text:
Parchive

Parchive (a portmanteau of parity archive, and formally known as Parity Volume Set Specification ) is an erasure code system that produces par files for checksum verification of data integrity, with the capability to perform data recovery operations that can repair or regenerate corrupted or missing data.

Parchive was originally written to solve the problem of reliable file sharing on Usenet, but it can be used for protecting any kind of data from data corruption, disc rot, bit rot, and accidental or malicious damage. Despite the name, Parchive uses more advanced techniques (specifically error correction codes) than simplistic parity methods of error detection.

As of 2014, PAR1 is obsolete, PAR2 is mature for widespread use, and PAR3 is a discontinued experimental version developed by MultiPar author Yutaka Sawada. The original SourceForge Parchive project has been inactive since April 30, 2015. A new PAR3 specification has been worked on since April 28, 2019 by PAR2 specification author Michael Nahas. An alpha version of the PAR3 specification has been published on January 29, 2022 while the program itself is being developed.

History
Parchive was intended to increase the reliability of transferring files via Usenet newsgroups. Usenet was originally designed for informal conversations, and the underlying protocol, NNTP was not designed to transmit arbitrary binary data. Another limitation, which was acceptable for conversations but not for files, was that messages were normally fairly short in length and limited to 7-bit ASCII text.

Various techniques were devised to send files over Usenet, such as uuencoding and Base64. Later Usenet software allowed 8 bit Extended ASCII, which permitted new techniques like yEnc. Large files were broken up to reduce the effect of a corrupted download, but the unreliable nature of Usenet remained.

With the introduction of Parchive, parity files could be created that were then uploaded along with the original data files. If any of the data files were damaged or lost while being propagated between Usenet servers, users could download parity files and use them to reconstruct the damaged or missing files. Parchive included the construction of small index files (*.par in version 1 and *.par2 in version 2) that do not contain any recovery data. These indexes contain file hashes that can be used to quickly identify the target files and verify their integrity.

Because the index files were so small, they minimized the amount of extra data that had to be downloaded from Usenet to verify that the data files were all present and undamaged, or to determine how many parity volumes were required to repair any damage or reconstruct any missing files. They were most useful in version 1 where the parity volumes were much larger than the short index files. These larger parity volumes contain the actual recovery data along with a duplicate copy of the information in the index files (which allows them to be used on their own to verify the integrity of the data files if there is no small index file available).

In July 2001, Tobias Rieper and Stefan Wehlus proposed the Parity Volume Set specification, and with the assistance of other project members, version 1.0 of the specification was published in October 2001. Par1 used Reed–Solomon error correction to create new recovery files. Any of the recovery files can be used to rebuild a missing file from an incomplete download.

Version 1 became widely used on Usenet, but it did suffer some limitations:
 * It was restricted to handle at most 255 files.
 * The recovery files had to be the size of the largest input file, so it did not work well when the input files were of various sizes. (This limited its usefulness when not paired with the proprietary RAR compression tool.)
 * The recovery algorithm had a bug, due to a flaw in the academic paper on which it was based.
 * It was strongly tied to Usenet and it was felt that a more general tool might have a wider audience.

In January 2002, Howard Fukada proposed that a new Par2 specification should be devised with the significant changes that data verification and repair should work on blocks of data rather than whole files, and that the algorithm should switch to using 16 bit numbers rather than the 8 bit numbers that PAR1 used. Michael Nahas and Peter Clements took up these ideas in July 2002, with additional input from Paul Nettle and Ryan Gallagher (who both wrote Par1 clients). Version 2.0 of the Parchive specification was published by Michael Nahas in September 2002.

Peter Clements then went on to write the first two Par2 implementations, QuickPar and par2cmdline. Abandoned since 2004, Paul Houle created phpar2 to supersede par2cmdline. Yutaka Sawada created MultiPar to supersede QuickPar. MultiPar uses par2j.exe (which is partially based on par2cmdline's optimization techniques) to use as MultiPar's backend engine.

Versions
Versions 1 and 2 of the file format are incompatible. (However, many clients support both.)

Par1
For Par1, the files f1, f2, ..., fn, the Parchive consists of an index file (f.par), which is CRC type file with no recovery blocks, and a number of "parity volumes" (f.p01, f.p02, etc.). Given all of the original files except for one (for example, f2), it is possible to create the missing f2 given all of the other original files and any one of the parity volumes. Alternatively, it is possible to recreate two missing files from any two of the parity volumes and so forth.

Par1 supports up to a total of 256 source and recovery files.

Par2
Par2 files generally use this naming/extension system: filename.vol000+01.PAR2, filename.vol001+02.PAR2, filename.vol003+04.PAR2, filename.vol007+06.PAR2, etc. The number after the "+" in the filename indicates how many blocks it contains, and the number after "vol" indicates the number of the first recovery block within the PAR2 file. If an index file of a download states that 4 blocks are missing, the easiest way to repair the files would be by downloading filename.vol003+04.PAR2. However, due to the redundancy, filename.vol007+06.PAR2 is also acceptable. There is also an index file filename.PAR2, it is identical in function to the small index file used in PAR1.

Par2 specification supports up to 32,768 source blocks and up to 65,535 recovery blocks. Input files are split into multiple equal-sized blocks so that recovery files do not need to be the size of the largest input file.

Although Unicode is mentioned in the PAR2 specification as an option, most PAR2 implementations do not support Unicode.

Directory support is included in the PAR2 specification, but most or all implementations do not support it.

Par3
The Par3 specification was originally planned to be published as an enhancement over the Par2 specification. However, to date, it has remained closed source by specification owner Yutaka Sawada.

A discussion on a new format started in the GitHub issue section of the maintained fork par2cmdline on January 29, 2019. The discussion led to a new format which is also named as Par3. The new Par3 format's specification is published on GitHub, but remains being an alpha draft as of January 28, 2022. The specification is written by Michael Nahas, the author of Par2 specification, with the help from Yutaka Sawada, animetosho and malaire.

The new format claims to have multiple advantages over the Par2 format, including:

 * Supports more than 216 files and more than 216 blocks.
 * Supports packing small files into one block, as well as deduplication when a block appears in multiple files.
 * Supports UTF-8 file names, file permissions, hard links and soft links.
 * Supports embedding PAR data inside other formats, like ZIP archives or ISO disk images.
 * Supports "incremental backups", where a user creates recovery files for some file or folder, change some data, and create new recovery files reusing some of the older files.
 * Supports more error correction code algorithms (such as LDPC and sparse random matrix).
 * Replaced the MD5 hash function in Par2 with BLAKE3.
 * Supports empty directories.
 * Supports file permissions.
 * Supports hard links and symbolic links.

Multi-Platform

 * par2+tbb (GPLv2) — a concurrent (multithreaded) version of par2cmdline 0.4 using TBB. Only compatible with x86 based CPUs. It is available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline-tbb.
 * Original par2cmdline — (obsolete). Available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline.
 * par2cmdline maintained fork by BlackIkeEagle.
 * par2cmdline-mt is another multithreaded version of par2cmdline using OpenMP, GPLv2, or later. Currently merged into BlackIkeEagle's fork and maintained there.
 * ParPar (CC0) is a high performance, multithreaded PAR2 client and Node.js library. Does not support verifying or repair, it can currently only create PAR2 archives.
 * par2deep (LGPL-3.0) — Produce, verify and repair par2 files recursively, both on the command line as well as with the aid of a graphical user interface. It is available in the Python Package Index system as par2deep.

Windows

 * MultiPar (freeware) — Builds upon QuickPar's features and GUI, and uses Yutaka Sawada's par2j.exe as the PAR2 backend. MultiPar supports multiple languages by Unicode. The name of MultiPar was derived from "multi-lingual PAR client". MultiPar is also verified to work with Wine under TrueOS and Ubuntu, and may work with other operating systems too.  Although the Par2 components are (or will be) open source, the MultiPar GUI on top of them is currently not open source.
 * QuickPar (freeware) — unmaintained since 2004, superseded by MultiPar.
 * phpar2 — advanced par2cmdline with multithreading and highly optimized assemblercode (about 66% faster than QuickPar 0.9.1)
 * Mirror — First PAR implementation, unmaintained since 2001.

Mac OS X

 * MacPAR deLuxe 4.2
 * UnRarX

POSIX
Software for POSIX conforming operating systems:
 * Par2 for KDE 4
 * PyPar2 1.4, a frontend for par2.
 * GPar2 2.03

title: Parchive


text:
Canadian Wheat Board

The Canadian Wheat Board (Commission canadienne du blé) was a marketing board for wheat and barley in Western Canada. Established by the Parliament of Canada on 5 July 1935, its operation was governed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act as a mandatory producer marketing system for wheat and barley in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and a small part of British Columbia. It was illegal for any farmer in areas under the CWB's jurisdiction to sell their wheat and barley through any other channel than the CWB. Although often called a monopoly, it was actually a monopsony since it was the only buyer of wheat and barley. It was a marketing agency acting on behalf of Western Canadian farmers, passing all profits from its operation back to farmers. Its market power over wheat and barley marketing was referred to as the "Single Desk".

Amid criticism, the Canadian Wheat Board's Single Desk marketing power officially ended on 1 August 2012 as a result of Bill C-18, also known as the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, which was tabled by the Harper government and passed in December 2011. The Canadian Wheat Board changed its name to simply CWB, reflecting its changed status. CWB continued to operate as a grain company, although the bill also set a timeline for the eventual privatization of CWB. On 15 April 2015, it was announced that a 50.1% majority stake in CWB would be acquired by Global Grain Group, a joint venture of Bunge Limited and the Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company, for $250 million. CWB was combined with the grain assets of Bunge Canada to form G3 Canada Limited.

