text:
Bombardier Inc.

Bombardier Inc. is a Canadian business jet manufacturer. Headquartered in Montreal, the company was founded in 1942 by Joseph-Armand Bombardier to market his snowmobiles and became one of the world's biggest producers of aircraft and trains.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the company diversified into public transport vehicles and commercial jets and became a multinational corporation. It grew particularly fast at the end of the 1980s when the turnover multiplied sixfold within six years. At that time it was North America's most important producer of railway vehicles, Canada's most important aerospace producer and the worldwide leading snowmobile manufacturer. The growth came mainly from buying failing government-owned companies at a low price and orchestrating a turnaround.

However, the launch of the CSeries aircraft sent the company into deep debt, pushing it to the brink of bankruptcy by 2015. As a result, the company sold nearly all of its operations except business jet manufacturing.

Bombardier manufactures two families of corporate jets, the Global and Challenger. On May 18, 2021, the Global 7500/8000 series during testing became the first business jet to break the sound barrier and the fastest civil aircraft since the Concorde.

With deliveries of 138 business jets in 2023, Bombardier was the number one manufacturer of business jets in the world.

Corporate affairs
The key trends of Bombardier are (as at the financial year ending December 31):

Commercial aviation

In 1986, Bombardier acquired Canadair for C$120 million from the Government of Canada after it recorded the largest corporate loss in Canadian history.

In 1989, the company acquired Short Brothers.

By 1990, the first product of the company, the Ski-Doo snowmobile, had become its weakest part gaging up deficits and high inventories.

In 1990, it acquired Learjet. In 1992, the company acquired de Havilland Canada from Boeing.

In 1995, the company founded Flexjet. In December 2013, the division was sold for $195 million.

On June 29, 2016, Bombardier delivered the first CSeries CS100 aircraft (now called the Airbus A220) to Swiss International Air Lines. Air Canada placed an order for the aircraft one day earlier.

In April 2016, Delta Air Lines placed an order for the aircraft. On September 26, 2017, after Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CS100 to Delta Air Lines below cost due to subsidies from the governments of Canada and Quebec, the United States Department of Commerce proposed a 219% tariff on the aircraft. Boeing's complaint stated that the CS100 planes were being sold at US$19.6 million each, below the US$33.2 million production cost. The governments of Canada and the United Kingdom threatened to stop ordering Boeing aircraft since the company was putting aerospace jobs at risk. On January 26, 2018, the United States International Trade Commission overturned the tariffs. Boeing did not appeal.

In July 2018, Airbus acquired a 50.01% stake in the CSeries for one Canadian dollar, with an option to acquire the remaining interest by 2024. Airbus built a second CSeries assembly line at its A320 assembly facility in Mobile, Alabama.

In November 2018, the company announced the sale of its turboprop passenger aircraft unit to an affiliate of Viking Air. It also announced 5,000 layoffs.

In March 2019, the company sold its Business Aircraft Training business to CAE Inc. for $645 million. The business included flight simulators and training devices for the Bombardier Learjet, Challenger, and Global product lines.

On 25 June 2019, Bombardier agreed with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to sell the CRJ programme, a deal was expected to close in early 2020 subject to regulatory approval. Bombardier will retain the Mirabel assembly facility and produce the CRJ on behalf of Mitsubishi until the current order backlog is complete.

In October 2019, Bombardier announced the sale agreement of its remaining aerostructure division to US company Spirit AeroSystems. The division at time of sale involved component manufacture for new and after-market Bombardier group and Airbus group aircraft models, and also operated in aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul. Due to how the 2020 pandemic affected the industry, the agreement was renegotiated with the sale to Spirit concluded finally in October 2020. Bombardier's former aerostructures division purchased by Spirit consisted at time of sale of operations in Belfast, UK; Casablanca, Morocco; and Dallas, USA.

The 2019-20, aerostructures division sell-off was described at the time as supporting Bombardier's "strategic decision to reposition itself as a pure-play business aircraft company".

In February 2020, Airbus acquired an additional 25% stake in the A220 for US$591 million. This transaction was the final step to get Bombardier Aviation out of the commercial jet industry.

In December 2022, Bombardier broke ground on the new service center at the Abu Dhabi International Airport. This new facility in Abu Dhabi will be Bombardier’s first full-service facility in the United Arab Emirates.

Bombardier Capital
From 1973, when it was based in Colchester, Vermont, Bombardier Capital offered financial services such as lending and leasing.

In 1997, the company began transitioning some services to Jacksonville, Florida.

In 2001, it ceased taking on new consumer loans.

In 2005, Bombardier sold its inventory finance division to GE Commercial Finance.

Military
The company acquired the rights to the Volkswagen Iltis in 1981. Production ceased in 1989.

When UTDC was acquired by Bombardier in 1991 several military products were added:

UTDC 24M32 - HLVW military trucks based on the Steyr 91 (Percheron)
 * MLVW military trucks based on the M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck

In 2003, the company sold its arms industry division in Canada. Military Aviation Services was sold to SPAR Aerospace. Land-based arms industry products made by Urban Transportation Development Corporation ceased operations.

Public transport bus in Ireland
In the late 1970s, in the Republic of Ireland, CIÉ (now Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus) commissioned a range of single and double-decker buses to be designed and produced.

CIÉ looked for partners to build these buses in Ireland, eventually finding two: Bombardier, and the United States-based General Automotive Corporation (GAC) from Ann Arbor, Michigan. The two companies formed a new company Bombardier Ireland Limited, 51% owned by Bombardier and 49% owned by GAC. In August 1983, Bombardier sold its shares to GAC, with the company renamed GAC Ireland Limited.

The prototypes were devised in Germany and production of 51 express coaches (KE type) and 366 double-decker buses (KD type) were assembled between 1980 and 1983 at a facility in Shannon, County Clare. They remained in service until 1997 and 2000, respectively. Some surviving examples are now exhibited at the National Transport Museum of Ireland at Howth Castle.

Rail equipment
The company diversified into rail transport after the 1970s energy crisis reduced demand for snowmobiles.

In 1974, the company received its first order – to build MR-73 trains for Société de transport de Montréal for use on the Montreal Metro. In 1975, the company acquired Montreal Locomotive Works. It was sold to General Electric in 1988.

In 1982, the company won a contract from New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority to build 825 R62A cars for the New York City Subway for $663 million.

In 1985, the company ceased manufacturing locomotives and concentrated on producing passenger train rolling stock. It acquired a 45% stake in La Brugeoise et Nivelles (formerly BN Constructions Ferroviaires et Métalliques) based in Bruges in 1986, the assets of U.S. railcar manufacturers Budd Company and Pullman Company in 1987, and ANF Industrie based in Crespin, Nord, France in 1989. A series of acquisitions in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Mexico further increased operations.

In 1996, the company was selected as the lead developer for the Acela Express trains, the fastest trains in North America, in a $710 million contract. Problems with the trains resulted in lawsuits between the company and Amtrak.

In 2001, Bombardier acquired Adtranz (DaimlerChrysler Rail Systems), a manufacturer of trains which were widely used throughout Germany and Great Britain, becoming one of the largest manufacturers of railway rolling stock in the world. This division produced the Bombardier Turbostar.

In 2005, it launched the Bombardier Zefiro high-speed rail, with speeds of 200–380 kilometres per hour, for the Ministry of Railways (China).

On February 13, 2020, Alstom agreed to buy the Bombardier Transportation division for €7 billion. The acquisition deal was completed on January 29, 2021.

Bombardier Recreational Products

In January 1934, a blizzard prevented Joseph-Armand Bombardier from reaching the nearest hospital in time to save his two-year-old son, Yvon, who died from appendicitis complicated by peritonitis.

