentally.

Fermions
Fermions are one of the two fundamental classes of particles, the other being bosons. Fermion particles are described by Fermi–Dirac statistics and have quantum numbers described by the Pauli exclusion principle. They include the quarks and leptons, as well as any composite particles consisting of an odd number of these, such as all baryons and many atoms and nuclei.

Fermions have half-integer spin; for all known elementary fermions this is $1/2$. All known fermions except neutrinos, are also Dirac fermions; that is, each known fermion has its own distinct antiparticle. It is not known whether the neutrino is a Dirac fermion or a Majorana fermion. Fermions are the basic building blocks of all matter. They are classified according to whether they interact via the strong interaction or not. In the Standard Model, there are 12 types of elementary fermions: six quarks and six leptons.

Quarks
Quarks are the fundamental constituents of hadrons and interact via the strong force. Quarks are the only known carriers of fractional charge, but because they combine in groups of three quarks (baryons) or in pairs of one quark and one antiquark (mesons), only integer charge is observed in nature. Their respective antiparticles are the antiquarks, which are identical except that they carry the opposite electric charge (for example the up quark carries charge +$2/3$, while the up antiquark carries charge −$2/3$), color charge, and baryon number. There are six flavors of quarks; the three positively charged quarks are called "up-type quarks" while the three negatively charged quarks are called "down-type quarks".

Leptons
Leptons do not interact via the strong interaction. Their respective antiparticles are the antileptons, which are identical, except that they carry the opposite electric charge and lepton number. The antiparticle of an electron is an antielectron, which is almost always called a "positron" for historical reasons. There are six leptons in total; the three charged leptons are called "electron-like leptons", while the neutral leptons are called "neutrinos". Neutrinos are known to oscillate, so that neutrinos of definite flavor do not have definite mass: Instead, they exist in a superposition of mass eigenstates. The hypothetical heavy right-handed neutrino, called a "sterile neutrino", has been omitted.

Bosons
Bosons are one of the two fundamental particles having integral spinclasses of particles, the other being fermions. Bosons are characterized by Bose–Einstein statistics and all have integer spins. Bosons may be either elementary, like photons and gluons, or composite, like mesons.

According to the Standard Model, the elementary bosons are:

The Higgs boson is postulated by the electroweak theory primarily to explain the origin of particle masses. In a process known as the "Higgs mechanism", the Higgs boson and the other gauge bosons in the Standard Model acquire mass via spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SU(2) gauge symmetry. The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) predicts several Higgs bosons. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between $1/2$ was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson. Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted for Higgs particles by the Standard Model, as well as having even parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This also means it is the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature.

Elementary bosons responsible for the four fundamental forces of nature are called force particles (gauge bosons). Strong interaction is mediated by the gluon, weak interaction is mediated by the W and Z bosons.

Graviton
The graviton is a hypothetical particle that has been included in some extensions to the standard model to mediate the gravitational force. It is in a peculiar category between known and hypothetical particles: As an unobserved particle that is not predicted by, nor required for the Standard Model, it belongs in the table of hypothetical particles, below. But gravitational force itself is a certainty, and expressing that known force in the framework of a quantum field theory requires a boson to mediate it.

If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force has a very long range, and appears to propagate at the speed of light. The graviton must be a spin-2 boson because the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-order tensor (compared with electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-order tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational interactions do. This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton.

Particles predicted by supersymmetric theories
Supersymmetric theories predict the existence of more particles, none of which have been confirmed experimentally.

Just as the photon, Z boson and W$2/3$ bosons are superpositions of the B$2.2$, W$1/2$, W$1/3$, and W$4.6$ fields, the photino, zino, and wino$1/2$ are superpositions of the bino$2/3$, wino$1,280$, wino$1/2$, and wino$1/3$. No matter if one uses the original gauginos or this superpositions as a basis, the only predicted physical particles are neutralinos and charginos as a superposition of them together with the Higgsinos.

Other hypothetical bosons and fermions
Other theories predict the existence of additional elementary bosons and fermions, with some theories also postulating additional superpartners for these particles:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="margin:1em auto;"

! Name !! Spin !! width="500"|Notes
 * + Other hypothetical bosons and fermions
 * axion || 0 || A pseudoscalar particle introduced in Peccei–Quinn theory to solve the strong-CP problem.
 * axino || $96$ || Superpartner of the axion. Forms a supermultiplet, together with the saxion and axion, in supersymmetric extensions of Peccei–Quinn theory.
 * branon || ? || Predicted in brane world models.
 * digamma || ? || Proposed resonance of mass near 750 GeV that decays into two photons.
 * dilaton || 0 || Predicted in some string theories.
 * dilatino || $1/2$ || Superpartner of the dilaton.
 * dual graviton || 2 || Has been hypothesized as dual of graviton under electric–magnetic duality in supergravity.
 * graviphoton || 1 || Also known as "gravivector".
 * graviscalar || 0 || Also known as "radion".
 * inflaton || 0 || Unidentified scalar force-carrier that is presumed to have physically caused cosmological “inflation” – the rapid expansion from to  seconds after the Big Bang.
 * magnetic photon || ? || Predicted in 1966.
 * majoron || 0 || Predicted to understand neutrino masses by the seesaw mechanism.
 * majorana fermion || $2/3$; $173,100$ ? ... || gluino, neutralino, or other – is its own antiparticle.
 * saxion || 0 ||
 * X17 particle || ? || possible cause of anomalous measurement results near 17 MeV, and possible candidate for dark matter.
 * X and Y bosons || 1 || These leptoquarks are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.
 * W′ and Z′ bosons || 1 ||
 * }
 * inflaton || 0 || Unidentified scalar force-carrier that is presumed to have physically caused cosmological “inflation” – the rapid expansion from to  seconds after the Big Bang.
 * magnetic photon || ? || Predicted in 1966.
 * majoron || 0 || Predicted to understand neutrino masses by the seesaw mechanism.
 * majorana fermion || $1/2$; $1/3$ ? ... || gluino, neutralino, or other – is its own antiparticle.
 * saxion || 0 ||
 * X17 particle || ? || possible cause of anomalous measurement results near 17 MeV, and possible candidate for dark matter.
 * X and Y bosons || 1 || These leptoquarks are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.
 * W′ and Z′ bosons || 1 ||
 * }
 * saxion || 0 ||
 * X17 particle || ? || possible cause of anomalous measurement results near 17 MeV, and possible candidate for dark matter.
 * X and Y bosons || 1 || These leptoquarks are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.
 * W′ and Z′ bosons || 1 ||
 * }
 * W′ and Z′ bosons || 1 ||
 * }
 * }

Other hypothetical elementary particles

 * Higgs doublets are hypothesized by some theories of physics beyond the standard model.
 * Kaluza–Klein towers of particles are predicted by some models of extra dimensions. The extra-dimensional momentum is manifested as extra mass in four-dimensional spacetime.
 * Leptoquarks are bosons carrying both baryon and lepton numbers predicted by various extensions of the Standard Model such as technicolor theories.
 * Mirror particles are predicted by theories that restore parity symmetry.
 * "Magnetic monopole" is a generic name for particles with non-zero magnetic charge. They are predicted by some GUTs.
 * Preons were suggested as subparticles of quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but ruled out their existence.