The third-highest sales year for wheat industry in Canada was 2011–2012 when the CWB "sold $7.2-billion worth of grain to more than 70 countries, $4.9 billion of which was paid back to farmers."

First wheat boards
By the early 20th century in Western Canada, grain purchasing, transportation and marketing were dominated by large companies headquartered outside the region, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the trading companies which dominated the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. Producers were deeply suspicious of the business practices of these companies and hostile to their positions of power. Farmers were impressed by the success of state-led marketing as it was practised during World War I. The government created a series of boards in and around the war, each with progressively more power to control the grain trade. The Board of Grain Commissioners of 1912 was purely for regulation (to supervise grading, etc.), but by 1915 the government had seized control of all wheat exports to help the war effort, and by 1917 futures trading on the Winnipeg Exchange was banned. In 1917, the new Board of Grain Supervisors was given monopoly powers over wheat, and fixed uniform prices across the country. Soon afterwards, the Board took over marketing of other crops as well. Farmers were worried that after the war, prices would crash and various agrarian groups lobbied Ottawa to keep the Board in place. The government relented by creating the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1919 crop only. Farmers got a guaranteed price for that crop, paid immediately, and later a further payment once the Board had completed the year's sales. This system of guaranteed prices and distributed income was extremely popular and when the Board dissolved in 1920, many farmers were livid. It certainly did not help that, "from a peak of $2.85 per bushel in September, 1920 [prices] began a slow and sickening decline to less than a dollar a bushel in late 1923." This marked contrast to the stable prices of 1919–1920 Board seemed to confirm farmers' suspicions of market trading.

Interregnum (1920–1935)
After the dissolution of the early board in 1920, farmers turned to the idea of farmer-owned cooperatives. Cooperative grain elevator operators already existed, like United Grain Growers, which had already been started in 1917. In 1923 and 1924 the wheat pools were created to buy Canadian wheat and resell it overseas. The Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Manitoba Pool Elevators quickly became giants in the industry and displaced the private traders. However they did not hedge against falling prices (instead relying on provincial government guarantees), and during the price collapse of 1929, they effectively went bankrupt. The majority of farmers did not want the private traders to return, and now it also seemed impossible for them to own their own marketing companies, so the idea of a government marketing board was revived.

Revival and flourishing (1935–2000)
The Canadian Wheat Board was re-created in 1935 with the aim of controlling grain prices, so as to benefit farmers devastated by the Great Depression. During the Second World War, the authority of the Board was expanded, and the Board was given the authority to set statutory maximums on wheat, oats, barley, flax, and corn between December, 1941 until expiry after the war. Membership was made compulsory for Western Canadian farmers in 1943 via the War Measures Act, now with the purpose of aiding the war effort. In April, 1943 the Board was also authorized to buy rapeseed and sunflowers.

Between 1958 and 1970 the CWB was chaired by William Craig McNamara, and he managed to perennialise the CWB in 1965, which was until then subject to amendments by Parliament when they periodically extended the Board's duration. McNamara convinced Parliament to end the time limit in the Act, thereby creating a permanent Board. CWB control over interprovincial shipments of feed grains became a public issue during the grains crisis in 1969 to 1972 and was removed. Only non-feed wheat and barley remained controlled by the CWB.

Anti-GMO stance of the CWB (2004)
The Canadian Wheat Board was instrumental in stopping the genetically modified (GM) wheat of Monsanto in 2004. As a united voice for wheat farmers, the CWB conducted market research which showed that international markets did not want GM wheat and would reject wheat exports from Canada if GM wheat was approved, because of the risk of contamination. The CWB also surveyed wheat farmers and found many did not want GM wheat. The CWB presented research and the views of wheat farmers to the government.

Late operations
The farmers delivered their wheat and barley to grain elevators throughout the crop year. The Board acted as a single desk marketer of wheat and barley on behalf of prairie farmers. Upon delivery to an elevator, farmers received an initial payment for their grain from the CWB that represented a percentage of the expected return for that grade from the pool account. After the end of the crop year, July 31, an interim payment and a final payment were paid to farmers, in addition to their initial payment, and so they would have received 100% of the return from the sale of the grain they delivered, less all overhead costs of the CWB. The initial payments were guaranteed by the Government of Canada so that farmers received payment even if there was a deficit in the pool account. Initial payments were set below expectations for the crop year, a risk factor that was built in to guard against the event that price expectations are not met.

Prior to the December 2011 passage of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, the CWB was governed by a 15-person Board of Directors, of which:
 * 1) Ten of the directors were elected by grain farmers in the western Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of British Columbia;
 * 2) Four of the directors were appointed by Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board;
 * 3) One was the President of the CWB, appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with certain restrictions including that the CWB Board of Directors must be consulted on the recommended candidate.

Upon the implementation of Bill C-18, the original elected board was removed and was replaced by four directors, appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the president, appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.

Until 15 December 2011, compliance with the wheat board for most farmers and elevators was mandatory  under threat of punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Farmers from Eastern Canada and most of British Columbia were not controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board and were able to market all their grain on the open market. The area of British Columbia known as The Peace River District fell under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, reorganized the CWB to market grain through voluntary pooling.

Quality grading system
Unlike the United States, Canada had a tight grading system established by the Canadian Grain Commission and enforced by the CWB. This enforcement made it "possible to extract premiums for higher quality grain that is not possible in the United States." In an open market system Western Canadian farmers lose the benefits of a grading system.

Reorganisation (2006–2012)
Since 2006 when the Conservative Party came to power, Chuck Strahl, then Minister of Agriculture, worked towards the end of the Wheat Board's Single Desk, including the replacement of government appointees to the Board of Directors in favor of individuals who oppose the board's Single Desk, a gag order on Wheat Board staff, the firing of the pro-board President, and intervention in the election of farmer elected members of the Board of Directors.
 * December 2006 CWB Board of Directors election. Only one of five farmer-elected seats went to opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board's Single Desk power on the selling of Canadian wheat and barley internationally. Since there was only one incumbent farmer-elected board member opposed to the Single Desk, only two out of ten farmer-elected directors were opposed to the Single Desk. Nonetheless, the government appointed five members to the board; supporters of the board's Single Desk would have only an eight to seven majority. Doubts have also been cast by some on the results because Strahl, the Minister of Agriculture, removed upwards of 20,000 farmers from the voters list in the midst of the election. These farmers were disqualified for such reasons as not having delivered any grain to the Wheat Board in the past two years or not having produced enough wheat or malt barley to have generated significant enough income from which to live off.
 * December 19, 2006: Chuck Strahl dismisses CWB president Adrian Measner, an outspoken supporter of the Single Desk. This was done by Strahl with the statement "It's a position that [he] serves at [the] pleasure [of the Minister/Government]. And that position was no longer his." It was suggested that Measner had gone too far for refusing to remove pro-CWB documents from the Board website and also appearing at press conferences with opposition leader Stéphane Dion. The majority of the CWB's board of directors opposed the firing of Measner.
 * March 28, 2007: Barley Plebiscite. 62% of farmers vote to end the wheat board's barley Single Desk power. Legislation to amend the act dies on order paper when the September 2008 election is called.
 * February 26, 2008: Conservative government loses court battle over unilaterally dismantling the CWB because it was contrary to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
 * December 7, 2008: Board of Directors elections. Four of five candidates elected support the Single Desk marketing agency.
 * January 21, 2010: Supreme Court of Canada sided with the federal government in its 2006 order barring the board from spending its money on lobbying.
 * December 7, 2011: Federal Court judge Douglas Campbell rules the Conservative government broke the law in introducing legislation to end the Wheat Board.
 * December 15, 2011: Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, which ends the CWB Single Desk, receives royal assent.
 * June 18, 2012: Federal Court of Appeal upholds Bill C-18.
 * August 1, 2012: end of monopsony takes effect

Wheat farmers, railways and CWB
Ian Robson, whose great-grandfather helped start the co-operative pool system, argued that a multi-generational small farmer like himself depended on the CWB to balance the power of the railway. Robson claims that, "We're captive to the railways, and you can see how that's turning out. Transport Canada is supposed to safeguard our interests, but they're afraid to antagonize the railways." Before the CWB was sold by the federal government to foreign investors in 2014, the CWB owned 3,375 CWB railway cars. By 2014 CP was shaped by CEO Hunter Harrison and American activist shareholder Bill Ackman. Americans own 73% of CP shares while Canadians and Americans own 50% of CN. In order to improve returns for their shareholders, railways cut back on their workforce and downsized the number of locomotives. Western Grain Elevator Association's director, Wade Sobkowich, argued that railways were increasing profitability by reducing capacity. At a time when grain farmers are competing with crude oil producers for rail cars, they are not succeeding in getting the rail cars they need.

In 2014, even though CN and CP were threatened by Transport Canada with fines for not meeting the "minimum volumes under the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act," the monetary penalties were not hefty enough to impact on railways that generate revenues of roughly $200 million per week.

CWB and tendering process
In 2006 the four top grain handling companies in Western Canada—Agricore United, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Pioneer Grain, and Cargill held nearly 50% of the primary storage capacity. According to University of Saskatchewan professor, Murray Fulton, "This level of concentration, along with a lack of excess capacity" gave grain handling firms market power to raise prices above the cost of providing the service. Since 2001 the CWB encouraged greater competition among the grain companies by "operated a tendering process for approximately 20 to 25 percent of the grain destined for export." The grain handling companies had to enter competitive bids to the CWB. CWB obtained market power by selecting the best bid as one seller as opposed to a large number of sellers (namely farmers) attempting to negotiate the best price.