Bombardier was a mechanic who dreamed of building a vehicle that could "float on snow". In 1935, in a repair shop in Valcourt, Quebec, he designed and produced the first snowmobile using a drive system he developed that revolutionized travel in snow and swampy conditions.

In 1937, he patented and sold 12 of the 7-passenger "B7" snow coaches. They were used in rural Quebec to take children to school, carry freight, deliver mail, and as ambulances. In 1941, Bombardier opened a factory in Valcourt.

In 1942, L'Auto-Neige Bombardier Limitée ("Bombardier Snow Car Limited") was founded in Valcourt.

During World War II, the Government of Canada issued wartime rationing regulations. Bombardier customers had to prove that snowmobiles were essential to their livelihood in order to buy one. The company then shifted its focus to the arms industry.

In 1947, during a blizzard in Saskatchewan, the company received positive press coverage when army snowmobiles resupplied isolated radio communication towers.

In 1948, the Government of Quebec passed a law requiring all roads to be cleared of snow; Bombardier's sales fell by nearly half in one year. Armand Bombardier therefore decided to diversify his business, first by producing tracked snowplows sized specifically for use on municipal sidewalks, replacing horse-drawn vehicles, then by making all-terrain vehicles for the mining, petroleum, and forestry industries.

The machines had removable front skis that could be replaced with front wheels for use on paved or hard surfaces, thus providing greater utility to his large snowmobiles. In 1951, the wooden bodies were replaced with sheet steel, and these vehicles were powered by Chrysler flathead six-cylinder engines and 3-speed manual transmissions. In the early 1950s, Bombardier focused on developing a snowmobile for 1 or 2 passengers. A breakthrough occurred in 1957 when Bombardier developed a one-piece molded rubber continuous track with enough durability to provide snow-gripping traction for lightweight vehicles. The vehicle was called the "Ski-Dog" because it was meant to replace the dog sled for hunters and trappers. However, in 1958, "Ski-Doo" was accidentally painted on the first prototype, and immediately became the popular name.

The public soon discovered the great fun of speedy vehicles zooming over snow, and a new winter sport was born, centered in Quebec. In the first year, Bombardier sold 225 Ski-Doos; four years later, 8,210 were sold. Bombardier slowed promotion of the Ski-Doo line to prevent it from crowding out other company products, while still dominating the snowmobile industry against competitors Polaris Industries and Arctic Cat.

In 1963, Roski was created in Roxton Falls, Quebec as a manufacturer of composite parts for the Ski-Doo. In the 1960s, V-8 engines were added.

On February 18, 1964, J. Armand Bombardier died of cancer at age 56. Until then, he oversaw all areas of operation and controlled the research department, making all the drawings himself. The younger generation took over, led by Armand's sons and sons-in-law, reorganizing and decentralizing the company. The company adopted computer inventory, accounting, and billing. Distribution networks were improved and increased, and an incentive program was developed for sales staff. That year, a survey was mailed to Ski-Doo owners to find out how the product was being used. Germain Bombardier, who had been groomed by his father, took over the company upon his father's death in 1964. However, he quit and sold his shares in 1966 after a disagreement with other family members. Laurent Beaudoin, the son-in-law of the founder, then became president, a position he held until 1999. He had joined the company as controller in 1963 and was president for 25 years.

In 1967, the company was renamed Bombardier Limited. By that time, the snowmobiles were very useful for the Inuit. In 1968, Clayton Jacobson II invented the jet ski and the company licensed his patents to create the Sea-Doo personal watercraft.

On January 23, 1969, the company became a public company, listing on the Montreal Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

In 1969–1970, the standard round windows reminiscent of portholes were replaced with larger rectangular windows that provided more interior light. A change was made to the Chrysler Industrial 318 engines with the automatic Loadflite transmissions.

In 1970, the company acquired Rotax, an engine manufacturer based in Gunskirchen, Austria.

In 1971, Bombardier acquired Moto-Ski. Also in 1971, Bombardier launched Operation SnoPlan, a program to promote snowmobile safety after a mounting death toll due to snowmobile accidents.

In the 1970s, the company began producing Can-Am motorcycles, which included Rotax engines.

In 2003, the company sold Bombardier Recreational Products to a group of investors: Bain Capital (50%), Bombardier Family (35%) and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (15%) for $875 million.

title: Bombardier Inc.


text:
Break key

The Break key (or the symbol ⎉ ) of a computer keyboard refers to breaking a telegraph circuit and originated with 19th century practice. In modern usage, the key has no well-defined purpose, but while this is the case, it can be used by software for miscellaneous tasks, such as to switch between multiple login sessions, to terminate a program, or to interrupt a modem connection.

Because the break function is usually combined with the pause function on one key since the introduction of the IBM Model M 101-key keyboard in 1985, the Break key is also called the Pause key. It can be used to pause some computer games.

History
A standard telegraph circuit connects all the keys, sounders and batteries in a single series loop. Thus the sounders actuate only when both keys are down (closed, also known as "marking" — after the ink marks made on paper tape by early printing telegraphs). So the receiving operator has to hold their key down or close a built-in shorting switch in order to let the other operator send. As a consequence, the receiving operator could interrupt the sending operator by opening their key, breaking the circuit and forcing it into a "spacing" condition. Both sounders stop responding to the sender's keying, alerting the sender (a physical break in the telegraph line would have the same effect).

The teleprinter operated in a very similar fashion except that the sending station kept the loop closed (logic 1, or "marking") even during short pauses between characters. Holding down a special "break" key opened the loop, forcing it into a continuous logic 0, or "spacing", condition. When this occurred, the teleprinter mechanisms continually actuated without printing anything, as the all-0s character is the non-printing NUL in both Baudot and ASCII. The resulting noise got the sending operator's attention.

This practice carried over to teleprinter use on time-sharing computers. A continuous spacing (logical 0) condition violates the rule that every valid character has to end with one or more logic 1 (marking) "stop" bits. The computer (specifically the UART) recognized this as a special "break" condition and generated an interrupt that typically stopped a running program or forced the operating system to prompt for a login. Although asynchronous serial telegraphy is now rare, the key once used with terminal emulators can still be used by software for similar purposes.

Sinclair
On the ZX80 and ZX81 computers, the Break is accessed by pressing. On the ZX Spectrum it is accessed by. The Spectrum+ and later computers have a dedicated key. It does not trigger an interrupt but will halt any running BASIC program, or terminate the loading or saving of data to cassette tape. An interrupted BASIC program can usually be resumed with the  command. The Sinclair QL computer, without a key, maps the function to.

BBC Micro
On a BBC Micro computer, the key generates a hardware reset which would normally cause a warm restart of the computer. A cold restart is triggered by pressing. If a filing system is installed, will cause the computer to search for and load or run a file called   on the filing system's default device (e.g. floppy disk 0, network user BOOT). The latter two behaviours were inherited by the successor to Acorn MOS, RISC OS. These behaviours could be changed or exchanged in software, and were often used in rudimentary anti-piracy techniques.

Because of the BBC Micro's near universal usage in British schools, later versions of the machine incorporated a physical lock on the Break key to stop children from intentionally resetting the computer.

Modern keyboards
On many modern PCs, interrupts screen output by BIOS until another key is pressed. This is effective during boot in text mode and in a DOS box in Windows safe mode with 50 lines. On early keyboards without a key (before the introduction of 101/102-key keyboards) the Pause function was assigned to, and the Break function to ; these key-combinations still work with most programs, even on modern PCs with modern keyboards. Pressing the dedicated key on 101/102-key keyboards sends the same scancodes as pressing, then , then releasing them in the reverse order would do; additionally, an E1hex prefix is sent, which enables 101/102-key-aware software to discern the two situations, while older software usually just ignores the prefix. The key is different from all other keys in that it sends no scancodes at all on release in PS/2 modes 1 or 2, so it is impossible to determine whether this key is being held down with older devices. In PS/2 mode 3 or USB HID mode, there is a release scancode, so it is possible to determine whether this key is being held down on modern computers.