Composite particles
Composite particles are bound states of elementary particles.

Hadrons
Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either:
 * Composite fermions (especially 3 quarks), in which case they are called baryons.
 * Composite bosons (especially 2 quarks), in which case they are called mesons.

Quark models, first proposed in 1964 independently by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig (who called quarks "aces"), describe the known hadrons as composed of valence quarks and/or antiquarks, tightly bound by the color force, which is mediated by gluons. (The interaction between quarks and gluons is described by the theory of quantum chromodynamics.) A "sea" of virtual quark-antiquark pairs is also present in each hadron.

Baryons

Ordinary baryons (composite fermions) contain three valence quarks or three valence antiquarks each.
 * Nucleons are the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei:
 * Protons, composed of two up and one down quark (uud)
 * Neutrons, composed of two down and one up quark (ddu)
 * Hyperons, such as the Λ, Σ, Ξ, and Ω particles, which contain one or more strange quarks, are short-lived and heavier than nucleons. Although not normally present in atomic nuclei, they can appear in short-lived hypernuclei.
 * A number of charmed and bottom baryons have also been observed.
 * Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks and one valence antiquark.
 * Other exotic baryons may also exist.

Mesons

Ordinary mesons are made up of a valence quark and a valence antiquark. Because mesons have integer spin (0 or 1) and are not themselves elementary particles, they are classified as “composite“ bosons, although being made of elementary fermions. Examples of mesons include the pion, kaon, and the J/ψ. In quantum hadrodynamics, mesons mediate the residual strong force between nucleons.

At one time or another, positive signatures have been reported for all of the following exotic mesons but their existences have yet to be confirmed.
 * A tetraquark consists of two valence quarks and two valence antiquarks;
 * A glueball is a bound state of gluons with no valence quarks;
 * Hybrid mesons consist of one or more valence quark–antiquark pairs and one or more real gluons.

Atomic nuclei

Atomic nuclei typically consist of protons and neutrons, although exotic nuclei may consist of other baryons, such as hypertriton which contains a hyperon. These baryons (protons, neutrons, hyperons, etc.) which comprise the nucleus are called nucleons. Each type of nucleus is called a "nuclide", and each nuclide is defined by the specific number of each type of nucleon.
 * "Isotopes" are nuclides which have the same number of protons but differing numbers of neutrons.
 * Conversely, "isotones" are nuclides which have the same number of neutrons but differing numbers of protons.
 * "Isobars" are nuclides which have the same total number of nucleons but which differ in the number of each type of nucleon. Nuclear reactions can change one nuclide into another.

Atoms
Atoms are the smallest neutral particles into which matter can be divided by chemical reactions. An atom consists of a small, heavy nucleus surrounded by a relatively large, light cloud of electrons. An atomic nucleus consists of 1 or more protons and 0 or more neutrons. Protons and neutrons are, in turn, made of quarks. Each type of atom corresponds to a specific chemical element. To date, 118 elements have been discovered or created.

Exotic atoms may be composed of particles in addition to or in place of protons, neutrons, and electrons, such as hyperons or muons. Examples include pionium and quarkonium atoms.

Leptonic atoms
Leptonic atoms, named using -onium, are exotic atoms constituted by the bound state of a lepton and an antilepton. Examples of such atoms include positronium, muonium , and "true muonium". Of these positronium and muonium have been experimentally observed, while "true muonium" remains only theoretical.

Molecules
Molecules are the smallest particles into which a substance can be divided while maintaining the chemical properties of the substance. Each type of molecule corresponds to a specific chemical substance. A molecule is a composite of two or more atoms. Atoms are combined in a fixed proportion to form a molecule. Molecule is one of the most basic units of matter.

Ions
Ions are charged atoms (monatomic ions) or molecules (polyatomic ions). They include cations which have a net positive charge, and anions which have a net negative charge.

Quasiparticles
Quasiparticles are effective particles that exist in many particle systems. The field equations of condensed matter physics are remarkably similar to those of high energy particle physics. As a result, much of the theory of particle physics applies to condensed matter physics as well; in particular, there are a selection of field excitations, called quasi-particles, that can be created and explored. These include:

 * Anyons are a generalization of fermions and bosons in two-dimensional systems like sheets of graphene that obeys braid statistics.
 * Dislons are localized collective excitations of a crystal dislocation around the static displacement.
 * Excitons are bound states of an electron and a hole.
 * Hopfions are topological solitons which are the 3D counterpart of the skyrmion.
 * Magnons are coherent excitations of electron spins in a material.
 * Phonons are vibrational modes in a crystal lattice.
 * Plasmons are coherent excitations of a plasma.
 * Plektons are theoretical kind of particle discussed as a generalization of the braid statistics of the anyon to more than two dimensions.
 * Polaritons are mixtures of photons with other quasi-particles.
 * Polarons are moving, charged (quasi-) particles that are surrounded by ions in a material.
 * Skyrmions are a topological solution of the pion field, used to model the low-energy properties of the nucleon, such as the axial vector current coupling and the mass.

Dark matter candidates
The following categories are not unique or distinct: For example, either a WIMP or a WISP is also a FIP.

 * A WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) is any one of a number of particles that might explain dark matter (such as the neutralino or the sterile neutrino)
 * A WISP (weakly interacting slender particle) is any one of a number of low mass particles that might explain dark matter (such as the axion)
 * A GIMP (gravitationally interacting massive particle) is a particle which provides an alternative explanation of dark matter, instead of the aforementioned WIMP
 * A SIMP (strongly interacting massive particle) is a particle that interact strongly between themselves and weakly with ordinary matter and could form dark matter
 * A SMP (stable massive particle) is a particle that is long-lived and has appreciable mass that could be dark matter
 * A FIP (feebly interacting particle) is a particle that interacts very weakly with conventional matter and could account for dark matter
 * A LSP (lightest supersymmetric particle) is a particle found in supersymmetric models as a contender of WIMPs

Dark energy candidates

 * Chameleon particle a possible candidate for dark energy
 * Acceleron particle another candidate for dark energy

Classification by speed

 * A bradyon (or tardyon) travels slower than the speed of light in vacuum and has a non-zero, real rest mass.
 * A luxon travels as fast as light in vacuum and has no rest mass.
 * A tachyon is a hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light so they would paradoxically experience time in reverse (due to inversion of the theory of relativity) and would violate the known laws of causality. A tachyon has an imaginary rest mass.