"'The CWB's mandate was to pay farmers a base price for their grain, identify markets, negotiate the best price, deliver the goods, issue advance cheques and make final payment after the crop was sold. If the wheat market went up, farmers pocketed the profits. If the market went down, the government absorbed the loss. Nothing was subtracted from the farmer's share except the cost of marketing and delivery.'"

Modern criticism
Arguments in favour of privatization believe that farmers should be allowed to opt out of the board. Others believe that they could get a better price for their grain than the board itself and would like to market their own grain. For many Western Canadian farmers, the argument over the CWB Single Desk was about personal freedom—the freedom to market their production of crops in the manner they choose.

The Single Desk control of price and the ability of farmers to deliver wheat and barley created an interest in other crops, causing a surge in acres of canola and pulse crops—crops with no delivery or price controls. This led to a decline in wheat acres and an increase in other crops. Now, with equal delivery opportunity, relative prices are the driving force in making cropping decisions, leading to an appropriate mix of crops based on relative global demand.

Some opponents of the board's Single Desk power suggested it should be replaced by a 'dual market' system. This was presented as a compromise where board supporters could continue to sell their wheat and barley through the board and board opponents could have the option to sell outside the board. From the standpoint of supporters of the board, however, this was not a viable alternative as a dual market would effectively end the board's Single Desk power and any perceived benefits that it may have given farmers.

Opponents argue that because the perceived benefits farmers received from the CWB increases their land value, elimination of the CWB Single Desk would lower the value of their land. Lower land prices would make Canadian farmers more competitive but could also leave many owing more than the value of their reduced land. Retiring farmers selling their land could be faced with a much reduced retirement fund but new entrants into farming would be able to purchase land at lower cost. (This is all based on the theory that the CWB provided a net benefit to farmers, which was never proved.)

Some CWB opponents have argued that much of the lower quality land is in close proximity to the US border and would be the first to realize the benefits of the US market.

Support for the CWB
In a September 2011 plebiscite (referendum) conducted by Meyers Norris Penny, 62% of CWB farmers voted that they wanted to keep the wheat board and its Single Desk power. Proponents of maintaining the CWB stated that the collective bargaining power of the wheat board gives farmers a better price than they would have if they were individually marketing to large multi-national corporations. CWB opponents disagreed, arguing that there was no evidence of better returns for farmers. At this time, farmers already had the ability to market all the crops save wheat and malt barley independently, meaning it is possible to succeed marketing grain without board oversight. This, however, may make farmers more susceptible to fluctuations in the commodity market and to focus more of their time on the business aspect of farming, rather than farming. The Wheat Board attempted to offer producers more options in its latter years—for example, farmers could sell their wheat with binding forward contracts to the Wheat Board that attempted to pay the same price that they would get for their grain in the U.S.

Supporters of the board and labour unions believed the CWB gave individual farmers increased marketing power in a world market which got them a higher price than they would have otherwise gotten, not only through the efficiencies of scale, but as well by exercising oligopolistic marketing power on the selling side, especially for Durum wheat, although the evidence of this is weak or non-existent. A study conducted in the mid 1990s suggested that farmers gained on average a premium of $13.35 a tonne on wheat as a result of the board's Single Desk, although the study and its methodology was widely refuted. Supporters of the Single Desk feared that an end to the board would put farmers in a situation like in the early part of the 20th century where farmers effectively competed with each other to sell their grain, effectively putting them at the mercy of big agribusiness and the railroad monopolies, believing that would reduce farm incomes. The counter-argument is that producers of non-Board crops such as canola do not seem to have this problem.

American complaints
Although the Board was reformed to meet free market conditions under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Treaty, American producers continually complained. Despite numerous challenges and much posturing by the United States, the World Trade Organization ruled in 2003 that the Wheat Board was a producer marketing body and not a system for government subsidy although the decision has since been overturned. In fact, Canadian producers have almost no government subsidy while their American and European Union counterparts are heavily subsidized. The attacks on the Wheat Board were, at the time, one of the major irritants in bilateral relations between Canada and the United States.

Western alienation
The fact that the Wheat Board primarily marketed crops produced in Western Canada became a source of alienation and even Alberta separatism for many Western Canadian farmers. Farmers in Eastern Canada (east of Manitoba) and most of British Columbia (non-Peace River) were exempt from the CWB's Single Desk control of non-feed wheat and barley—Ontario has its own marketing board, but it is not compulsory.

Calls for abolition of the CWB
There had been calls by many groups to abolish the Wheat Board. Many of these groups took their fight to the Internet to spread their message and gain support for their cause. While many were focused on the Canadian Wheat Board, others concentrated on international wheat boards, the other primary target being the Australian Wheat Board, before the AWB itself converted to a private firm, leaving the CWB as the only significant agricultural State Trading Enterprise (STE) exporter worldwide, if one ignores Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOE). On 7 December 2008, CWB permit book holders voted in favour of maintaining the wheat board by electing four pro-board candidates with one marketing choice candidate being elected. Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, said "The message can't be any clearer". Others argued that the voter's list was flawed, as it included many small or part-time producers who may not deliver to the Board, as well as non-producers such as landowners whose livelihood might not solely rely on farming. In December 2008, the draft modalities text of the Doha Development Round was revised such that upon signing in its revised form, the CWB would lose statutory privileges such as the Single Desk within five years of the signing.

Transfer of CWB to Foreign Hands (2012–2015)
One of the aims of the Conservative government since coming to power in January 2006 was to end the Single Desk marketing power on Western Canadian wheat and barley. The Conservatives had been unable to get this change approved by Parliament because they held a minority of seats until the May 2011 federal election and all opposition parties supported the Single Desk. The Conservatives also lost a court battle to unilaterally dismantle the CWB without an act of Parliament. In the aftermath, Harper and then Minister of Agriculture Chuck Strahl stated their intent to continue with the removal of the traditional role of the CWB, particularly in regards to barley (which is generally a more corporate crop ), perhaps through Parliamentary action.

After winning a majority in the May 2011 general election, the Conservative government announced its intention to remove the CWB Single Desk through legislation. In response, the CWB held plebiscites on whether to keep the Single Desk power on wheat and barley. The results were released on September 12, 2011; 51 percent of barley growers and 62 percent of wheat growers voted to maintain the board's Single Desk. Notwithstanding, the government removed the Single Desk on August 1, 2012 ignoring the plebiscites' results. In defending this policy, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz claimed the CWB plebiscites were seriously flawed and that the Conservatives' election victory gave them a mandate to remove the Single Desk.

According to the CWB, the government advanced the timetables to Christmas 2011, prompting them to launch a protest campaign urging Canadians as well as farmers to speak out against the government's decision to end the Single Desk. Meanwhile, the government issued leaflets explaining what would "bring marketing freedom."

The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act instituted a timeline for the eventual privatization of CWB, requiring the board to formulate a plan by 2016, to be implemented in 2017. On April 15, 2015, it was announced that a 50.1% majority stake in CWB would be acquired by Global Grain Group, a joint venture between Bunge Canada—a subsidiary of Bunge Limited, and SALIC Canada—a subsidiary of the Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company, for $250 million. The remaining equity of CWB will be held by its member farmers.

The sale to G3 took place while a "Farmers of North America" led group of Western Canadian farmers attempted to raise funds to purchase the CWB and keep it Canadian farmer owned rather than selling it to foreign corporations. The group was rebuffed despite having a higher offer, ($349 million?) on grounds that they had not raised the funds. (the time frame was artificially short for the kind of offer FNA was attempting).

On 12 June 2015, the Department of Finance released draft legislation to handle the tax consequence to farmers, and to the Trust which will hold 49.9% of CWB in trust for farmers (proposed section 135.2 of the Income Tax Act). No news release was issued to explain the legislation. An explanation of how the legislation works is included in the 48th edition of Carswell's Practitioner's Income Tax Act and Carswell's Taxnet Pro.

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

title: Canadian Wheat Board


text:
Retro (KMFDM album)

Retro (stylized as RETЯO) is a KMFDM compilation album featuring a sampling of the band's more popular songs. It was initially released in 1996 as a promotional item, and released for sale to the public in 1998.

title: Retro (KMFDM album)


text:
Z. Z. Hill

Arzell J. "Z. Z." Hill (September 30, 1935 – April 27, 1984) was an American blues singer best known for his recordings in the 1970s and early 1980s, including his 1982 album for Malaco Records, Down Home, which stayed on the Billboard soul album chart for nearly two years. The track "Down Home Blues" has been called the best-known blues song of the 1980s. According to the Texas State Historical Association, Hill "devised a combination of blues and contemporary soul styling and helped to restore the blues to modern black consciousness."

Early life
Hill was born in Naples, Texas.

Career
Hill began his singing career in the late 1950s as part of a gospel group the Spiritual Five, touring Texas. He was influenced by Sam Cooke, B. B. King, and Bobby "Blue" Bland. He began performing his own songs and others in clubs in and around Dallas, including stints fronting bands led by Bo Thomas and Frank Shelton. He took his stage name in emulation of B. B. King.