On modern keyboards, the key is usually labeled Pause with Break below, sometimes separated by a line:, or Pause on the top of the keycap and Break on the front, or only Pause without Break at all. In most Windows environments, the key combination brings up the system properties.

Keyboards without Break key
Compact and notebook keyboards often do not have a dedicated key.

Substitutes for :
 * or or  on certain Lenovo laptops.
 * or on certain Dell laptops.
 * on some other Dell laptops.
 * on Samsung.
 * on certain HP laptops.
 * on certain HP laptops.
 * on certain Logitech (LOGI) keyboards.

Substitutes for :
 * or or  on certain Lenovo laptops.
 * on certain Dell laptops.
 * on certain HP laptops.
 * on certain HP laptops.

For some Dell laptops, without a key, press the  and select "Interrupt".

Usage for breaking the program's execution
While both and  combination are commonly implemented as a way of breaking the execution of a console application, they are also used for similar effect in integrated development environments. Although these two are often considered interchangeable, compilers and execution environments usually assign different signals to these. Additionally, in some kernels (e.g. miscellaneous DOS variants) is detected only at the time OS tries reading from a keyboard buffer and only if it's the only key sequence in the buffer,  while  is often translated instantly (e.g. by INT 1Bh under DOS). Because of this, is usually a more effective choice under these operating systems; sensitivity for these two combinations can be enhanced by the   CONFIG.SYS statement.

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

title: Break key


text:
Talk:British Isles

Should half the lead be about the etymology?
Can we move it to the etymology section? Tikaboo (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Why would we do that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tikaboo, @Wiki-Ed: The lead should mention some aspects of the etymology, but I agree that it's currently too much weighted towards etymology, in particular the naming controversy (which has its own article).
 * As it stands:
 * The etymology part of the lead is around 90 words, summarising around 450 words from the main article (1:5).
 * The "controversial" aspect of the name takes three-quarters of the lead's etymology content, and just under a quarter of the etymology section in the main article.
 * The non-etymology part of the lead is around 100 words, summarising 5000 or so non-etymology words from the main article (1:50).
 * This suggests that the current lead content gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to the naming controversy, and insufficiently reflects the content of the main article.
 * Substantially increasing the size of the first half of the lead, and moving some parts of the naming controversy from the lead to the main article, would provide a better-balanced lead to the article. Bazza (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, seeing how many people start jumping up and down about the term "British Isles" it is absolutely necessary. But some tweaking is possible. The Banner  talk 00:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should be tweaked. The third and fifth sentences of the second paragraph could be removed and placed in later sections, but the main thrust of the paragraph should be retained in the lead.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the lead has two paragraphs. Four would be better, with new second and third ones summarising the large number of aspects of the main article which are currently absent; and the fourth (currently second) shortened as @Ghmyrtle suggests. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. I thought something looked off. Someone removed a significant block of information here. The reason we've had four paragraphs for as long as we have is to follow - fairly literally - the MOS guide on leads. In particular we tried to balance (a) four paragraphs, (b) relative emphasis, and (c) prominent controversies. It took a long time to agree relative emphasis and it's clear that those who feel strongly about the controversy still feel strongly because they keep trying to expand the text. It's reasonable to assume that cutting it back would make them unhappy and restart the edit warring. But equally... removing two paragraphs for spurious reasons has changed the balance and it now looks disproportionate.
 * So, I've restored the version of 2 November. Most of the intermediate edits were by the same person who made the flawed changed in the first place. Given they've already wasted our time with this, I'm not going to waste my time reviewing any of their other edits - if any of them are valid they can restore them manually - and should probably seek consensus first.
 * I propose that if we're going to review the longstanding consensus version of the text then we should do so with said consensus version in front of us. And I'd also propose that we give people who feel strongly about the controversy time to respond to any proposal to cut back text they have fought to maintain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I appreciate the necessity to keep the lead brief. However, we should acknowledge two things in the lead. 1) The term is pretty much exclusively used in Britain, and not used at all by Irish people in Ireland, if we're to consider the two largest islands in this apparent group. 2) There is no consensus on whether it's a geographical term, or a politically-coloured term.
 * Outside of the lead, the average non-Irish/non-British reader would have no idea there's a controversy, besides the one sentence in the lead. Should we not have at the least a brief section summarising the controversy, and directing the inquisitive reader to the other page? Wikiejd2 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding to your concerns, do you have any evidence of it? The Banner  talk 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the term is "pretty much used exclusively in [Great] Britain" and the people in Great Britain use it as a geographic term. And it is "not used at all by Irish people in Ireland" - either as a geographic or political term - in which case does that not mean it is used exclusively as a geographic term because the only people using the term do so in that way? And why do we need a brief section when (a) we already have a brief section and (b) there's a whole article on the controversy? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much of a controversy anyway, outside of Wikipedia talk pages. For most people in daily life it simply isn't a topic that crops up, wherever they live and whatever their nationality. It's hugely overblown here and we need to be very wary of giving it undue weight. We can see from the discussion above that there are people who think there's too much etymology in the lead and others who think it should go into more detail. On balance I'd say we've got it about right as it is. WaggersTALK  12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hardly undue weight. Where are you talking about when you say "here"?
 * Simply put, this page takes entirely the British position. It doesn't reflect the Irish position. That hardly seems fair and balanced. Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "here" does not appear in the message you've replied to. The article reflects the balance of the reliable sources on a global scale, not the perspective of any individual country. WaggersTALK  11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've spotted the "here". "Here" means right here, on this talk page. WaggersTALK  12:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Wiki-Ed, would you agree with my point that a casual reader coming across this page would think that Ireland and Britain are part of a group called "The British Isles"? And can you also stretch the imagination to believe that the uninformed would believe that they are a political group?
 * This is exactly why we need a clear section on this page. I note you removed lines stating the the Irish govt discourages this contested term's usage. Your reason was "No. Let's keep the way it has been for several years". Why should we keep it that way? The term has not been in usage by the Irish government for about a hundred years. Why trample over the facts? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The introduction is very clear that the subject is a group of islands. There's no implication of any political grouping and yes I think it would be quite a stretch of wilful misunderstanding to arrive at such a conclusion. WaggersTALK  12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the page about the controversy if you are unfamiliar with the evidence. My point is about this page. Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi The Banner. I note that you removed my citation required tag for the sentence "As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit".
 * What evidence do you have for your claims? It is a contested term, as you well know. What source are you basing that claim on, and why should it be the accepted authority? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the whole article is about the group of islands. The Banner  talk 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do people feel about cutting a few extraneous words in the lead?
 * As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial, and there are objections to its usage. The Government of Ireland does not officially recognise the term, and its embassy in London discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
 * replaced with
 * As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial and the Irish government does not officially recognise the term. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
 * Tikaboo (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good change to me. WaggersTALK  10:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand something: is the old text referring to the Irish embassy in London? The Banner  talk 13:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, new text would cut the embassy bit. Tikaboo (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is about the Irish embassy in London, I agree with the change. The Banner  talk 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also remove the "Atlantic Archipelago" bit. It's seen really minor use in academia, and a search returns results for me that includes fiction and books such as the tautologically titled "The Atlantic Archipelago: Political History of the British Isles". Undue for the lede. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether users consider the presentational change better or worse, the longstanding version was carefully sourced. Clumsy editing has removed sourced material, moved clauses away from the sources that supported them, or left sources hanging without the clause they were supporting. I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up after lazy editing, especially for such spurious reasons. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, we've used the references to the Irish Embassy to maintain balance for those who feel strongly about this term being used at all, and the reference to the Atlantic Archipelago is reductio ad absurdum for those who feel equally strongly the other way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think the amount of attention on the controversy in the lead should be reduced. It's just that the embassy thing is a bit of a random tidbit. And I don't think it's even relayed correctly. Is there a history of the embassy discouraging its usage? It looks like an embassy staffer was randomly asked about the term and they responded "we would discourage its use". But the embassy has never actually done so. If there's some other notable details we could include in the lead about the controversy then that would be better than the embassy thing. And mb about the editing. Tikaboo (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You may well be right about the embassy point, but there are some editors - who have so far remained quiet - with strong views that the example illustrates there is some sort of official reluctance to use the term. Whether or not it's a good exampple (or even representative), this article went through a long period of instability as different sides sought to emphasise their view before it reached a mostly-stable balance. This is a compromise position in which neither side is happy, but also not sufficiently unhappy to engage in further editing warring (bar occasional IP edits). If you have a better and sourced alternative then please feel free to switch that in, but otherwise I think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works with reliable sources. But strong feelings by a group of silent editors is not cutting the cake here. The Banner  talk 14:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024
Change population of Greater Dublin to 2,125,000 as that is the Census 2022 population . 86.44.233.172 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your claim also seems to conflict with the information in the Dublin article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic name
Why is the Scottish Gaelic for British Isles, Eileanan Bhreatainn when the Irish is Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Eileanan Bhreatainn is a direct translation of British Isles just as Oileáin Briotanach would be for Irish. Would the Scottish Gaelic for British isles not resemble something more similar to the Irish language as they are so close. Probably something like Éirinn agus Breatainn Mhór. 109.79.4.140 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The Irish for the British Isles isn't "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" - that translates as "Ireland and Great Britain". The Irish for "the British Isles" is "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", but presumably a keyboard warrior has removed that from somewhere, with an edit summary along the lines of "No true Irishman uses that phrase!"? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a question for the Irish language Wikipedia, not something we can deal with here. WaggersTALK  11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with the Irish as that is what these islands are referred to and is the terminology used. But rather that why isn’t the Scottish Gaelic following similarly to the Irish 109.79.4.140 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your issue might not be with the Irish, but the Manx (also with a similar language) might take issue with it. But in any case, you don't translate a language based on how another and different language translates it. Not even if they are related. Now, where did I put my handshoes? I need to go out in the cold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2024
46.208.141.146 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Ireland is not part of the brittish isles
 * Malformed request. Many, many, many times discussed before that this is a geographical term, not a political one. The Banner  talk 13:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology
Seriously guys wtf? Today the term British isles is no more than an archaic colonial era "geographical" term which has no relevance today and belongs in the dustbin of history