Other

 * Calorons, finite temperature generalization of instantons.
 * Dyons are hypothetical particles with both electric and magnetic charges.
 * Geons are electromagnetic or gravitational waves which are held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of their own field of energy.
 * Goldstone bosons are a massless excitation of a field that has been spontaneously broken. The pions are quasi-goldstone bosons (quasi- because they are not exactly massless) of the broken chiral isospin symmetry of quantum chromodynamics.
 * Goldstinos are fermions produced by the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry; they are the supersymmetric counterpart of Goldstone bosons.
 * Sphalerons are a field configuration which is a saddle point of the Yang–Mills field equations. Sphalerons are used in nonperturbative calculations of non-tunneling rates.
 * Instantons, a field configuration which is a local minimum of the Yang–Mills field equation. Instantons are used in nonperturbative calculations of tunneling rates.
 * Meron, a field configuration which is a non-self-dual solution of the Yang–Mills field equation. The instanton is believed to be composed of two merons.
 * Parton, is a generic term coined by Feynman for the sub-particles making up a composite particle – at that time a baryon – hence, it originally referred to what are now called "quarks" and "gluons".
 * Pomerons, used to explain the elastic scattering of hadrons and the location of Regge poles in Regge theory. A counterpart to odderons.
 * Odderon, a particle composed of an odd number of gluons, detected in 2021. A counterpart to pomerons.
 * Minicharged particle are hypothetical subatomic particles charged with a tiny fraction of the electron charge.
 * Continuous spin particle are hypothetical massless particles related to the classification of the representations of the Poincaré group

title: List of particles


text:
Writ of assistance

A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff or a tax collector, to perform a certain task. Historically, several types of writs have been called "writs of assistance". Most often, a writ of assistance is "used to enforce an order for the possession of lands". When used to evict someone from real property, such a writ is also called a writ of restitution or a writ of possession. In the area of customs, writs of assistance date from Colonial times. They were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called "writs of assistance" because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to "assist" the customs official in carrying out his duties.

In general, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America between 1755 and 1760 (then mirroring like writs having previously been issued, and being enforced, in the motherland by Britain's Exchequer Court), especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States of America. Though generally these colonial writs were no more onerous than the ones enforced in Britain, a fallacious 1760 London Magazine article asserted the writs issued in the motherland "...were specific, not general" thereby generating the perception in the colonies that the colonists were being treated unfairly. John Adams was to later assert that the ensuing court battle was the "seeds of the American Revolution."

In colonial America
General writs of assistance played an important role in the increasing tensions that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. In 1760, Great Britain began to enforce some of the provisions of the Navigation Acts by granting customs officers these writs. In New England, smuggling had become common. However, officers could not search a person's property without giving a reason. Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects.

Among the grounds the colonists opposed the writs were that they were permanent and even transferable; the holder of a writ could assign it to another; any place could be searched at the whim of the holder; and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused.

All writs of assistance expired six months after the death of the king, at which time new writs had to be obtained. With the death of King George II on 25 October 1760, all writs would expire on 25 April 1761. The crisis began on 27 December 1760 when news of King George II's death reached Boston and the people of Massachusetts learned that all writs faced termination.

Paxton's case
Within three weeks, the writs were challenged by a group of 63 Boston merchants represented by fiery Boston attorney James Otis Jr. A countersuit was filed by a British customs agent Paxton, and together these are known as "Paxton's case". Otis argued the famous writs of assistance case at the Old State House in Boston in February 1761 and again on 16 November 1761. Otis gave the speech of his life, making references to liberty, English common law, "a man's house is his castle," and the colonists's "rights as Englishmen."

The court ruled against the merchants. However, Otis's arguments were published in the colonies, and stirred widespread support for colonial rights. As a young lawyer John Adams observed the case in the packed courtroom. Moved by Otis's performance and legal arguments, he later declared that "Then and there the child Independence was born".

In a pamphlet published in 1765, Otis expanded his argument that the general writs violated the British unwritten constitution hearkening back to the Magna Carta. Any law in violation of the constitution or "natural law" which underlay it, he said, was void.

Malcom Affair
A writ of assistance was used in an incident known as the "Malcom Affair", which was described by legal scholar William Cuddihy as "the most famous search in colonial America." The episode demonstrated a fundamental difference between the colonists' view of their rights and the official British view of imperial law. "The Malcom affair was a minor matter, a comedy of blundering revenue officers and barricaded colonials," wrote legal historian John Phillip Reid, "but were we to dismiss it in haste we might run the risk of dismissing much of the story of the American Revolution."

On 24 September 1766, customs officials in Boston, with a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom's home, which was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to customs official Benjamin Hallowell, and the information of a confidential informant. Malcom allowed them to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. According to customs officials, Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door; according to Malcom and his supporters, his threat specified resisting any unlawful forced entry.

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house. A crowd supportive of Malcom had gathered around the house; Tories claimed that this "mob" numbered 300 or more people and was hostile to the customs officers, while Whigs insisted that this was a peaceful gathering of about 50 curious onlookers, mostly boys. No violence occurred, but reports written by Governor Francis Bernard and the customs officials created the impression in Britain that a riot had taken place. The incident furthered Boston's reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by "mobs", a reputation that would contribute to the government's decision to send troops in 1768.

Although British officials, and some historians, described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law, the constitutional historian John Phillip Reid argued that Malcom's actions were lawful—so precisely lawful, in fact, that Reid speculated that Malcom may have been acting under the advice of his lawyer, James Otis. According to Reid, Malcom and Otis may have been attempting to provoke a lawsuit so that they could once again "challenge the validity of writs of assistance" in court. This was one of several incidents when a Boston merchant resisted a search with a seemingly exact knowledge of the law; John Hancock, a prominent merchant and well-known smuggler, would act in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia in 1768.