Encouraged by Otis Redding, who had seen him perform, he joined his older brother Matt Hill, a budding record producer, in Los Angeles in 1963, and released his first single, "You Were Wrong", on the family's M.H. label. It spent one week at number 100 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1964, and Hill was quickly signed by Kent Records. Most of the songs he recorded for Kent were written or co-written by Hill and arranged by the prominent saxophonist Maxwell Davis. None charted; in retrospect, however, many, such as "I Need Someone (To Love Me)", are now viewed with high regard by fans of soul music.

After leaving Kent in 1968, he recorded briefly for Phil Walden's Capricorn label, based in Macon, Georgia, but after a disagreement with Walden his recording contract was bought by Jerry "Swamp Dogg" Williams' Mankind label, where Hill fulfilled his end of the deal. He returned to California to record for his brother's label, Hill, and the song "Don't Make Me Pay for His Mistakes", produced by Matt Hill and Miles Grayson, became his biggest pop hit, reaching number 62 on the Hot 100. The Kent label reissued his 1964 recording of "I Need Someone", which also charted. Williams also recorded Hill in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in 1971, resulting in several R&B hits, including "Chokin' Kind" and "It Ain't No Use", as well as the LP The Brand New Z. Z. Hill.

With his brother's help, Hill then signed with United Artists, where he was aided by arrangements and compositions by established R&B talents including Lamont Dozier and Allen Toussaint, and released several singles that made the R&B chart in the mid 1970s. After his brother Matt's sudden death from a heart attack, Z. Z. Hill left United Artists and signed with Columbia Records, recording two albums with leading arranger-producer Bert de Coteaux in New York. Several singles taken from the albums charted, including "Love Is So Good When You're Stealing It", which spent 18 weeks on the Billboard R&B chart in the summer of 1977.

In 1979, he left Columbia and returned south, signing for Malaco Records, a move which, according to Allmusic writer Bill Dahl, "managed to resuscitate both his own semi-flagging career and the entire [blues] genre at large". His first hit for the label was his recording of "Cheating in the Next Room," written by George Jackson, which was released in early 1982 and reached the R&B top 20, spending a total of 20 weeks on the chart. He had a number of best-selling albums for Malaco, the biggest being Down Home, which stayed on the Billboard soul album chart for nearly two years. The song "Down Home Blues", also written by Jackson, was later recorded by labelmate Denise LaSalle. Hill's next album, The Rhythm & the Blues, released in 1982, was also received with critical acclaim, and its success contributed to the subsequent boom in blues music, much of it recorded by the Malaco label, in Jackson, Mississippi.

Personal life and death
While touring in February 1984, Hill was involved in a car crash. He gave his final performance two months later, on April 23, at the Longhorn Ballroom in Dallas, Texas. On April 27, he died of a heart attack arising from a blood clot in his leg that formed after the accident. Malaco Records producer Gerald "Wolf" Stephenson told reporters that a friend found Hill lying in the driveway of his home in Dallas; he was pronounced dead at Charlton Methodist Hospital after attempts to resuscitate him failed.

Legacy
Hill's song "That Ain't the Way You Make Love" was sampled by Madvillain in their track "Fancy Clown."

Hill is the subject of Angela Jackson's poem "One Night ZZ Hill Sang at the Club Tupelo."

The band ZZ Top is named in his honor.

Albums

 * The Soul Stirring Z.Z. Hill (Kent, 1965)
 * A Whole Lot of Soul (Kent, 1967)
 * The Brand New Z.Z. Hill (Mankind, 1971)
 * The Bluest Blues (Excello [France], 1971) reissue of Mankind album
 * Z.Z. Hill's Greatest Hits: Dues Paid in Full (Kent, 1972)
 * The Best Thing That's Happened to Me (United Artists, 1973)
 * Z.Z. (United Artists, 1974)
 * Keep on Loving You (United Artists, 1975)
 * Let's Make a Deal (Columbia, 1977)
 * The Mark of Z.Z. Hill (Columbia, 1979)
 * Z.Z. Hill (Malaco, 1981)
 * Down Home (Malaco, 1982)
 * The Rhythm & the Blues (Malaco, 1982)
 * Velvet Soul (Malibu, 1982)
 * I'm a Blues Man (Malaco, 1983)
 * Bluesmaster (Malaco, 1984)
 * Thrill on the Z.Z. Hill (Rare Bullet, 1984) reissue of Malibu album
 * When a Man Loves a Woman (Kent, 1984)
 * In Memoriam 1935-1984 (Malaco, 1985)
 * Greatest Hits (Malaco, 1986)

title: Z. Z. Hill


text:
Orval Abbey

Orval Abbey (Abbaye Notre-Dame d'Orval) is a Cistercian monastery founded in 1132 in the Gaume region of Belgium, located in Villers-devant-Orval, part of Florenville, Wallonia in the province of Luxembourg. The abbey is well known for its history and spiritual life but also for its local production of the Trappist beer Orval and a specific cheese.

First foundation

The site has been occupied since the Merovingian period, and there is evidence that there was already a chapel here in the 10th century. Around 1070, a group of Benedictine monks from Calabria settled here, at the invitation of Arnold I, Count of Chiny, and Conrad I, Count of Luxembourg, and began construction of a church and a monastery, but after some forty years, possibly because of the death of Count Arnould, they moved away again. They were replaced by a community of Canons Regular, who completed the construction work: the abbey church was consecrated on 30 September 1124.

In 1132, a group of Cistercian monks from Trois-Fontaines Abbey in Champagne arrived, and the two groups formed a single community within the Cistercian Order, under the first abbot, Constantin.

Around 1252, the monastery was destroyed by a fire; the rebuilding took around 100 years. Wenceslaus I was buried here in 1383.

In the literary field the monks of Orval did not much distinguish themselves. The only noteworthy writer was Aegidius or Gilles d'Orval, who lived in the first half of the thirteenth century. He wrote the continuation, to the year 1251, of the "Gesta Pontificum Leodiensium", which had been written up to the year 1048 by Heriger of Lobbes and Anselm of Liège.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, the various wars between France and various neighbouring regions (Burgundy, Spain) had an important impact on Orval. At one stage a foundry was established on the site. In 1637, during the Thirty Years' War, the abbey was pillaged and burnt by French mercenaries.

In the 17th century, the abbey converted to the Trappist branch of the Cistercian order, but reverted to the Rule of the main order in around 1785. In 1793, during the French Revolution, the abbey was completely burnt down by French forces, in retaliation for the hospitality it had provided to Austrian troops, and the community forcibly dispersed.

Second foundation
In 1887, the land and ruins were acquired by the Harenne family. They donated the lands to the Cistercian order in 1926 so that monastic life could resume on the site. Between 1926 and 1948, under the direction of the Trappist monk Marie-Albert van der Cruyssen, the new monastery was constructed, and in 1936 Orval regained the rank of abbey. On 8 September 1948, the new church was consecrated. The abbey has many artifacts designed and produced by Camille Colruyt.

The medieval tradition of brewing beer at the Abbey was revived in 1931 to generate funds for the rebuilding. The ruins of the medieval buildings remain on the site and are available to view.

Abbots of Orval Abbey

 * 1936–1950: Marie-Albert van der Cruyssen
 * 1950–1966: Vincent de Paul Sonthonnax
 * 1966–1967: Raphaël Boulet
 * 1967–1971: François-Xavier Hanin
 * 1971–1980: Étienne Gillard
 * 1980–1981: Denis Debusschere
 * 1982–1984: Jacques Bernier
 * 1984–1988: Paul Barbe
 * 1988–1999: Éric Dion
 * 1999–2003: Matthieu Cauwe
 * 2003–2007: Jean Kremer
 * 2007–2019: Lode Van Hecke

The legend of Orval
There is a legend of the abbey's foundation, purporting to explain the name '"Orval" and the coat of arms. According to this, the widowed Mathilda of Tuscany was visiting the site, when she lost her wedding ring in a spring, to her great distress. When she prayed for the return of the ring, a trout appeared on the surface of the water with the ring in its mouth. She exclaimed "Truly this place is a Val d'Or (Golden Valley)", from which the name "Orval" is derived, and in gratitude made available the funds for the foundation of the monastery here. The abbey arms show the trout and ring. The spring still supplies water to the monastery and its brewery.

title: Orval Abbey


text:
User talk:Equilibrium

Please see discussion on Talk:Rube Goldberg; thanks. - Hephaestos|§ 18:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image:Airplane.JPG
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 11:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Burgundy,

Are you serious? That picture was obviously taken with a camera - I took that picture. That was a perfectly good picture for that spot and you had it deleted because you thought it was copyrighted? Are you serious?

I would appreciate if that image would please be brought back to where it belongs. It is totally and utterly ridiculous that you had it deleted.

- Equilibrium

Aircraft
As you can see, you were given warning of its deletion. You can reupload it and make certain that you license/source it correctly. Please don't put talk page stuff on my user page. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not delete it -- 14:53, July 5, 2005 Craigy144 deleted "Image:Airplane.JPG" (listed on Phase II of WP:PUI for 15 days and not tagged by the uploader after being contacted) Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Uploader hints
Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

 * Pick an image name.
 * When uploading an image, pick a file name that is short, descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.

 * Source the image.
 * On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so.  If it's from the web, give a URL.  If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.

 * Provide copyright and license information.
 * This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.
 * If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.)  Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}.  Be sure to mention that you created the image.  If you're using {{PD}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.
 * If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content.  This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use".  Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.

 * Describe the image.
 * To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page.  Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page.