The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee, who used it to promote the colonisation of Ireland. Dee also the same individual who came up with the term the "British  Empire"

It's really little wonder that  Wikipedia  is considered a totally unreliable source of information,  when articles like this try to legitimise  bs colonial  era "geographical" terminology 31.187.2.224 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Are you unable to recognise the difference between geography and politics? We use the terms that are in common use, not a desired political motivated wish. The Banner  talk 10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And are seriously unable to comprehend  that it's by definition an archaic  geopolitical  term, first used in the English  language  by a noted Elizabethan propagandist who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Or indeed that the term today has no official  standing  and when used online  or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up. The only political shenanigans  are those who continue  to insist otherwise. Time Wikipedia  woke up to the overt politicised machinations of some of it's  editors 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * an archaic geopolitical term. Thank you, but we are talking here about geography, not politics or geopolitics. The term is not archaic but in common use. And yes, there is discussion about the term but we follow the sources. We do not invent or promote other names. We just follow the sources. Only when the common name of the archipelago changes, the article will reflect that.  The Banner  talk 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As detailed the term is certainly not simply geographical,but is as detailed  an archaic  colonial  era geopolitical term. A word btw which means the combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (such as a state or particular resources) such as the first use of the term Brytish Isles by the noted  Elizabethan propagandist John Dee in 1577
 * Btw there is no common name for the "archipelago" other than a singular archaic colonial geopolitical term which has no official standing and where found online or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up
 * Its time the relevant Wikipedia articles reflected that and the small number of Wikipedia  editors ring fencing the issue be removed from doing so 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is well know that a small number of editors take offence of the term. But unfortunately, we use the common name for this geographical entity. Not someone's personal preference. The Banner  talk 15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A "common name" according to a small number of  Wikipedia editors  who have inexplicably  been allowed to ring fence the issue for years
 * It remains it is an archaic geopolitical term that has no relevance other than in the history  section  of any Wikipedia article 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A common name in the sources about the archipelago. That it not suits your opinion is entirely up to you. The Banner  talk 11:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an archaic "geopolitical" term no matter how many times you repeat that phrase. It is the primary name for the archipelago and is in common use. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's simply not true that the first known use dates from John Dee, as a quick glance at the History section of Names of the British Isles will tell anyone who's genuinely interested in the subject. WaggersTALK  12:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please read what was written -
 * The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee. And that based on a hillarious  theory from Geoffrey of Mommouth writings that King of Arthur allegedly invaded Ireland. Prior to that some ancient  Greek and Latin references to the Pretannic isles had laid buried and unused  for the best part of a a millenia until one wiley Elizabethan propagandist  decided that a bit of geopolitical chicanery was the order of the day in order to promote  the Elizabethan colonisation  of Ireland 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably time to make up an FAQ that we can point to for these perennial comments, incorporating a link to the naming controversy article.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's high time that the use of archaic geopolitical colonial era terminology masqueraded as being legitimate be stopped once and for all. Wikipedia as a source has become a laughing stock exactly because of this type of editing 31.187.2.22 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for illustrating my point. Wikipedia's discussions of geography are not determined by Irish/British (note the distinction, relevant politically) nationalist politics, any more than they are by Japanese/Korean politics, Indo-Pakistani politics, or Iranian/Saudi politics. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, which will follow global usage if and when it changes. And see the edit notice at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for missing the point altogether - where the usage of the term in Wikipedia is evidently overtly politicacised regardless of protestations by the same editors otherwise. It remains the term is an archaic  colonial  era  geopolitical term which belongs in the dustbin  of history..Time Wikipedia  content reflected that reality 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get your point. You want Wikipedia to be a means of effecting a change in global usage. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose, and Wikipedia isn't a tool for such purposes. And read the notice at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * o font think you do. Just as there are no wikipedia content discussing Albion as an extant geographical entity, the same should apply to the archaic colonial era term  "British Isles".
 * The term has no official standing  nor does it have any defined "global use" outside that claimed by a small number of Wikipedia  editors  who cite sources which the absolute  majority can be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want the term to be no longer used, then you have to stop its usage. Wikipedia isn't here to dictate usage or lead, we're here as an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a say in if it's used or not, we just deal with the reliable sources that clearly show it's being used. Once people in Ireland stop using the term (including the government (yes they use it as simple searches show), news sites and other usages) and then the rest of the world stop using it, then we'll stop using it. You need to direct your ire at the term outside of Wikipedia and then we'll reflect it, until then referencable real world usage and sourcing will prevail. Wikipedia isn't the cause here, it's purely a symptom. You need to actually stop it in the real world, then it will be stopped here. We don't get to choose if it's used, usage does that. We're not a leader in these things, we're a trailing indicator. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong - its usage is being specifically pushed in Wikipedia  by a small number  of editors. Outside  of that it remains an archaic colonial era geopolitical term  which has no official  standing and correctly belongs as a historical reference  only.
 * There are plenty of references to similar archaic terms such as Albion and Germania which  are  also found in common  usage on the Internet  and elsewhere but are not being inexplicably being pushed as somehow relevant despite this issue being repeatedly highlighted by countless contributors and editors. It remains  the terms usage exemplifies the ugly face of Wikipedia content which relies on a politicised ring fencing such as the invariable  pretence that the term is solely a "geographical" term and other shenanigans
 * Wikipedia needs to sort this issue and not allow a tiny muber of editors  to ring fence the use of such terms   - exactly  what is happening  hers 31.187.2.22 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your beliefs. I'm not going to post again the multitude of links that show it in active use in Ireland, including within the Irish government. They're all in the archives for you to peruse at your leisure. However the term is in common use despite your denials. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - these are facts not "beliefs". The wikipedia archives you cite are full of the exact same ring fencing of this issue.  I have already detailed that this stance is being maintained  by a tiny number of editors in the face of the facts including  that the "Irish government"  have already  made a very clear statement  that the term has no official  recognition or indeed that the absolute  majority of occurances on various Irish government  websites can be traced back to various British and or Anglophone sources from citations and other third party references
 * Again Wikipedia has unfortunately become a laughing  stock because  of overt politicised behaviour from a tiny number of editors- the same few editors who again  and again trot out the same arguments,  none of which stand up to even basic scrutiny.
 * Time this issue went to independent arbritation by Wikipedia once and for all 31.187.2.161 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Independent doesn't mean "agrees with you". We are all independent on this talk page. The arbitration is what you are getting. Time to drop the stick on this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A FAQ is a nice idea, but sadly certain people don't bother reading them. I mean, look at all the notices at the top of this page that the IP just ignored and waded in with their forum-y post about the name on the wrong talk page. WaggersTALK  12:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FAQs never solve the issue, but they at least make it possible to say "read the FAQ at the top of the page" and hat the 4836th discussion. The FAQ on Talk:Nazism hasn't closed down perennial arguments that they were socialists and therefore of the Left, and people still try to argue with them, but it at least allows a quick response.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True. Anything to save this talk page from being filled up with threads like this one - there's plenty of other stuff we need to address here! Anyone fancy drafting some FAQs? WaggersTALK  13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Can we include in the FAQ the fact that the "irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology" of "British Isles" is used in almost 180,000 Irish web pages, and that includes over 1,000 uses in just the the past year alone? And obviously that's not including print and broadcast media... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It supports the "Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead" response. Acroterion   (talk)   14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Isles