End of colonial writs
Uncertainty about the legality of writs of assistance issued by colonial superior courts prompted Parliament to affirm that such writs were legal in the 1767 Townshend Acts. However, most colonial courts refused to issue general writs, and the Malcom case was apparently the last time a writ of assistance was issued in Boston.

Legacy
In response to the much-hated general writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they established independent governments in 1776; the phrase "particularity requirement" is the legal term of art used in period cases to refer to an express requirement that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. Later, the Fourth Amendment was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and writs of assistance were proscribed.

In the United Kingdom
Writs of assistance continue to have force in the United Kingdom and may be used by customs officers to enter any building by force and search and seize anything liable to forfeiture. The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that goods liable for forfeiture are kept on the premises and that the goods are likely to be removed, destroyed or lost before a search warrant can be obtained and executed. Writs of assistance are valid from the date of issue and cease to be valid six months after the end of the reign of the monarch under which the order was issued.

In Canada
Until 1985, four federal statutes in Canada—the Customs Act, Excise Tax Act, Food and Drugs Act, and Narcotic Control Act—provided that writs of assistance were to be granted to officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other federal officers, on a mandatory basis, for enforcement purposes. The notion of a writ of assistance in Canadian statute dates back at least to 1847, when a statute of the Province of Canada was passed providing for writs of assistance in customs enforcement; a statute of Nova Scotia referred to such a writ in 1834, while a New Brunswick statute dated to 1846.

Statutory writs of assistance were described by the Exchequer Court of Canada (now the Federal Court) as "in effect, search warrants unrelated to any particular suspected offence and of continuing operation, which are issued to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other officers in the service of the Government of Canada to have effect as long as the holder continues to hold the position by virtue of which the writ was issued to him." Perhaps more concisely, one commentator described the legal effect of a writ of assistance as, "to all intents and purposes, a blanket warrant" which "authorizes the holder to search for particular things (e.g., controlled drugs or smuggled goods) anywhere and at any time."

However, since judicial authorization was not required for any given search conducted pursuant to a writ of assistance, this characterization is somewhat misleading. Rather, as noted by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in a 1983 report, "[i]n essence, they are documents that identify their holders as members of a specific class of peace officers with special powers of warrantless search and seizure." Moreover, although search warrants are subject to various common law requirements of particularity, the same was not evidently true for statutory writs of assistance.

In 1984, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared statutory writs of assistance to be contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Statutory writs of assistance were repealed in Canada in 1985.

title: Writ of assistance


text:
Talk:Writ of assistance

Untitled
I'm relatively satisfied with the article's coverage of the American Revolution. But, the section on Canadian controversy certainly needs expanding. Hopefully someone who knows more about the issue that I do can fill this in. Thanks,, Lou I 11:54, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why exactly is the Patriot Act Constitionally prohibited, is this conjecture or opinion on the author's part? user;Tomtom1318EST, 15 July 2004

It is my understanding that persons and goods are searched and seized at the Canadian border (without a judge-issued warrant) under the provisions of Canada's Customs Act. Writs of Assitance were used to search non-residences. I also understand that ALL Writs of Assitance were withdrawn and cancelled prior to the proclamation of Canada's Charter of Rights in 1982, and that these are no longer in use or issued.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Similarity of National Security Letters
This should be discussed in article. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Mow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.227.191 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

General Warrants, British History
It would be nice to see more information on general warrants as they relate to the Wilkes case and other aspects of 18th-Century British history. The American side of it seems kind of peripheral, by comparison. Fearwig 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That's another topic that indeed should be covered somewhere, though not here. "General warrant" currently redirects here, but it probably should not. The Wilkes case was about a general arrest warrant; the writ of assistance (the topic of this article) was effectively a general search warrant. They are similar—so much so that American Whigs saw a connection between Wilkes's situation and their own—but not identical. —Kevin Myers 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, yes! General Warrants were made illegal in 1763, thanks to Wilkes, and this was a huge step towards individual liberty, greatly assisting the move to free the American colonies.   Please, please, some clever chap, make a new article on General Warrants.86.0.65.20 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup.
Needs organizing and clean up. In the very first sentence "unlegal" is NOT a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed "unlegal" to "legal" and removed oddness about .coms. --Zenten 11:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Writs vs. Category:Warrants
Category:Warrants is itself a category within Category:Writs. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Malcom Affair
Currently, the article refers to "the official British view of imperial law." However, my understanding is that the British Empire did not formally exist until the mid-19th century. Is this usage correct, or should it be changed?JDZeff (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Writ of assistance


text:
Generalized flag variety

In mathematics, a generalized flag variety (or simply flag variety) is a homogeneous space whose points are flags in a finite-dimensional vector space V over a field F. When F is the real or complex numbers, a generalized flag variety is a smooth or complex manifold, called a real or complex flag manifold. Flag varieties are naturally projective varieties.

Flag varieties can be defined in various degrees of generality. A prototype is the variety of complete flags in a vector space V over a field F, which is a flag variety for the special linear group over F. Other flag varieties arise by considering partial flags, or by restriction from the special linear group to subgroups such as the symplectic group. For partial flags, one needs to specify the sequence of dimensions of the flags under consideration. For subgroups of the linear group, additional conditions must be imposed on the flags.

In the most general sense, a generalized flag variety is defined to mean a projective homogeneous variety, that is, a smooth projective variety X over a field F with a transitive action of a reductive group G (and smooth stabilizer subgroup; that is no restriction for F of characteristic zero). If X has an F-rational point, then it is isomorphic to G/P for some parabolic subgroup P of G. A projective homogeneous variety may also be realised as the orbit of a highest weight vector in a projectivized representation of G. The complex projective homogeneous varieties are the compact flat model spaces for Cartan geometries of parabolic type. They are homogeneous Riemannian manifolds under any maximal compact subgroup of G, and they are precisely the coadjoint orbits of compact Lie groups.

Flag manifolds can be symmetric spaces. Over the complex numbers, the corresponding flag manifolds are the Hermitian symmetric spaces. Over the real numbers, an R-space is a synonym for a real flag manifold and the corresponding symmetric spaces are called symmetric R-spaces.

Flags in a vector space
A flag in a finite dimensional vector space V over a field F is an increasing sequence of subspaces, where "increasing" means each is a proper subspace of the next (see filtration):
 * $$\{0\} = V_0 \sub V_1 \sub V_2 \sub \cdots \sub V_k = V.$$

If we write the dim Vi = di then we have
 * $$0 = d_0 < d_1 < d_2 < \cdots < d_k = n,$$

where n is the dimension of V. Hence, we must have k ≤ n. A flag is called a complete flag if di = i for all i, otherwise it is called a partial flag. The signature of the flag is the sequence (d1, ..., dk).