If you took the photograph at Image:Airplane.JPG, you need to make it as such and tag it with a license, please. Again, I'll be happy to help by answering questions. kmccoy (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Rubemachine.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rubemachine.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Let's Talk Penn State for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Let's Talk Penn State is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Let's Talk Penn State until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Let's Talk Penn State.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Let&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Equilibrium


text:
User:WalkinDownThirtyThree

Hello, my name is Woody.

You'll most likely see my name in the history of music articles or physics articles. Most often, my name will appear a few times in a row because I don't have the mental capacity to put more than one topic in brackets at once.

Contributions (Articles I have either written by myself or added to.)

 * Scoliosis
 * Idiopathic
 * The White Stripes
 * Sequence logo
 * Bruce Springsteen

title: User:WalkinDownThirtyThree


text:
Canton 10

Canton 10 (Herceg-Bosanska županija, lit. 'Herceg-Bosnia County', Кантон 10, Kanton 10), is one of the ten cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a political entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the largest canton by area and eighth by population. The local government seat is in Livno, while the assembly is in Tomislavgrad. It is divided into five municipalities: Bosansko Grahovo, Drvar, Glamoč, Kupres, Tomislavgrad and one city, Livno.

The canton was established in 1996, following the Washington Agreement of 1994, which ended the Croat-Bosniak War. The majority of the population is ethnically Croat, living in the southern part of the canton, while the second-largest Serbs live in the northern part.

During the Bosnian War, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) controlled the southern parts of the canton, while other parts, mostly in the north, were controlled by the Serb Army of Republika Srpska until 1994 when they were re-taken by the HVO with the support from the Croatian Army. Per the Washington Agreement, the territories were incorporated into the Croat-Bosniak Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 1996 to 2005, only Croats and Bosniaks were considered to be constituent nations within the canton, but since 2005, the Serbs are included among the constituent nations as well and are mentioned as such before the less numerous Bosniaks.

Name, symbols and language
In Croatian, the term županija is used, while in Serbian and Bosnian, the term is kanton. The canton is officially referred to by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Canton 10 (Kanton 10 or Županija 10). The local government refers to it as the Herzeg-Bosnia County and uses that name in the local constitution. This name was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of the Federation because the name is a characteristic shared by all the cantons in the sense that all of them are within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Other names used at the national level include North Herzegovina Canton (Sjevernohercegovački kanton, Sjevernohercegovačka županija) and Livno Canton (Livanjski kanton), after its capital.

The coat of arms of the canton under its constitution is a variant of the historical Croatian coat of arms. The flag is a horizontal tricolour of red, white and blue, with the coat of arms in the middle. These symbols were used by the former Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. The West Herzegovina Canton also uses this flag and coat of arms. Their use as the official symbols of the canton was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of the Federation, because "they only represented one constituent nation". The local government continues to use the flag and the coat of arms at plates at the official institutions.

Since 2005, the constitution lists the "languages spoken by Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks" as the official languages, without naming them, with both the Latin and the Cyrillic script having equal status.

History
Originally occupied by the Dalmatae, the area of Canton 10 was annexed in 15 AD by the Roman Empire and formed part of the Roman province of Dalmatia. After the introduction of Christianity, Delminium (Tomislavgrad) is the seat of the bishopric.

These years also see the creation of the city of Livno. The first written appearance of the name of Livno was in 892 when it was mentioned as a seat of one of the counties of the Kingdom of Croatia. The region was attached in the ninth century to the Kingdom of the Croats and later in the 14th century to the Kingdom of Bosnia. After the death of the king of Bosnia, Tvrtko I in 1391, the power of the Kingdom of Bosnia gradually declined and the region was taken over by the Kingdom of Croatia, the state associated with the Kingdom of Hungary by a personal union.

In the 16th century, the region was fully integrated for four centuries within the Ottoman Empire. Under the Ottoman Empire, peasants who remained Catholic or Orthodox were hostile to Turkish officials and Islamised landowners.

In the nineteenth century, several uprisings and rebellions against Muslim authorities erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Suffering under oppression by the authorities and furious after the Muslim authorities had killed the Catholic spiritual leader of this region, Lovro Karaula, Franciscan priest, the Catholics of Livno rose up against Ottoman rule on July 20, 1875. Soon, the Catholics from across the region joined this uprising. The rebel leaders were two Franciscan priests, Stjepan Krešić and Bonaventura Šarić-Drženjak. For three years, the insurgency controlled the mountainous regions of Glamoč, Livno, Kupres and Grahovo. When the Austrian army arrived in the Livno region in 1878, the insurgents handed over their arms to the Austrians. The Austro-Hungarian troops met in this region an opposition, both of the Muslim population and the Orthodox population, fighting battles in the vicinity of Livno. The region was liberated at the end of the summer of 1878.

Austria-Hungary occupied the region militarily and Bosnia and Herzegovina after 1878 Berlin Congress. This period is marked by industrialization and Westernization. Architecturally, many public buildings were built and many Catholic religious buildings were erected that were banned during the Ottoman era.

After World War I, the area of Herzeg-Bosnia county was in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later Yugoslavia. Most of the present-day area of Herzeg-Bosnia County belonged to the then-Travnik area in 1922, while the smaller northern parts belonged to the Bišćan area. After the introduction of the January 6 dictatorship and the division of the state into banovinas in 1929, most of the Croatian areas of Herzeg-Bosnia county became part of Primorska banovina with headquarters in Split, while the northern Serbian areas were annexed to Vrbas banovina, with headquarters in Banja Luka. With the creation of Croatian Banovina in 1939, all of Primorska Banovina became part of it, including the majority of Croat areas of Canton 10.

After the creation of the NDH and its administrative division, most of the area of today's Herzeg-Bosnia County was part of the Great Parish of Pliva and Rama with its seat in Jajce, while the smaller northern part belonged to the Great Parish of Krbava and Psata with its seat in Bihać. After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, the area of Herzeg-Bosnia County became part of the then-federal unit of SFR Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the democratic process, most of the Croatian municipalities in the county, Kupres, Livno and Tomislavgrad, became part of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia.

With the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the northern and western part of Herzeg-Bosnia County under the leadership of the SDS, the Serb majority areas sided with the Army of Republika Srpska killing Croats and Bosniaks in Drvar, Grahovo, Glamoč, attacking Kupres and shelling Livno and surrounding settlements. After the formation of HVO military units, first, the Kupres area was liberated. Croats and Bosniaks formed the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Washington Agreement, which included the entire area of Herzeg-Bosnia County under HVO control, and a little later, in the summer of 1995, HVO and HV defeated Serb forces decisively. They attacked and captured Grahovo, Glamoč and Drvar, which, together with other victories of the HVO, HV and the RBiH Army, created the conditions for the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. After the war, Herzeg-Bosnia was self-abolished in 1996 and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was organized into counties. Herzeg-Bosnia County was the largest county in FBiH when it was created.

The Constitution of Herzeg-Bosnia Canton was adopted by the Cantonal Assembly on 19 December 1996.

Geography
The total area of the canton is approximately 4934 km2, a tenth of the surface of Bosnia-Herzegovina and c. 19% of the Federation. The region is located between Dalmatia to the west, Una-Sana Canton to the north, Central Bosnia Canton to the east and West Herzegovina Canton and Herzegovina-Neretva Canton to the south and southeast.

The natural and geographical features of this area are diverse, ranging from fertile and vast fields and vast pastures, rivers and lakes to centuries-old deciduous and evergreen forests, and provide abundant opportunities for life and economic development based on agricultural production, livestock and the timber industry. The ecologically clean and unspoiled nature, the mild continental climate, the geographical position and the proximity and good transport connections with neighboring Croatia, i.e. its gateway to the world, Central Dalmatia, and the connection with the whole of Herzegovina, are important factors for economic progress in this area.

Topography
The mountainous terrain of the region is a part of the Dinaric Alps, linked from a fold and thrust belt dating from the late Jurassic period, itself part of the Alpine orogeny, extending southeast from the southern Alps. The Dinarides form part of a chain of mountains that stretch across southern Europe and isolate Pannonian Basin from the Mediterranean Sea. The highest mountain of the Tropolje Dinarides is Mount Vran, located on the border of the municipalities of Tomislavgrad and Jablanica with the peak called Veliki Vran (Great Vran) at 2074 m.

Political subdivisions
Canton 10 includes 5 municipalities: Drvar, Bosansko Grahovo, Glamoč, Kupres, and Tomislavgrad and 1 township: Livno.

Governance
The canton is governed by the Government of Canton 10 (Vlada Hercegbosanske županije; Влада Кантона 10; Vlada Kantona 10). The current government is a coalition led by the Croatian National Shift.

Government
The Government of the Canton 10 is led by the prime minister who has one deputy and it consists of seven ministries. The ministries have different seats, with two ministries being seated in Tomislavgrad, and the rest in Livno.

Cantonal Assembly

The Cantonal Assembly (Županijska skupština, Bosnian and Kantonalna skupština/Кантонална скупштина) is the parliament of the Canton 10. It consists of 25 representatives elected by proportional representation for four-year terms of office.

Demographics
According to the 1991 census, 115.682 people inhabited the canton. Croats comprised 51.5%, Serbs comprised 35.7% and Bosnian Muslims comprised 10.4% of the population. Croats overwhelmingly lived in the southeastern part of the canton (Livno, Kupres, Tomislavgrad), while Serbs lived in northwestern (Grahovo, Glamoč, Drvar). There was a significant population migration during the war (1992–95). In 1992, Serb forces captured Kupres and the surrounding area, pushing away most of the non-Serb population. Croats returned at the end of 1994, after their forces have retaken Kupres. After Croat forces captured Grahovo, Glamoč and Drvar in the summer and fall of 1995, 12,000 to 14,000 Serbs fled to Banja Luka. Refugee Croats from other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (fleeing Serb or Bosniak forces) settled in the abandoned area previously inhabited by the Serbs. After the war, under UN and peace implementation forces' pressure, Serb refugees returned to their homes.