text:
Talk:Burgundians

Origin of the Burgundians and Bornholm
¨¨¨¨

The introduction to the article is complete fantasy. There is no evidence for Burgundians in the Vistula basin, let alone in Scandinavia. The article should begin with the first historical references to the early Burgundians in the Oder region of modern eastern Brandenburg and Saxony in Germany and the adjacent regions in modern Poland. This is the region of the Luboczyce culture, which is probably related to the Burgundians.

This bit below is complete nonsense: "The Burgundians (Latin: Burgundiōnes, Burgundī; Old Norse: Burgundar; Old English: Burgendas; Greek: Βούργουνδοι) were an East Germanic tribe which may have emigrated from mainland Scandinavia to the Baltic island of Bornholm, and from there to the Vistula basin, in middle modern Poland.[1] A part of the Burgundian tribes migrated further westward, where they may have participated in the 406 Crossing of the Rhine, after which they settled in the Rhine Valley and established the Kingdom of the Burgundians. Another part of Burgundians stayed in their previous homeland in Oder-Vistula basin and formed a contingent in Attila's Hunnic army by 451.[2][3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfram2000 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the worst parts of the article, including the part above, which is false information.

-

The article states a completely outdated origin theory for the Burgundians, i.e. the Germanic tribal group. Firstly, as H. Beck shows in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde under entry "Bornholm", the name of the island is not derived from the Burgundians. Instead, the name derives from an indogermanic root meaning "high, highly risen". Thus, the original name of the island referred simply to the fact that it rose highly from above the sea level. Even if medieval sources that had lost the original meaning connected it to the Burgundian people, this is nothing but a so called "learned misinterpretation". The only link between the Burgundian people and the island of Bornholm is that the first sylabil derives from an indogermanic root meaning "high, tall etc. ".

The recent book by Reinhold Kaiser "Die Burgunder", 2004, pp 23/24 comes to the same conclusion. Kaiser discusses the medieval sources regarding Bornholm, the Burgundian origo gentis and the archaeological evidence and finds that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Burgundians came from Bornholm or from Scandinavia in general.

I think Wikipedia should reflect the theories of such modern mainstream views, especially since it is also the commonly accepted view in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde.

 * Agree on the wildly outdated nature of the Bornholm thing. (Equally, it seems likely that this page should be removed from the "Norse history and culture" project!) An updated summary that perhaps noted the old Bornholm concept as outdated and then provided a reasonable summary that referenced the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde and Kaiser would be welcome. Carlsefni (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I live on the island Bornholm, and I agree with the text above this. No archaeological findings here show a connection between the island and the burgunders. The first area, where they lived, seems to be around Speyer in the 5th Century. (from apr. 430). Also I think you should be aware that Adam of Bremens story, where he calls the island simply Holm or Hulm (he did that in appr. 1072). Jan 80.62.116.117 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've made a quick scan of the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on the Burgundians in English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish, and of these only the German doesn't mention the false Bornholm etymology. It is also the only article (rightly) to completely ignore the Jordanes-based "Scandinavia as vagina gentium"-thesis. The German version should be implemented in the rest of the articles as well. I might do it myself, at least with the Norwegian article, but my German is a little rusty.

I am going to sort out this bibliography. At the moment it reads like an unfocused university reading list - which surely isn't what wikipedia entries are about. Any one hoping to use that list as a way in to studying the burgundians would be baffled and confused. Plus some of the titles are old fashioned and out dated - e.g. Dalton's trans of History of the Franks, was superseeded in the 1970's by Thorpe's trans. Anyone object? --Snozzbert12 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) - "Catalaunian Fields" - how certain is the identification of the location?

--- It is some years now that I pointed out that this article, and in particular its section regarding the origin of the Burgundians, is oudated or better completely wrong. If nobody is able to rewirte the article, it should better be deleted. I think no information is better than wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.187.42 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

--- I deleted the worst parts of the article, refering to Scandinavian origins. This has long been proven to be wrong (See Reinhold Kaiser "Die Burgunder", 2004) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.187.42 (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt, that the word Bornholm means the land of the Burgundians in Old Norse. Maybe that is the reason that there's no source for the claim. It does not become true, because it is in the English wiki. The word Burgundia was used by a pope once, and the myth is still alive. I has been killed by modern literature. Bornholm means an island, that raises high up. 16:32, 18 September 2016 80.62.117.22

Name
The page is a bit of a misnomer. The original tribe really should be referred to as 'Burgundes'. Burgundia was called after these people. The later Burgundians were called after Burgundia. Much like Italy was called after the Italics and the Italians after Italia.

 * Probably true, but do you know of any historians writing in English who calls these people the Burgundes? I think most English-speakers would call them Burgundians.  Throw some references our way, and perhaps we'll decide to change the article title. JHK 09:21 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

 * Burgenda land, es; n. The land of the Burgundians, an island in the west of the Baltic sea; Boringia. Burgenda land is the Icelandic Burgundarhólmr, of which the present Danish and Swedish name Bornholm is a contraction :— Burgenda land the land of the Burgundians, Ors. l, I; Bos. 21, 44.