A partial flag can be obtained from a complete flag by deleting some of the subspaces. Conversely, any partial flag can be completed (in many different ways) by inserting suitable subspaces.

Prototype: the complete flag variety
According to basic results of linear algebra, any two complete flags in an n-dimensional vector space V over a field F are no different from each other from a geometric point of view. That is to say, the general linear group acts transitively on the set of all complete flags.

Fix an ordered basis for V, identifying it with Fn, whose general linear group is the group GL(n,F) of n × n invertible matrices. The standard flag associated with this basis is the one where the ith subspace is spanned by the first i vectors of the basis. Relative to this basis, the stabilizer of the standard flag is the group of nonsingular lower triangular matrices, which we denote by Bn. The complete flag variety can therefore be written as a homogeneous space GL(n,F) / Bn, which shows in particular that it has dimension n(n−1)/2 over F.

Note that the multiples of the identity act trivially on all flags, and so one can restrict attention to the special linear group SL(n,F) of matrices with determinant one, which is a semisimple algebraic group; the set of lower triangular matrices of determinant one is a Borel subgroup.

If the field F is the real or complex numbers we can introduce an inner product on V such that the chosen basis is orthonormal. Any complete flag then splits into a direct sum of one-dimensional subspaces by taking orthogonal complements. It follows that the complete flag manifold over the complex numbers is the homogeneous space
 * $$U(n)/T^n$$

where U(n) is the unitary group and Tn is the n-torus of diagonal unitary matrices. There is a similar description over the real numbers with U(n) replaced by the orthogonal group O(n), and Tn by the diagonal orthogonal matrices (which have diagonal entries ±1).

Partial flag varieties
The partial flag variety
 * $$ F(d_1,d_2,\ldots d_k, \mathbb F)$$

is the space of all flags of signature (d1, d2, ... dk) in a vector space V of dimension n = dk over F. The complete flag variety is the special case that di = i for all i. When k=2, this is a Grassmannian of d1-dimensional subspaces of V.

This is a homogeneous space for the general linear group G of V over F. To be explicit, take V = Fn so that G = GL(n,F). The stabilizer of a flag of nested subspaces Vi of dimension di can be taken to be the group of nonsingular block lower triangular matrices, where the dimensions of the blocks are ni := di − di−1 (with d0 = 0).

Restricting to matrices of determinant one, this is a parabolic subgroup P of SL(n,F), and thus the partial flag variety is isomorphic to the homogeneous space SL(n,F)/P.

If F is the real or complex numbers, then an inner product can be used to split any flag into a direct sum, and so the partial flag variety is also isomorphic to the homogeneous space
 * $$ U(n)/U(n_1)\times\cdots \times U(n_k)$$

in the complex case, or
 * $$ O(n)/O(n_1)\times\cdots\times O(n_k)$$

in the real case.

Generalization to semisimple groups
The upper triangular matrices of determinant one are a Borel subgroup of SL(n,F), and hence the stabilizers of partial flags are parabolic subgroups. Furthermore, a partial flag is determined by the parabolic subgroup which stabilizes it.

Hence, more generally, if G is a semisimple algebraic or Lie group, then the (generalized) flag variety for G is G/P where P is a parabolic subgroup of G. The correspondence between parabolic subgroups and generalized flag varieties allows each to be understood in terms of the other.

The extension of the terminology "flag variety" is reasonable, because points of G/P can still be described using flags. When G is a classical group, such as a symplectic group or orthogonal group, this is particularly transparent. If (V, ω) is a symplectic vector space then a partial flag in V is isotropic if the symplectic form vanishes on proper subspaces of V in the flag. The stabilizer of an isotropic flag is a parabolic subgroup of the symplectic group Sp(V,ω). For orthogonal groups there is a similar picture, with a couple of complications. First, if F is not algebraically closed, then isotropic subspaces may not exist: for a general theory, one needs to use the split orthogonal groups. Second, for vector spaces of even dimension 2m, isotropic subspaces of dimension m come in two flavours ("self-dual" and "anti-self-dual") and one needs to distinguish these to obtain a homogeneous space.

Cohomology
If G is a compact, connected Lie group, it contains a maximal torus T and the space G/T of left cosets with the quotient topology is a compact real manifold. If H is any other closed, connected subgroup of G containing T, then G/H is another compact real manifold. (Both are actually complex homogeneous spaces in a canonical way through complexification.)

The presence of a complex structure and cellular (co)homology make it easy to see that the cohomology ring of G/H is concentrated in even degrees, but in fact, something much stronger can be said. Because G → G/H is a principal H-bundle, there exists a classifying map G/H → BH with target the classifying space BH. If we replace G/H with the homotopy quotient GH in the sequence G → G/H → BH, we obtain a principal G-bundle called the Borel fibration of the right multiplication action of H on G, and we can use the cohomological Serre spectral sequence of this bundle to understand the fiber-restriction homomorphism H*(G/H) → H*(G) and the characteristic map H*(BH) → H*(G/H), so called because its image, the characteristic subring of H*(G/H), carries the characteristic classes of the original bundle H → G → G/H.

Let us now restrict our coefficient ring to be a field k of characteristic zero, so that, by Hopf's theorem, H*(G) is an exterior algebra on generators of odd degree (the subspace of primitive elements). It follows that the edge homomorphisms

 * $$E_{r+1}^{0,r} \to E_{r+1}^{r+1,0}$$

of the spectral sequence must eventually take the space of primitive elements in the left column H*(G) of the page E2 bijectively into the bottom row H*(BH): we know G and H have the same rank, so if the collection of edge homomorphisms were not full rank on the primitive subspace, then the image of the bottom row H*(BH) in the final page H*(G/H) of the sequence would be infinite-dimensional as a k-vector space, which is impossible, for instance by cellular cohomology again, because a compact homogeneous space admits a finite CW structure.

Thus the ring map H*(G/H) → H*(G) is trivial in this case, and the characteristic map is surjective, so that H*(G/H) is a quotient of H*(BH). The kernel of the map is the ideal generated by the images of primitive elements under the edge homomorphisms, which is also the ideal generated by positive-degree elements in the image of the canonical map H*(BG) → H*(BH) induced by the inclusion of H in G.