In 2013, Canton's population included approximately 77% Croats, 13% Serbs and 9.6% Bosniaks; all other ethnicities combined made up the remaining <0.4%. Canton 10 had the largest share of ethnic Serbs in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, their number has steadily decreased since the conclusion of the Bosnian War.

Economy
The canton has significant natural resources, with large reserves of coal and timber, as well as hydro & wind power. Due to economic reasons (insufficient canton revenues compared to expenses) unification with West Herzegovina Canton has been proposed.

The pre-war economic recession, and certainly the war in this area, caused significant population fluctuations in the form of emigration to Western European countries or relocation to other areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The natural and geographical features of this area are diverse, from fertile and vast fields and vast pastures, rivers and lakes to centuries-old deciduous and evergreen forests, and provide abundant opportunities for life and economic development based on agricultural production, livestock and the timber industry. The ecologically clean and intact nature, the temperate continental climate, the geographical position and the proximity and good transport connections with other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and neighboring Croatia, especially Dalmatia, which traditionally and economically gravitate, are important factors for the economic development of this area. The canton suffered severe damage during the last war and is one of the worst affected areas in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The rebuilding process is slow and difficult, but the economy is already showing signs of recovery, mainly visible in the construction, wood processing industry, small business and handicrafts segment. Although commerce is still the dominant branch of the economy, in terms of the total number of companies (191 or 44.50% of the total of 429 active companies and 30% of total income).

Viewed from the revenue aspect of 1998 and 1999, there was a significant increase in construction, agriculture and forestry, as well as transportation, industry and mining. Commerce registered a decrease in income compared to 1998 by 2 index points, as well as a decrease in the participation in total income at the cantonal level from 44.80% in 1998 to 30% in 1999 in favor of other productive activities, and especially construction agriculture and forestry, especially if we take into account that the total income generated at the cantonal level in 1999 increased by 25% compared to 1998. All these are positive indicators of economic recovery and the basis of the expected future development.

The main economic branches of Canton 10 according to the number of employees are the wholesale and retail trade, the processing industry and agriculture, forestry and fishing.

The average salary in Canton 10 is 1168 KM (2024). The highest average net salary is paid in Livno (1269 KM) and the lowest in Drvar (928 KM).

title: Canton 10


text:
Talk:Quantum harmonic oscillator

Untitled
The momentum operator p, I think, should be (h_bar / i)*(d/dx), not (-h_bar * i)*(d/dx). Source: Modern Physics, Tipler, 5th Ed. page 244. Cheers, Justin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.211.137 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * They're the same thing. 1/i = -i. Reedbeta (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

->I think the article would improve by adding a definition of w (omega) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenogalvaowp (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please include a section on the damped, driven quantum harmonic oscillator? This would add tremendously to the content. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.183.217 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to the previous comment: The damped quantum harmonic oscillator is a far (!) more advanced subject than the undamped oscillator. In fact, it has been a research subject for the past 30 years... The difference in the level of sophistication needed (undamped vs. damped quantum osc.) is far greater than e.g. in the classical case (where one can simply add a friction force). So it is probably better to leave that out in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.166.21 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the "happy property of the r^2 potential", referred to in the section on the N-dimensional oscillator? It seems to me that we can also separate the potential energy of (uncoupled) anharmonic oscillators into terms depending on one coordinate each. -- Jitse Niesen 19:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In classical mechanics there are exactly two central potentials whose orbits in N dimensions are ellipses, r^2 and 1/r. The r^2 potential is also the only potential (in one dimension) leading to oscillations whose period is intependent of the amplitude of the oscillations. The Born-Sommerfeld semiclassical quantization relates these two nice properties of the classical potential r^2 to the fact that the energy levels of the quantum harmonic orcillator are equally spaced. Hope that helps. Miguel 19:09, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Wow, that's a quick answer. I get the point, thanks. -- Jitse Niesen 19:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2 questions
I've deleted and transed it to copy at Wiki's reference desk.--HydrogenSu 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is one of the most important model systems in quantum mechanics because, as in classical mechanics, a wide variety of physical situations can be reduced to it either exactly or approximately." Can be reduced to what? The word "it" is not specified as anything. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could clarify this sentence.

Fanifol revert
On 13 June 2006, a user named User:Fanifol apparently reverted the article to the state of 10 March 2006. This was Fanifol's only contribution to the wikipedia, and his revision comment was "THE CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WAR ". However, as in the last nine days no other wikipedia editor has bothered to revert this edit, I now hesitate to do so. Could somebody please provide some background on "THE CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WAR"? — Tobias Bergemann 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the discussion on Uncertainty principle I now assume User:Fanifol to be a sock puppet of the banned user Hryun. I am going to revert his revert. — Tobias Bergemann 14:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

error in diagram?
I think one of the diagrams (the one captioned as "Wavefunction representations for the first six bound eigenstates...") is incorrect. I was plotting Ψ for n=0..5 in maple for some work i'm doing and i noticed that my plots for n=2 and n=3 are reflected in the x axis relative to those shown in the article. This website also agrees with my plots.

Have I missed something here, or are these actually wrong? If they are can some one fix them? Poobarb 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The only difference is a minus sign in the wave function. Such things are irrelevant in QM. David [[image:Da Vit in Chu Nôm.jpg|23px|Da Vit]] 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sign is not quite irrelevant, and it should be fixed: The minus sign becomes important when you use the annihilation/creation operator formalism to go down/up the ladder of states. Then every textbook has the convention that no minus sign appears in the matrix elements, i.e. a^dagger |n>=sqrt(n+1) |n+1>. This then fixes the relative signs of subsequent states (and only the overall sign of the ground state would be free to be chosen). And in this regard, the figure is unfortunately at least misleading, because readers will expect that the wave functions shown here are those that are stated further down in the article in terms of Hermite polynomials (which would have different signs).

Anharmonic oscillator
The cubic potential is rather awkward...it will result in an unbounded system! I removed it for now. I think it's better to rewrite that section with a quartic potential instead, and probably in a different article. --HappyCamper 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

3-dimensional harmonic oscillator
This is why I edited the example of the 3-dimensional harmonic oscillator:
 * A few small spelling mistakes.
 * More importantly: a 3-dimensional harmonic oscillator is not necessarily isotropic. One can have different vibrational frequencies in different directions: $$\omega_x \ne \omega_y\ne \omega_z $$.
 * I changed inline TeX letters to html italic, because for some reason, unknown to me, the inline TeX came out roman.

--P.wormer 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the normalization constant should be (re)written like this:

$$N_{kl}=\sqrt{\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\nu}{\pi }\right)^{3}}\frac{2^{k+2l+3}\;k!\;\nu ^{l}}{ (2k+2l+1)!!}}\,$$

For $$\nu=1$$:

Original formula integrated from r=0 to infty

New formula integrated from r=0 to infty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.11.195 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"the zero of energy is not a physically meaningful quantity"
The article states "the lowest achievable energy is not zero...It is not obvious that this is significant, because normally the zero of energy is not a physically meaningful quantity, only differences in energies." If I'm not mistaken, the physically meaningful fact here is that the lowest energy is not equal to the minimum of the potential well. This is why there is zero-point "motion" in a QHO as opposed to a classical oscillator. We have set up the problem with the zero of energy at the bottom of the well, so when the ground state energy comes out as $$\hbar \omega / 2$$ all it means is that the ground state energy is higher than the bottom of the well - there is really no issue with the zero of energy not being physically meaningful. Unless anyone objects, I'll edit the article to make this clear. Reedbeta (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I've made the change. Reedbeta (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposition: adding "Analytical method"
Note: Apologies for the first edit that accidentally resulted in removing entire sections from the article. I realized it just as it was corrected by Cuzkatzimhut.

Beside the ladder operator method, another useful way of solving the one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator is to directly solve the Schrödinger equation for the system. We start by writing the equation:

 * $$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2\psi}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2x^2\psi=E\psi$$.

Now we introduce dimensionless variables $$\xi=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x$$ and $$\epsilon=\frac{E}{\hbar\omega}$$, and rewrite the Schrödinger equation as:

 * $$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{d\xi}{dx}\frac{d}{d\xi})\psi+\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2(\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{m\omega}}\xi)^2\psi=\epsilon\hbar\omega\psi$$,

which further simplifies to:

 * $$-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{d\xi^2}\psi+\frac{1}{2}\xi^2\psi=\epsilon\psi$$,

and after moving terms becomes:

 * $$\frac{d^2\psi}{d\xi^2}=(\xi^2-2\epsilon)\psi$$.

For very large values of $$\xi$$ (i.e., at very large $$x$$), $$\xi^2$$ becomes much bigger than $$2\epsilon$$, so we can approximated this equation as:

 * $$\frac{d^2}{d\xi^2}\psi\approx\xi^2\psi$$,

Which has the general solution:

 * $$\psi(\xi) = h(\xi)e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{2}}$$.

Now our goal is to find $$h(\xi)$$. Let us start by finding the first and second derivatives:

 * $$\psi'(\xi) = [h'(\xi) - \xi h(\xi)]e^{-\xi^2/2}$$

and

 * $$\psi(\xi) = [h(\xi)-2\xi h'(\xi) + (\xi^2-1)h(\xi)]e^{-\xi^2/2}$$.