Burgendan; pl. m. The Burgundians; Burgundiones :— Burgendan habbaþ ðone ylcan s©s earm be westan him the Burgundians have the same arm of the sea to the west of them, Ors. I, I; Bos. 19, 19. v. Burgendas.

Burgendas; gen. a; pl. m: Burgendan; pl. m. The Burgundians; Burgundiones. These, in Alfred's time, dwelt to the north-west of the Osti. We find them at another period on the east bank of the Oder. They have given name to the island of Bornholm in the Baltic :— Osti habbaþ be norban him Winedas and Burgendas the Esthonians have to the north of them the Wends and the Burgundians, Ors. l, l; Bos. 19, 18. Wine Burgenda friend of the Burgundians, Wald. 85; Vald. 2, 14. Weóld Burgendum Gifica Gifica ruled the Burgundians, Scðp Th. 40; WId. 19: 131; WId. 65.

Burgende; gen. a; dat. um; m. The Burgundians, inhabitants of Burgundy, an old province in the east of France; Burgundiones :— Pro-fentse hæfþ be norban hyre ða beorgas, ðe man Alpis h©t, and be súþan hyre is Wendel-s©, and be norban hyre and eastan synd Bnrgende, and Wascan be westan Provence has on the north of it the mountains, which people call the Alps, and on the south of it is the Mediterranean sea, and on the north and east of it are the Burgundians, and on the west the Gasconians, Ors. l, i; Bos. 24, 2.

 * Burgundia seems to be derived from the Latin words Burgundiones and Burgundii, just like Italy comes from Italia which comes from Italii. But of course in English we don't say Italii or "Italies", but "Italians". I think the name "Burgundians" is appropriate. Rwflammang (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In the middle of updating
I'm adding a bunch of material from my bachelor's thesis on the Burgundians. I'm trying not to totally rewrite or undo anything people have written, but please forgive me (and re-edit) if I've made something incorrect in the process of splicing my stuff in. I'm in the middle of editing the second kingdom time period, and there may be some lines missing at the moment, but I'm trying to ensure everything is accounted for. It's late, and I'm going to bed, but I'll finish the edits tomorrow.

Ryan McDaniel 04:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I only a bit curious about other theories. Are there any alternative theories for the origin of the Burgundians? If so state them. I don't think that the article is made NPOV by presenting the main theory as spurious without providing other theories or evidence for them.--Wiglaf 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Moreover, by presenting the first evidence for them as being east of the Rhine, and making it sound as if east of the Rhine is their likely place of origin is not satisfactory. The region east of the Rhine was long inhabited by Celtic tribes, unless of course, you think they were originally Celtic, or can provide evidence that they founded their tribe (chronicles? legends?) east of the Rhine.--Wiglaf 08:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, I disapprove of the "some" game. The Bornholm theory is simply too common to fall into the category "some have argued" weasel expression.--Wiglaf 08:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * My sincerest apologies, and perhaps I should cede editing of this section to someone who knows better! When researching the subject, I had only been able to find place-name arguments, which can be pretty easily stretched wherever the author wants them to be (in which case I thought that "some have argued" was appropriate language), and much later traditions that are not always reliable.  I am quite prepared to believe archaeological evidence, however; it's just that in about a year of looking, I couldn't find any.  Admittedly I am hampered when it comes to the Germanic tribes in my inability to read much of the early literature; my German is bad and I speak no Scandinavian languages.  Is the source you cite for the Bornholm evidence (Stjerna) available in translation?Ryan McDaniel 10:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to apologize. A Wikipedia article is made for reconciling knowledge about a subject from different sources, and you've done history studies and not archaeology studies, I guess. I could scan the page, e-mail it to you, and then you could ask someone to translate the page.--Wiglaf 10:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, if it's not too much trouble. rmcdaniel03[at]alumni[dot]caltech[dot]edu.  Thanks!--Ryan McDaniel 11:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done!--Wiglaf 13:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Stjerna?
What's this reference to "Stjerna"? --FinnWiki 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Certainly Knut Stjerna's PhD thesis "Bidrag till Bornholms befolkningshistoria under järnåldern" (1905). Ancient. /Pieter Kuiper 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Burgundians in the history of the Netherlands
I was reading the Dutch article on this subject and then I went and read this one. In the Dutch one it mentions the history of the Netherlands and the impact the Burgundians had and how in the late Medieval Times the Burgundians reigned over The Netherlands until 1477 when it got divided over France and the Habsburgers because of Karel De Stoute's death.

The Dutch article also mentions the Burgundians as the Southern Dutch and it speaks about their lifestyle, how they loved good food and good wine and how it was adapted by the southern dutch people and Flemish people nowadays because they relocated the Burgundian "palace" to Brussels in the 15th century.

Now I am wondering why the English article doesn't mention any of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceangirl2111 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would probably be in order on the Dutch Wikipedia. There is no real connection between the kingdom of the Burgundians (the Germanic tribe) and the much later duchy of Burgundy, except the territorial name. Here you can find the same information in Burgundy, Duchy of Burgundy, Duke of Burgundy and Burgundian Netherlands. Iblardi (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of wrong and outdated information
This article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It is filled with wrong, outdated and irrelevant information. Readers should be warned that this article is not a reliable source. I suggest that the entire article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfram2000 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even better: give suggestions for improvement, or work on it yourself. Complaining is easy. On Wikipedia keep in mind it will be common that no-one reading such a post sees it as their problem. But deletions will tend to be reverted (WP:PRESERVE). Every article on Wikipedia was awful at some point, and most still are, but this does not make poor articles absolutely worthless.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it is true that every article on Wikipedia was awful at some point. Also this article is beyond awful. It is full of wrong information. I tried to improve it by deleting the worst bits, i.e. parts that are both unnecessary and factually wrong. However, I can not even get this change, which is a vast improvement on the original past the censors so why should I bother rewriting it. I'm a historian of late antiquity and I ensure you that the world is better off if this article is deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfram2000 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the article "Burgundian" on the German Wikipedia is excellent. If somebody could translate this article and delete the English article a lot would be won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfram2000 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 * OK maybe not every article was awful. Thanks for the lead on German Wikipedia. But if I understand correctly maybe your biggest concern is not missing information, but rather information which should be either removed or named as probably mythical (like the Bornholm story)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The emigration uses of Old Nordic peoples
Hi!: for an unknown reason, someone using the name Lancaster deleted my inclusion in the Burgundian's article of a quote to a comment by Niccolo Machiavelli, the cite was a translation from an edition in a language that wasn't English nor Italian, so it would make no sense adding precissions such as ISBN, year of editon, and page. The book is easy to find, and the comment easy to check, it has a connection to the Burgundians' subject, It's hard to me finding a reason why for the deletion. In the forewords of his: 'Florence History', that focuses in the times around the life of N Machiavelli, he cites the habitude of Nordic peoples to have one third of population emigrating when the population growth posed problems because of the lack of enough resources, one third of them all started travelling, looking for new places, the reference is precise enough, it has a connection to the subject, as Burgundians were Nordic people who emigrated into the South, it seems the Bornholm Island had no new Burgundian tombs after III-IV Century AD, and for sure, the French region: 'Burgundy', were people from Bornholm entered peacefully, has its current name from them; not much later after first arrival of people from Bornholm, Goths invaded violently the Burgundy, and a Bishop was know by his efforts in providing relief for the resulting hunger. Please, show your good will, and the accuracy of your information, by reverting deletion. I've been adding comments in Wikipedia for years, so, if the reason for this deletion is not described more in extense, I guess nothing but that I'm hopeless can be taught to me. If it's a language problem, anyone can feel free to change the wording. Thanks, best regards, + salut--Jgrosay~enwiki (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am presuming you are new to Wikipedia and misunderstanding the problem. So first, WELCOME! I happen to have a lot of interest in Machiavelli and it's a nice source. We share an interest! I was just doing a very straightforward edit based on Wikipedia core content policies. As an editor on WP I am reasonably "inclusionist" but WP does not include every possible reference, of course. In the case of Burgundians, we could use such sources as:
 * References to the small number of old primary sources and authoritative secondary commentaries about those.
 * References to modern experts such as archaeologists, classicists, etc.
 * The source you included is not specifically about the Burgundians, is not a modern expert commenting about the Burgundians, is not a primary source discussing the Burgundians, nor even a modern specialized commentary on those. Concerning the argument that it is appropriate to discuss north germanic tribes in general, that does not give us a justification for only inserting a vague and general comment from the 15th century. If you really think I am wrong, because I think this is about basic policy, maybe we should get third party opinions on one of the policy based forums such as WP:RSN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