The map H*(BG) → H*(BT) is injective, and likewise for H, with image the subring H*(BT)W(G) of elements invariant under the action of the Weyl group, so one finally obtains the concise description

 * $$H^*(G/H) \cong H^*(BT)^{W(H)}/\big(\widetilde{H}^*(BT)^{W(G)}\big),$$

where $$\widetilde H^*$$ denotes positive-degree elements and the parentheses the generation of an ideal. For example, for the complete complex flag manifold U(n)/Tn, one has

 * $$H^*\big(U(n)/T^n\big) \cong \mathbb{Q}[t_1,\ldots,t_n]/(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n),$$

where the tj are of degree 2 and the σj are the first n elementary symmetric polynomials in the variables tj. For a more concrete example, take n = 2, so that U(2)/[U(1) × U(1)] is the complex Grassmannian Gr(1,$$\mathbb{C}$$2) ≈ $$\mathbb{C}$$P1 ≈ S2. Then we expect the cohomology ring to be an exterior algebra on a generator of degree two (the fundamental class), and indeed,

 * $$H^*\big(U(2)/T^2\big) \cong \mathbb{Q}[t_1,t_2]/(t_1 + t_2, t_1 t_2)

\cong \mathbb{Q}[t_1]/(t_1^2),$$

as hoped.

Highest weight orbits and projective homogeneous varieties
If G is a semisimple algebraic group (or Lie group) and V is a (finite dimensional) highest weight representation of G, then the highest weight space is a point in the projective space P(V) and its orbit under the action of G is a projective algebraic variety. This variety is a (generalized) flag variety, and furthermore, every (generalized) flag variety for G arises in this way.

Armand Borel showed that this characterizes the flag varieties of a general semisimple algebraic group G: they are precisely the complete homogeneous spaces of G, or equivalently (in this context), the projective homogeneous G-varieties.

Symmetric spaces
Let G be a semisimple Lie group with maximal compact subgroup K. Then K acts transitively on any conjugacy class of parabolic subgroups, and hence the generalized flag variety G/P is a compact homogeneous Riemannian manifold K/(K∩P) with isometry group K. Furthermore, if G is a complex Lie group, G/P is a homogeneous Kähler manifold.

Turning this around, the Riemannian homogeneous spaces

 * M = K/(K∩P)

admit a strictly larger Lie group of transformations, namely G. Specializing to the case that M is a symmetric space, this observation yields all symmetric spaces admitting such a larger symmetry group, and these spaces have been classified by Kobayashi and Nagano.

If G is a complex Lie group, the symmetric spaces M arising in this way are the compact Hermitian symmetric spaces: K is the isometry group, and G is the biholomorphism group of M.

Over the real numbers, a real flag manifold is also called an R-space, and the R-spaces which are Riemannian symmetric spaces under K are known as symmetric R-spaces. The symmetric R-spaces which are not Hermitian symmetric are obtained by taking G to be a real form of the biholomorphism group Gc of a Hermitian symmetric space Gc/Pc such that P := Pc∩G is a parabolic subgroup of G. Examples include projective spaces (with G the group of projective transformations) and spheres (with G the group of conformal transformations).

title: Generalized flag variety


text:
Talk:Zhuang people

Prehistory
I have deleted the sentence: "The Liujiang - Homo sapiens fossil Skull[2] proved that the Rao (Zhuang,Tai) have been living in Guangxi longer than any civilization. "

This claim is not supported at all in the citation given. The article makes no mention whatsoever of any connection between the 100,000 year-old fossil skull found and the Zhuang people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.156.42 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this article about the history of the Zhuang is in conflict with scholarly understanding of the Zhuang:

"The Zhuang were not officially recognized as a unique nationality by the Chinese government until the early 1950s. Prior to the creation of the Wenshan Zhuang-Miao Autonomous Prefecture and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, they did not perceive themselves as a single nationality.14 The people who became known as the Zhuang spoke more than 20 mutually unintelligible local dialects. They lived in isolated valley pockets in 1949, were almost entirely self-sufficient and rarely had contact with each other.15 Most of the separate communities did not even have a word for "Zhuang" in their native language, and perceived themselves as members of separate communities rather than of some greater Zhuang nationality. Official recognition of the Zhuang greatly altered the group identity of the diverse peoples living in western Guangxi and eastern Yunnan. Determining which of the diverse groups should be included as "Zhuang"proved highly problematic, however, and the classification process was handled quite differently in Yunnan and Guangxi. Before examining the classification work in detail, however, the next section sketches the persisting differences in Zhuang ethnic identity on either side of the border."

Kaup, Katherine Palmer "Regionalism versus Ethnicnationalism in the People's Republic of China." The China Quarterly, No. 172 (Dec., 2002), pp. 863-884 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.240 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Trung sisters?
I thought Ma Yuan (Viet: Ma Vien) was responsible for the subduing of the Trung sisters who were of Kinh/Jing (Vietnamese) origin not of Zhuang? Who can verify that he helped set up administration to help build canals for the Zhuang. Because at the time of Zhao Tuo (aka Trieu Da's) Nan Yue kingdom, the main ethnic groups in there area were the combination of the Ou Yue and Luo Yue peoples (Au Viet, Lac Viet) as wella as a small group of Han peoples who came down with Zhao Tuo. Hence, the inclusion of the Trung Sisters is kind of irrelevent seeing as they are not Zhuang.

Zhuang -> Zhuang nationality (anon comment Dec 2003)

Spelling
I see that in one place someone has written Zhuàng. Is this more correct/common? In either case, we should be consistent, the article should be at the commonly used English name, and redirects should be in place. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Assimilation
Can anyone write something more detailed and referenced about their assimilation into the Chinese? This article doesn't cite any sources about it and neither does Zhuang language. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources especially, about the Zhuang language in English are hard to come by. This webb page http://gb2.chinabroadcast.cn/1015/2003-12-15/98@359396.htm is an example of the type of thing often seen. The song is Zhuang, some of the words are obviously loans from Chinese.  The song is entitiled "Rice Planting" (lit plant paddy field) and the first line says "As the sun comes over the hill tops".  Many of the books in the bibliography added to Zhuang language clearly state the writing system has been used for over one thousand years. In spoken Zhuang about 30-50% of words have a common origin to Chinese. Johnkn63 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Put the citation immediately after the material when you add it. There are any number of arcticles you can look to for examples of doing this; almost any featured article provides a good example. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
The end of the "Modern Times" section within "History" reads:

''In 1958, after centuries of being under Chinese rule, the Zhuang finally achieved the aspiration which had eluded them for so long: autonomy. Since the creation of the Zhuang Autonomous Region of Guangxi, the Zhuang have settled back into the 1st century idealism: remaining unique, remaining Zhuang, but being an integral part of China.''