Note that according to the Schrödinger equation, $$\frac{d^2\psi}{d\xi^2}=(\xi^2-2\epsilon)\psi$$, so we substitute to achieve:

 * $$h''(\xi) - 2\xi h'(\xi) + (2\epsilon-1)h(\xi) = 0$$.

Let us try to find a solution in the form of power series of $$h(\xi):$$

 * $$h(\xi) = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}a_j \xi^j$$

By substituting this in the equation and collecting similar powers we get:

 * $$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\xi^j[(j+1)(j+2)a_{j+2} - 2ja_j + (2\epsilon-1)a_j] = 0$$.

We can conclude that the coefficient of each power of $$\xi$$ must be the same on both sides, thus we have:

 * $$a_{j+2} = \frac{2j+1-2\epsilon}{(j+1)(j+2)}a_j$$, or:

 * $$\frac{a_{j+2}}{a_j} = \frac{2j+1-2\epsilon}{(j+1)(j+2)}$$.

This recursion formula must terminate for some $$j=n$$, so that $$a_{n+2}=0$$. This will truncate either the series $$h_{even}$$ or $$h_{odd}$$ and the other must be zero from the beginning. This gives:

 * $$\epsilon=n+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{E}{\hbar\omega}$$,

Which is favorable because it gives the allowed energy levels for the system:

 * $$E=\hbar\omega(n+\frac{1}{2})$$

The properly normalized eigenfunctions are

 * $$\psi_n(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n n!}}\left (\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar} \right )^{1/4}e^{-{m\omega x^2/2\hbar}}H_n\left (\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x\right )$$.

The first four hermite polynomials are:

 * $$h_0(x)=1\,$$
 * $$h_1(x)=2\xi\,$$
 * $$h_2(x)=4\xi^2-2\,$$
 * $$h_3(x)=8\xi^3-12\xi\,$$

And the rest can be calculated using the generating function:

 * $$G(\xi,s)=e^{-s^2+2s\xi}=\sum_{n}h_n(\xi)\frac{s^n}{n!}$$,

Or alternatively through the Rodrigues formula:

 * $$h_n(\xi)=(-1)^ne^{\frac{+\xi^2}{2}}\frac{d^n}{d\xi^n}e^{-\xi^2}$$.

Reference

Unsigned talk comment by Mahrud, 15:40, 15 December 2014.

 * I personally don't see the point of this mini-tutorial, as the point and the results are already summarized in black and white in section 1.1! This looks like an attempt to introduce the novice to solving the Schr eqn, Hermite polynomials, the Rodrigues formula (not wikilinked??? WHY??) etc... at an introductory level. It is really a protracted explanatory footnote to section 1.1 to somebody shaky in QM.  Such sections are often put in hide boxes, and this, suitably condensed and wikilinked, could find its way in a hidebox at the end of section 1.1. However, It really detracts from the continuity and logical cohesion of the treatment... If sufficiently many editors assist in paring off repetitive statements in it and endorsed its insertion, in a hidebox, at the end of section 1.1, I could help stick it in. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly overlooked solutions - regarding multidimensional harmonic oscillators
The section "Example: 3D isotropic harmonic oscillator" correlates with the notion that the ground state has energy of 3/2. (Permit me to omit the factor ħω.) But, the following wave function [a] satisfies the wave equation, [b] normalizes, and [c] correlates with an energy of 1/2.

Ψ(r, θ, φ) ∝ r−1 exp(−(r2)/(s2)) Y0,0(θ, φ)
 * Here, s has dimensions of length.

I am reluctant to try to edit the page itself, because …
 * I think other people should set the scope for the page.
 * I may be the discoverer of the above and other solutions (for isotropic quantum harmonic oscillators) [a] that people might say are "non-traditional" and [b] for which I find possibly physics-relevant applications. If my findings are noteworthy, perhaps someone[s] else should report them on Wikipedia.
 * I have little experience directly editing Wikipedia pages. Previously, I edited parts of only 1 page ["IDIQ"].

Some notes. Thomasjbuckholtz (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding normalization, a relevant integral is ∫ Ψ* Ψ r2 dr.  The r2 factor allows for normalization.
 * For each odd positive integer N with N≥3, there exist "non-traditional" solutions having energies of 1/2, 3/2, …, (N−2)/2, as well as the "traditional" solutions with energies N/2, (N+2)/2, ….
 * In some attempted research (in math, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology), I find use for non-traditional solutions such as I note above.
 * Should someone want [a] more information about the math and/or [b] references to cite, … please feel free to consult (on-line [zero-cost download] or in print) the book "Theory of Particles plus the Cosmos." The math I reprise above is in section 1.2.  The specific solution I show above paraphrases equation (1.2.68).  Here are links.  On-line - https://www.academia.edu/11329222/Theory_of_Particles_plus_the_Cosmos_Small_Things_and_Vast_Effects_Extract_-_Front_pages_through_Part_3_  Print - http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Particles-plus-Cosmos-Effects/dp/1508610339/
 * Permit me to note that my attempted research also shows possible uses of similar findings correlating with linear representations (as well as, per above, with radial/spherical representations). For example, for N=3, I find useful the non-traditional solution for which nx = −1, ny = 0, and nz = 0.  (book table 1.2.3 and section 2.1)  This solution correlates with an energy of 1/2.
 * People might state concerns about using quantum numbers that people might say are negative numbers. But, the mathematics "works."  And, the overall energies are all non-negative.  (And, the math may have applications.)

 * You should be congratulated for your reluctance to edit, especially given the controlling WP:NOR rule. This is a threshold you must not cross.   Normalizability  is not the be–all and end–all, but regularity at the origin, which you are forfeiting, is. Martin has analyzed the issue of the neglected δ-function involved. The irregular solution, which Dirac knows about in his book and dismisses on physical grounds, does not solve the Schroedinger eqn for a regular potential like the oscillator, but matches a  δ-function add-on at the origin---and violates the virial theorem. While technically informative, and definitely not new with you!, the strictly formal phenomenon does not belong here and has little bearing on oscillators or physics.  Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments of 15 March 2016. Perhaps it would be appropriate to revisit this topic. Happenings during the last ~1.5 years include the following.
 * Correlating a subset of solutions (of the type of solutions to which my 2015 comment alludes) with the set of known elementary particles (and some properties of those particles).
 * Offering possibilities that other solutions (of the type of solutions to which my 2015 comment alludes) correlate with yet-to-be-found elementary particles (and some properties of those particles).
 * Offering possibilities that applications of the expanded particle set may correlate with explanations of dark matter, dark energy, changes in the rate of expansion of the universe, and other phenomena.
 * Showing such results in a book published by Springer. - http://www.springer.com/book/9789462391659 - {Some notes: (1) Springer makes available (as a no-cost download) the math-intensive chapter (Chapter 2) of the book - http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789462391659-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1565387-p177736899 . (2) Regarding lists of known and proposed particles, (2a) Chapters 3 and 7 of the book provide such lists and (2b) A YouTube-based video draft [I plan some touch-up] of a planned talk [for an American Physical Society Far West Section meeting in October 2016] summarizes the lists. - The page https://thomasjbuckholtz.wordpress.com/mathematical-physics/ currently provides a link to that draft.}

Perhaps, the above establishes the following.
 * Some of the solutions have relevance to physics.
 * Physics-relevance does not necessarily correlate with quantizing phenomena that correlate with traditional classical physics.
 * Physics-relevance does not necessarily correlate with the Schrodinger equation.

Perhaps, you would like to consider establishing a new page (or a new section on the current page) to discuss these solutions and their physics-relevance. That relevance can include (at least) providing an analog - for elementary particles - to the periodic table for elements (during at least the era in which people had yet to formulate enough nuclear and atomic physics to understand atoms and isotopes). (Of course, paralleling history correlating with the periodic table, the extent to which solutions [that may correlate with new elementary particles] correlate with actual elementary particles is unresolved.)

((Just a note- delete if inconvenient: For the harmonic oscillator model of atomic nuclei, the 'magic numbers' for spheres are exactly, and only, doubled tetrahedral numbers: 2,8,20,40,70,112,168... This results from summing 'period analogues' whose sizes are always doubled triangular numbers: 2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72... (i.e. 1s; 1p; 1d2s; 1f,2p; 1g2d3s; 1h,2f,3p; 1i,2g,3d,4s; 1j,2h,3f,4p respectively). For the sphere the oscillator ratio is 1:1, and there is one doubled triangular number interval between every magic, and each doubled triangular number is used just once to generate a magic. When considering deformation, for a prolate ellipsoid with oscillator ratio 2:1, each doubled triangular number interval is used TWICE to generate a magic: 2,2,6,6,12,12,20,20.... and for 3:1 THRICE and so on. In other words the numerator of the oscillator ratio MULTIPLIES usage of the doubled triangular number interval. For an oblate nucleus of oscillator ratio 1:2, the doubled triangular interval is not found between every single magic, but between every SECOND, and for 1:3 between every THIRD, and so on. In other words the oscillator ratio's denominator DIVIDES the usage. Exceptions occur at the very beginnings of magic sequences, when there are not as yet as many magics as the denominator defines. Up to that point magics are doubled triangular numbers. With these three points in mind ANYONE can quickly lay out the harmonic oscillator magics for any stated deformation in terms of oscillator ratio.)) 75.99.104.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some additional notes.
 * It is possible to consider that some of the applications of these solutions pertain to 'something other than space-time.' In this case, the book discusses using Poincare group symmetries to (in effect) map solutions into concepts correlating with space-time coordinates.
 * On the other hand, at least for each non-zero-mass elementary particle, the work shows the following two concepts. (First) A solution that normalizes only in the limit of s squared approaching zero. (Here, s is the same as the s in my previous comment. The new book uses the symbol η, not s.) People might say that this solution correlates with a particle's participation in a point-like interaction vertex. (Second) A (different) solution that normalizes for any positive value of s squared. People might say that setting s to be proportional to the proper time that elapses after an interaction vertex correlates with propagation of a field associated with the particle. (The previous sentence assumes that the particle emerges from the interaction vertex.)