questionable addition
The following was added by :
 * Unlike other East Germanic-speaking peoples, such as the Goths and Vandals, the Burgundians were considered among the Germani by the Romans. This was because they entered Gaul through Germania itself.

This claim seems to be WP:SYNTH. Is there a better source? If not I think it should be removed. I note in passing that the various edits made clearly are intended to make WP:POINTs about discussions on Germanic peoples, and are similar to masses of edits being made at various articles today. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly WP:NOTSYNTH.
 * Krakkos (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 * You say this is from page 4? Which parts of what you now saying is a quote are really the quote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's from page 5. Just google it and see for yourself. Krakkos (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so you should have responded by admitting there were errors in the citation. I own a copy and I can now see the words, but this is a rather isolated sentence in an Intro. We know from discussions of reviews of the historiography that later Goffart and others pushed on this type of topic and that that Wolfram accepted some of it. It really looks like you are putting a lot of weight on this line to make a very strongly worded conclusion, especially given what we know about debates in this field, so I am concerned about WP:SYNTH. Also, best practice would be to mention the single reference to the Burgundians as Germani which Wolfram mentions in his footnote. In case it is not visible for you it is Sidonius Appolinaris, Epistulae, V, 5.1-3.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another concern is WP:DUE because of taking the position of one older source when you know there has been debate and changing positions. An example of a more balanced sentence would be to attribute it:

 * What do you think? Please consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In order for such material to be acceptable you'll need an relevant citation from Goffart on the Burgundians. Note that Goffart's theories are quite controversial, and that must be considered when one is to determine due weight. Krakkos (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest as step 1, use the first sentence, and step 2, concerning the second sentence, I don't have a list ready, but if you can look at Goffart, Barbarian Tide p.187, though I only have that one as snippet for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This claim appears to fail verification. Could you provide a link to the snippet? Krakkos (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The book is on google here, but as usual please look at what is already in an article and what has been changed already, and what others editors have already said to you. Everything you previously argued for, plus the background to it (which is thus much better than a mere reference to a WP:TERTIARY source) is now in a more regular-style section about the language, mentioning the Apollinaris quote, and Wolfram's remarks which you used in your explanations. Why would you reinsert your contested one sentence section with no examination of any previously noted concerns? That is textbook tendentious editing? We don't use tertiary sources when we have better ones, and they certainly are NOT for using in order to trump better sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Herwig Wolfram is not a tertiary source. I already have Goffart's book as PDF. He doesn't mention the Burgundians at page 187. Could you provide me with the snippet? Krakkos (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The book link where p.187 is relevant is to Goffart, which I take to be the quote you don't have? The Wolfram quote you placed into your un-needed section is a duplicate now, because I had previously moved it to the language section. COORDINATE WITH OTHERS. Your edsum describes what you are inserting as "Restored deleted sources from R. Bruce Hitchner, John Frederick Drinkwater and Timothy Darvill", not Wolfram.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burgundians


text:
Bogie

A bogie (or truck in North American English) is a chassis or framework that carries a wheelset, attached to a vehicle—a modular subassembly of wheels and axles. Bogies take various forms in various modes of transport. A bogie may remain normally attached (as on many railroad cars and semi-trailers) or be quickly detachable (as the dolly in a road train or in railway bogie exchange). It may include a suspension component within it (as most rail and trucking bogies do), or be solid and in turn be suspended (as most bogies of tracked vehicles are); it may be mounted on a swivel, as traditionally on a railway carriage or locomotive, additionally jointed and sprung (as in the landing gear of an airliner), or held in place by other means (centreless bogies).

Although bogie is the preferred spelling and first-listed variant in various dictionaries,  bogey and bogy are also used.

Railway
A bogie in the UK, or a railroad truck, wheel truck, or simply truck in North America, is a structure underneath a railway vehicle (wagon, coach or locomotive) to which axles (hence, wheels) are attached through bearings. In Indian English, bogie may also refer to an entire railway carriage. In South Africa, the term bogie is often alternatively used to refer to a freight or goods wagon (shortened from bogie wagon). A locomotive with a bogie was built by engineer William Chapman in 1812. It hauled itself along by chains and was not successful, but Chapman built a more successful locomotive with two gear-driven bogies in 1814. The bogie was first used in America for wagons on the Quincy Granite Railroad in 1829. The first successful locomotive with a bogie to guide the locomotive into curves while also supporting the smokebox was built by John B. Jervis in 1831. The concept took decades before it was widely accepted but eventually became a component of the vast majority of mainline locomotive designs. The first use of bogie coaches in Britain was in 1872 by the Festiniog Railway.The first standard gauge British railway to build coaches with bogies, instead of rigidly mounted axles, was the Midland Railway in 1874.

Purpose
Bogies serve a number of purposes:
 * Support of the rail vehicle body
 * Stability on both straight and curved track
 * Improve ride quality by absorbing vibration and minimizing the impact of centrifugal forces when the train runs on curves at high speed
 * Minimizing generation of track irregularities and rail abrasion

Usually, two bogies are fitted to each carriage, wagon or locomotive, one at each end. Another configuration is often used in articulated vehicles, which places the bogies (often Jacobs bogies) under the connection between the carriages or wagons.

Most bogies have two axles, but some cars designed for heavy loads have more axles per bogie. Heavy-duty cars may have more than two bogies using span bolsters to equalize the load and connect the bogies to the cars.

Usually, the train floor is at a level above the bogies, but the floor of the car may be lower between bogies, such as for a bilevel rail car to increase interior space while staying within height restrictions, or in easy-access, stepless-entry, low-floor trains.

Components
Key components of a bogie include:
 * The bogie frame: This can be of inside frame type where the main frame and bearings are between the wheels, or (more commonly) of outside frame type where the main frame and bearings are outside the wheels.
 * Suspension to absorb shocks between the bogie frame and the rail vehicle body. Common types are coil springs, leaf springs and rubber airbags.
 * At least one wheelset, composed of an axle with bearings and a wheel at each end.
 * The bolster, the main crossmember, connected to the bogie frame through the secondary suspension. The railway car is supported at the pivot point on the bolster.
 * Axle box suspensions absorb shocks between the axle bearings and the bogie frame. The axle box suspension usually consists of a spring between the bogie frame and axle bearings to permit up-and-down movement, and sliders to prevent lateral movement. A more modern design uses solid rubber springs.
 * Brake equipment: Two main types are used: brake shoes that are pressed against the tread of the wheel, and disc brakes and pads.
 * In powered vehicles, some form of transmission, usually electrically powered traction motors with a single speed gearbox or a hydraulically powered torque converter.