I felt like this read an awful lot like an official PRC line. In other words, it seemed to not conform to NPOV. Granted, I know little about the topic, but I looked in the edit history and found that this section used to read:

''In 1958, after centuries of being under Chinese rule, the Zhuang finally achieved the aspiration which had eluded them for so long: autonomy. Since the creation of the Zhuang Autonomous Region of Guangxi, the Zhuang have settled back into the 1st century idealism: remaining unique, remaining Zhuang, but being an integral part of China. Some say this has gone too far, as the Zhuang are being totally assimilated. The elderly Zhuang feel alienated as the language has been reformed, and they no longer can write Zhuang in the new way, and the Zhuang Autonomous Region of Guangxi has been marked by perpetual economic depression since 1970.''

The latter half of the paragraph was removed because no source was cited. I'm largely ignorant of the rules concerning citation and removal for lack thereof. All that I do know is that the former part of the paragraph is also uncited. It feels quite unfair to me that the uncited, pro-PRC half of the paragraph remains while the uncited, anti-PRC half is deleted. The article comes across as quite biased.

I am going to delete the entire paragraph. If someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia citation rules or the Zhuang ethnicity wishes to restore the entire paragraph, or part of the paragraph, that would be much appreciated. Please make sure that you explain your reasoning for any action that you take.

 * I totally agree with you.
 * I marked the part about assimilation as unsourced and someone removed it.
 * Good job on spotting the "official line".
 * The rule on unsourced statements is simple - any unsourced statement can be removed.
 * You are welcome to contribute more to Wikipedia (you might want to create an account, although it is not mandatory). --Amir E. Aharoni 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I live in that place,I can tell you something true ."the Zhuang are being totally assimilated" is totally wrong,but sometimes they are reluctant to admit that they Zhuang because they are discriminated by Han people.Things are getting better except that it's very hard for them to get the chance to learn their own language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwenrauz (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there anything about the Culture?
I've got some information from this page :http://www.china.org.cn/e-groups/shaoshu/shao-2-zhuang.htm.But it has been deleted all the time.Can anyone write something in detail about the Culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwenrauz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The content was deleted because it's copyvio. You are welcome to write about the culture. But please don't cut and paste from copyrighted content. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article may be racist
The article sounds racist as it seems to belittle some cultures. Can someone with the required knowledge review it thoroughly and correct it? David873 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced for more than two years
I believe that the time for the following text to go has come and have removed it from the article accordingly.

''==History==

Prehistory
The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5,000 years ago. The Zhuang settled in what is now Guangxi while other Tai peoples moved to Yunnan. It is suggested the Tai peoples migrated for food purposes, as the culture developed a unique irrigation system which was useful for growing rice. As the soil was unsuitable for this purpose in Central China, the Tai sought out more fertile plains. However, it is highly probable that struggles with emerging Chinese states that rapidly gained power with Mesolithic (Bronze Age) weapons had something to do with this. Long struggles with China to avoid destruction (as they were "barbarians") led Tais around 1100 AD to migrate south from Southern China to create the Lao, Thai and Shan peoples of Indochina, and even as far away as Assam, India.

The dynasties
The Zhuang did not record their history until the Eastern Zhou dynasty (475-221 BC) of China. The Chinese referred to the area as Bai-Yue 百越/百粵 (the Hundred Yue - referring to the aborigines of southern China). Eastern Guangxi was conquered by the Han people under the Qin Dynasty in 214 BC. The Hans, to bring the area firmly in their control, built the Ling Canal to link the Xiang and Lijiang rivers and form a North-South waterway.

An independent state known as Nan Yue (Southern Yue, or Vietnam) around Canton was created by General Zhao Tuo when the Qin Dynasty collapsed. This Kingdom was supported by the Zhuang until its collapse in 111 BC. The Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD) thought the Zhuang culture unproductive, so they reduced local authority and consolidated their authority with Military posts at Guilin, Wuzhou, and Yulin.

In 42 AD, the Trung Sisters uprising was quelled by an army under General Ma Yuan, who sought not only victory on the battlefield but felt true concern for the Zhuang people. He reorganized the Zhuang Local Authority, improved public works, dug canals and reclaimed land to increase production. His work brought the Zhuang into a more modern condition, and temples in his honor can still be seen to this day.

An influx of immigrant Yao people from Hunan after the collapse of the Han Dynasty caused the region to become unstable as the Yao showed hostility to assimilation. The Guiping area of Guangxi, where the Yao settled, would become a hotbed of revolution against Han rule, causing the Zhuang people to suffer terribly, despite their passive stance on assimilation.

Under the Tang Dynasty Guangxi became part of Ling-nan Tao (large province) with present day Hainan and Guangdong. The noted scholar Liu Zongyuan was prefectural administrator at Liuzhou. Irked by Chinese expansion, however, the Zhuang moved to support the Tai kingdom of Nanchao in Yunnan. Guangxi was then divided into an area of Zhuang ascendancy west of Nanning and an area of Han ascendancy east of Nanning.

After the collapse of the Tang a new Chinese kingdom known as Nan Han (Southern Han), based in Guangdong, gained minimal control over the Zhuang, but the Nan Han Kingdom was plagued by instability and it was annexed by the Song Dynasty of China in 971. The Nan Han rule of the Zhuang was marked by minimal interference in Zhuang affairs by the Chinese rulers.

The Song developed a new way of dealing with the Zhuang that was a combination of force and appeasement, a policy that neither satisfied the aspirations of the Zhuang nor ended the savage warfare brought to the region by the Yao against the Chinese. In 1052 a Zhuang leader, Nong Zhigao, led a revolt and set up an independent kingdom in the Southwest. The revolt was crushed, and the Song rule became more brutal, causing the region to spasm in revolt against the Chinese. The Song era is a turning point in Zhuang history. From then on the Zhuang would be considered as a coherent ethnic group with a distinctive culture and history. But Barlow also points: "the Song era also marks the last time at which the Zhuang might have remained an independent ethnic group organized under their own leadership."

After the Yuan Dynasty liquidated the Song, they spent several years deciding what to do with the Zhuang. Weary of the bad relationship previous Chinese rulers had with the region, they decided to make it a full province of China rather than let it remain an occupied territory. This only caused greater stress as the Zhuang and Yao felt alienated, and hated direct rule from the Chinese government. Further complicating Zhuang aspirations, another aboriginal people, the Miao, left Guizhou and Hunan for the Zhuang lands.