--Thomasjbuckholtz (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Commutators
"The following commutators can be easily obtained by substituting the canonical commutation relation," These follow immediately (mathematically) from the preceding lines. Why give the impression that they depend on something presented as a physics concept in another article. Keith McClary (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you make clear what, exactly, you are proposing, and why? The reader who still needs reminding of where the following commutators came from is steered to use the canonical commutation relations linked to redo the elementary linear algebra to produce them. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: Units in Wave Eqn for Quantum Harmonic Oscillator
Every formulation that I have seen for the quantum harmonic oscillator wave eqn has a term like

(mω/πћ)(1/4). Yet the units of this term before the root extraction are kg*sec-1/(m2*kg*sec-1), which cancels out to m-2. After the root is taken, the units of the term are m-1/2. Since the units cancel out in all the other terms of the wave eqn, the results of ψn(x), assuming x in meters or femtometers, have units 1/√m or 1/√fm. How is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CElliott316 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ? What exactly is the problem? the probability density has then inverse units of length, so integrated over dx, it yields a dimensionless probability. You did  notice, didn't you, the cube in the 3d formula in the suitable section? Taking a physics course should help. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of application to chemistry
I do not understand the action of Cuzkatzimhut, who has deleted my last 2 edits with an edit summary claiming that they are "Superfluous and counterproductive". I consider that these edits are not superfluous because they deal with applications of QHO to chemistry which make the article a little more useful to chemists.

The first edit expresses the hamiltonian directly in terms of force constant (related to chemical bonds) and mass (related to isotope effects), as well as in terms of frequency. This may be useful to a reader who has forgotten that $$\omega = \sqrt(k/m) $$, and wilIl then be able to apply the same relation to the energy levels and to ZPE.

The second edit mentions an example of zero-point energy which is useful in chemistry. I realize that the kinetic isotope effect is not discussed in physics textbooks, but an encyclopedia article can go further in pointing out applications. As for "counterproductive", I do not understand the use of this word at all here. Why are these additions counterproductive exactly? I have given two sources for the kinetic isotope effect. (Although most of the article is now unsourced, which should be improved.) I will therefore restore these two edits. Dirac66 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * The reader has no right to "forget" the elimination of k the article starts with, in section 1.1, in the very first equation of the article. It is incontrovertibly counterproductive in throwing around superfluous variables that play no role but sidetrack the reader into mental needless substitutions. There is a harsh deprecation in the physics community against the surfeit of defocussing formalism that detracts from the crucial main points. That is counterproductive.
 * Equally counterproductive is the peroration on the significance of the zero-point energy that is what an entire article is about. Again, tripping the flow by, at best, a footnote, just because the reader should be too lazy to go to the dedicated article is not productive. I will revert the changes and link Zero-point energy where Dirac66  may defend the interests of chemistry in detail. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * 1. But the very first equation does NOT now contain k in your version. That is why I inserted it, but you have eliminated it. I will restore it.
 * 2. In the interests of compromise, I will accept the deletion of the kinetic isotope effect from this article.
 * 3. On rereading section 1.1, I notice a very strange claim that the two terms of the Hamiltonian represent "possible" kinetic energy "states" and "possible" potential energy "states". I don't know what the author of that sentence was thinking, but I will remove the "possible" and the "states". Dirac66 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace ν with ν / 2 in #Example: 3D isotropic harmonic oscillator
I don't understand why ν is defined the way it is. The factor of two does not make the equation any simpler. It also makes conversion to natural units more annoying.

I would also like to propose rewriting the normalization constant in terms of the Γ function, because it is simpler and matches what is used by the orthogonality relations in the Laguerre polynomials article.

 * Original:

 * $$\psi_{klm}(r,\theta,\phi) = N_{kl} r^{l}e^{-\nu r^2}L_k^{(l+{1\over 2})}(2\nu r^2) Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$$
 * where
 * $$N_{kl}=\sqrt{\sqrt{\frac{2\nu^3}{\pi }}\frac{2^{k+2l+3}\;k!\;\nu^l}{

(2k+2l+1)!!}}$$ is a normalization constant; $$\nu \equiv {\mu \omega \over 2 \hbar}~$$;

 * Proposed:

 * $$\psi_{k l m}(r, \theta, \phi) = N_{k l} r^l e^{-\gamma r^2 / 2} L_k^{(l + 1/2)}(\gamma r^2) Y_{l m}(\theta, \phi)$$
 * where
 * $$N_{k l} = \sqrt{\frac{k! \, 2 \gamma^{l + 3/2}}{\Gamma(k + l + 3/2)}} = \sqrt{\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^3}{\pi}} \frac{2^{k + l + 2} \, k! \, \gamma^l}{(2 k + 2 l + 1)!!}}$$  is a normalization constant;
 * $$\gamma \equiv \frac{\mu \omega}{\hbar}$$ ;

--Fylwind (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Changed to γ for consistency with Particle in a spherically symmetric potential. (Reminder: Update that page as well.) --Fylwind (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Animated plots: improvement
The animated plots showing the evolution of the wavefunction are really neat. It would be nice if they also showed the evolution of the probability density for the position, which is relevant when we measure the position of the particle over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpgl (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove Protection for za damn page.
I propose that you remove the protection from the QHO page, it is really cringe. And this Page is not even worth protecting, it is pure stupidity and cringe. So yeah, that is. I love hot girls. QHOorNAGATORO (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quantum harmonic oscillator


text:
Walter Weir

Walter Cocksmith Weir (June 7, 1929 – April 17, 1985) was a Canadian politician. Weir served as the 15th premier of Manitoba from 1967 to 1969.

The son of James Dixon Weir, he was born in Hugh Bluff, Manitoba and was educated there and in Portage la Prairie. Weir worked as an undertaker in Saskatchewan, later returning to Manitoba where he became the owner of his own funeral home in Minnedosa in 1953. In 1951, he married Harriet Thompson. Weir served as chairman of the Minnedosa Hospital Board from 1955 to 1957, and of the Minnedosa Town Council from 1958 to 1959. He sought the Progressive Conservative nomination for Minnedosa in the buildup to the 1958 provincial election, but lost to Sid Paler. He later defeated Paler for the party's nomination in the buildup to the 1959 provincial election; there was no lasting animosity between the candidates, and Paler served as Weir's campaign manager in the election that followed.

Weir was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in Dufferin Roblin's landslide victory of 1959, defeating Liberal-Progressive incumbent Charles Shuttleworth in the rural riding of Minnedosa. He was appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs on October 25, 1961, holding the portfolio until February 27, 1963. Weir was also Minister of Public Works from November 5, 1962 to July 22, 1967 and Minister of Highways from July 1, 1967 to November 27, 1967. He was re-elected without difficulty in 1962, and again by a credible margin in the provincial election of 1966.

When Roblin moved to federal politics in 1967, Weir defeated Sterling Lyon and two other candidates to become the party's new leader. He was sworn in as Premier on November 27, 1967.

Weir represented a "rural populist" wing within the Manitoba Tories, and spoke for the party's more conservative members who had been marginalized during Red Tory Roblin's time as leader. Weir's government kept spending increases to a minimum and introduced a balanced budget without tax increases in 1968. Weir was skeptical toward the concept of Medicare, and his government did not sign on to the program until 1969, one year after its introduction. He also opposed the introduction of official bilingualism and attained national notoriety for his conflict with Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau over that issue.

Weir also proposed reforms for the Senate of Canada. He called for all provinces to have an equal number of senators and for some Senate representatives to be appointed on the recommendation of provincial governments. He also recommended for the Senate to be given more powers, including the authority to ratify international treaties.

Weir called four by-elections in early 1969, largely to test his government's popularity on the bilingualism issue. Tory candidates were successful in three of those contests, and it appeared as if his government's stance had been vindicated. Weir called a general election for June 25, 1969, even though only three years had passed since the previous election.

That turned out to be a strategic error, particularly after the New Democratic Party selected Edward Schreyer as its leader during the campaign. Schreyer was a youthful and charismatic figure from the centrist wing of the NDP, and his party was able to win the support of many centre-left voters, including those who had voted for Pierre Trudeau's federal Liberals the previous year. The NDP won 28 seats against 22 for the Tories. On election night, Weir told his supporters, "The people have spoken. And the people are wrong."

While the NDP came up one seat short of a majority, it was not immediately clear who would form government. Weir initially flirted with supporting a coalition with the Manitoba Liberals in which former Liberal leader Gildas Molgat, despite his party finishing in third place, would have become Premier. However, that came undone when Liberal MLA Laurent Desjardins threw his support to the NDP, which allowed Schreyer to replace Weir as Premier shortly thereafter.

Weir stepped down as PC leader in February 1971, and retired as an MLA in September of the same year. He did not re-enter political life again. Weir died in the evening of April 17, 1985 of a suspected heart attack at his home in Minnedosa, Manitoba.

title: Walter Weir