The area continued to be unruly, forcing the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) to impose an underhanded way of dealing with it: the Ming would give tribal leaders of the Zhuang an army to attack the Yao. Once the Yao were devastated, the Ming used the armies they had given the Zhuang leaders to kill the Zhuang leaders, and force a leaderless Zhuang society under their heavy handed rule. This resulted in perhaps the bloodiest period of history in a relatively calm region. At the Battle of Rattan Gorge, in 1465, 20,000 deaths were reported. The Ming policy failed, but the larger cities in the region did prosper under Ming economic reform.

The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) let the region remain in chaos until 1726 when they imposed direct rule as the Yuan had. This was also a failed venture as a Yao revolution took place in 1831. Twenty years later, in 1850, the same area witnessed the Taiping Rebellion break out. The execution of a French missionary led to the Second Opium war in 1858. The Franco-Chinese War of 1885 put Vietnam under French supremacy and opened up the area to foreign encroachment. All of this caused a constant economic depression through the nineteenth century.

Modern times
Together with neighboring Guangdong, Guangxi became an area of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙)'s Nationalist (國民黨) revolution. With the fall of the Qing, the Zhuang sent representatives to the central government to campaign for Guangxi autonomy, but when years of protocol failed, the "Guangxi Clique" turned to open revolt in 1927. Maintaining a defiant self-rule stance for two years, the Zhuang leaders of Li Tsung-jen and Li Chi-shen modernized Guangxi, but Chiang Kai-shek ruthlessly crushed their revolt in 1929. Despite the Clique's failure, Chiang could not put Guangxi under direct provincial rule, and it remained unruly until 1950. The Kuomintang's suppression of Guangxi led to widespread support of Communism.

During World War II Guangxi was a major target of Japanese attacks, as they invaded the coast in 1939. The famous patriotic newspaper National Salvation Daily was printed at Guilin. In 1944, the Japanese launched a major offensive to take the western half of Guangxi, but with relentless Zhuang guerrillas and a Chinese counterattack, the Japanese were routed.''

Obviously, a large chunk of the above text is either blatant propaganda or has been written with a particular agenda in mind. 219.149.102.34 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think so, please point them out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwenrauz (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Although I am not denying the factual accuracy of such a history, however, there are no sources whatsoever for this fine piece of artwork. Unless references can be provided, it must be removed from Wikipedia. ★ Dasani ★ 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * No sources is not cause to delete text (other than when about a living person). If the above text is believed to be essentially correct, then the correct thing to do is find sources for it. It doesn't matter how long that takes. Two years, five year, whatever. If you find the text is incorrect, or you think it may be incorrect, then you can remove it. If we went around deleting everything on Wikipedia that had been sitting unsourced for over two years, the majority of Wikipedia would end up in the trash. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Trung sisters
I agree with the notion about the Trung sisters and Ma Yuan. The Trung sisters were Viet, not Zhuang; Ma Yuan were sent to put down the Viet rebellion led by the Trung sisters, not to put down the Zhuang rebellion. So the mention of the Trung sisters and their rebellion is irrelevant in this article. I don't think Zhuang people recognize the Trung sisters as part of their history either. For some reason, in the recent years, some people like to incorporate historical figures and events that are traditionally associated with the Vietnamese into the history of the Zhuang people. This will create lots of confusion for outsiders who try to study about the culture and history of the Zhuang. I suggest we remove the part of the Trung sisters as they were obviously Vietnamese and had little to do with the Zhuang. Sunnyrain90 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say Trung sisters were Zhuang, so I don't know what you are talking about. The article says:

In 42 AD, the Trung Sisters' uprising was quelled by an army under General Ma Yuan, who sought not only victory on the battlefield but felt true concern for the Zhuang people. He reorganized the Zhuang Local Authority, improved public works, dug canals and reclaimed land to increase production. His work brought the Zhuang into a more modern condition, and temples in his honor can still be seen to this day.
 * And it does not seems to be anything wrong here. The Kinh Vietnamese Trung Sisters' uprising was the reason why Ma Yuan concerned the local Zhuang in Guangxi - nothing but some historical facts. ––虞海 ( Yú Hǎi )  ✍  13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Though this "Trung Sisters" section is irrelevant to the Zhuang article and was discussed here long ago, but I'd like to make a note here that the Trung Sisters have nothing to do with the modern Annamite (nowadays a.k.a "Vietnamese"). Around the year of 42 AD, the main inhabitants in the Red River delta were the Austronesian who practiced bronze drum beating. The Tai lived further north in the present-day Sino-"Vietnamese" border area and Guangxi and only migrated south- and southwestwards sometime between the 8th—10th centuries. Be careful to use the word "Viet" (or Yue) to refer to the modern Annamite because this word implies that they have something to do with the so-called "Yue" in Chinese literature. Bookworm8899 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hakka
Aren't a lot of the Han people in Guangxi Hakka? 86.182.35.217 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Zhuang genetics
Genetic tests on Zhuang Y Chromosomes show them to be of Baiyue descent, while they have some Northern Han y chromsomes due to migration of northern Han to southern China.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17185165

http://www.comonca.org.cn/LH/Doc/A30.PDF

A map of Baiyue ethnic groups in Southern China during the Zhou dynasty's rule over Northern China.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w71/MGSG/fig1mt72e.gif

http://s173.photobucket.com/user/MGSG/media/fig1mt72e.gif.html

Rajmaan (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Zhuang people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120330191233/http://www.ccler.com/zidian/tong5742.html to http://www.ccler.com/zidian/tong5742.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ynws.gov.cn/Detail.aspx?ID=10901
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130514161113/http://ccdv.people.com.cn/GB/120172/123471/10534432.html to http://ccdv.people.com.cn/GB/120172/123471/10534432.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070206210848/http://mcel.pacificu.edu:80/as/resources/ZHUANG/index.html to http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/zhuang/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationalism and separatism
Please add about Zhuang Nationalism and separatism--Kaiyr (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such sentiment in Guangxi. Most Zhuang are quite happy and proud to be Chinese.Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Identity section
This part seems to contradict with the rest of the article as it claims the Zhuang didn't have an identity seperate from the Han people, but the rest of the article focuses on their history and relation to other Kra-Dai peoples.

It is known that some Han Chinese were classified by the government as Zhuang due to their surnames, but I'm pretty sure they don't represent the majority of Zhuang. Plus, their Tay and Nung cousins across the border in Vietnam never identified as Han, and were always somewhat different enough to be considered different from Han or Kinh people. Perhaps it's best rewording the section to actually include the nuances in Zhuang identity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himeaimichu (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zhuang people