The connections of the bogie with the rail vehicle allow a certain degree of rotational movement around a vertical axis pivot (bolster), with side bearers preventing excessive movement. More modern, bolsterless bogie designs omit these features, instead taking advantage of the sideways movement of the suspension to permit rotational movement.

Diesel and electric
Modern diesel and electric locomotives are mounted on bogies. Those commonly used in North America include Type A, Blomberg, HT-C and Flexicoil trucks.

Steam
On a steam locomotive, the leading and trailing wheels may be mounted on bogies like Bissel trucks (also known as pony trucks). Articulated locomotives (e.g. Fairlie, Garratt or Mallet locomotives) have power bogies similar to those on diesel and electric locomotives.

Rollbock
A rollbock is a specialized type of bogie that is inserted under the wheels of a rail wagon/car, usually to convert for another track gauge. Transporter wagons carry the same concept to the level of a flatcar specialized to take other cars as its load.

Archbar bogies
In archbar or diamond frame bogies, the side frames are fabricated rather than cast.

Modern

Tram bogies are much simpler in design because of their axle load, and the tighter curves found on tramways mean tram bogies almost never have more than two axles. Furthermore, some tramways have steeper gradients and vertical as well as horizontal curves, which means tram bogies often need to pivot on the horizontal axis, as well.

Some articulated trams have bogies located under articulations, a setup referred to as a Jacobs bogie. Often, low-floor trams are fitted with nonpivoting bogies; many tramway enthusiasts see this as a retrograde step, as it leads to more wear of both track and wheels and also significantly reduces the speed at which a tram can round a curve.

Historic
In the past, many different types of bogie (truck) have been used under tramcars (e.g. Brill, Peckham, maximum traction). A maximum traction truck has one driving axle with large wheels and one nondriving axle with smaller wheels. The bogie pivot is located off-centre, so more than half the weight rests on the driving axle.

Hybrid systems
The retractable stadium roof on Toronto's Rogers Centre used modified off-the-shelf train bogies on a circular rail. The system was chosen for its proven reliability.

Rubber-tyred metro trains use a specialised version of railway bogies. Special flanged steel wheels are behind the rubber-tired running wheels, with additional horizontal guide wheels in front of and behind the running wheels, as well. The unusually large flanges on the steel wheels guide the bogie through standard railroad switches, and in addition keep the train from derailing in case the tires deflate.

Variable gauge axles
To overcome breaks of gauge some bogies are being fitted with variable gauge axles (VGA) so that they can operate on two different gauges. These include the SUW 2000 system from ZNTK Poznań.

Cleminson system
The Cleminson system is not a true bogie, but serves a similar purpose. It was based on a patent of 1883 by James Cleminson, and was once popular on narrow-gauge rolling stock, e.g. on the Isle of Man and Manx Northern Railways. The vehicle would have three axles and the outer two could pivot to adapt to curvature of the track. The pivoting was controlled by levers attached to the third (centre) axle, which could slide sideways.

Tracked vehicles
Some tanks and other tracked vehicles have bogies as external suspension components (see armoured fighting vehicle suspension). This type of bogie usually has two or more road wheels and some type of sprung suspension to smooth the ride across rough terrain. Bogie suspensions keep much of their components on the outside of the vehicle, saving internal space. Although vulnerable to antitank fire, they can often be repaired or replaced in the field.

Articulated bogie
An articulated bogie is any one of a number of bogie designs that allow railway equipment to safely turn sharp corners, while reducing or eliminating the "screeching" normally associated with metal wheels rounding a bend in the rails. There are a number of such designs, and the term is also applied to train sets that incorporate articulation in the vehicle, as opposed to the bogies themselves.

If one considers a single bogie "up close", it resembles a small rail car with axles at either end. The same effect that causes the bogies to rub against the rails at longer radius causes each of the pairs of wheels to rub on the rails and cause the screeching. Articulated bogies add a second pivot point between the two axles (wheelsets) to allow them to rotate to the correct angle even in these cases.

Articulated lorries (tractor-trailers)
In trucking, a bogie is the subassembly of axles and wheels that supports a semi-trailer, whether permanently attached to the frame (as on a single trailer) or making up the dolly that can be hitched and unhitched as needed when hitching up a second or third semi-trailer (as when pulling doubles or triples).

Radial steering truck
Radial steering trucks, also known as radial bogies, allow the individual axles to align with curves in addition to the bogie frame as a whole pivoting. For non-radial bogies, the more axles in the assembly, the more difficulty it has negotiating curves, due to wheel flange to rail friction. For radial bogies, the wheel sets actively "steer" through curves, thus reducing wear at the wheel flange to rail interface and improving adhesion.

In the US, this has been implemented for locomotives both by EMD and GE. The EMD version, designated HTCR, was made standard equipment for the SD70 series, first sold in 1993. However, the HTCR in actual operation had mixed results and relatively high purchase and maintenance costs. Thus EMD introduced the HTSC truck in 2003, which basically is the HTCR stripped of radial components. GE introduced their version in 1995 as a buyer option for the AC4400CW and later Evolution Series locomotives. However it also met with limited acceptance due to relatively high purchase and maintenance costs, and customers have generally chosen GE Hi-Ad standard trucks for newer and rebuilt locomotives.

Articles on bogies and trucks

 * Arnoux system
 * Bissel bogie
 * Blomberg B
 * Gölsdorf axle
 * Jacobs bogie
 * Krauss-Helmholtz bogie
 * Lateral motion device
 * Mason Bogie
 * Pony truck
 * Rocker-bogie
 * Scheffel bogie
 * Schwartzkopff-Eckhardt bogie
 * Syntegra

Related topics

 * Caster
 * Dolly
 * Flange
 * List of railroad truck parts
 * Luttermöller axle
 * Road–rail vehicle
 * Skateboard truck
 * Spring (device)
 * Timmis system, an early form of coil spring used on railway axles.
 * Trailing wheel
 * Wheel arrangement
 * Wheelbase
 * Wheelset

title: Bogie


text:
British Steel (1967–1999)

British Steel was a major British steel producer. It originated from the nationalised British Steel Corporation (BSC), formed in 1967, which was privatised as a public limited company, British Steel plc, in 1988. It was once a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. The company merged with Koninklijke Hoogovens to form Corus Group in 1999.

History
Alasdair M. Blair (1997), Professor of International Relations and Head of the Department of Politics and Public Policy at De Montfort University, has explored the history of British Steel since the Second World War to evaluate the impact of government intervention in a market economy. He suggests that entrepreneurship was lacking in the 1940s; the government could not persuade the industry to upgrade its plants. For generations, the industry had followed a piecemeal growth pattern that proved relatively inefficient in the face of world competition.

The Labour Party came to power at the 1945 general election, pledging to bring several industries into state ownership. In 1946, it put the first steel development plan into practice with the aim of increasing capacity. It passed the Iron and Steel Act 1949, which meant nationalisation of the industry, as the government bought out the shareholders, and created the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain. American Marshall Plan aid in 1948–50 reinforced modernisation efforts and provided funding for them. However, the nationalisation was reversed by the Conservative government after 1952.

The industry was re-nationalised in 1967 under another Labour government, becoming British Steel Corporation (BSC). But by then, 20 years of political manipulation had left companies, such as British Steel, with serious problems: a complacency with existing equipment, plants operating below full capacity (hence the low efficiency), poor-quality assets, outdated technology, government price controls, higher coal and oil costs, lack of funds for capital improvement, and increasing competition on the world market.

By the 1970s, the Labour government's main goal for the declining industry was to keep employment high. Since British Steel was a major employer in depressed regions, it was decided to keep many mills and facilities operating at a loss. In the 1980s, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher re-privatised BSC as British Steel. Under private control, the company dramatically cut its workforce and underwent a radical reorganisation and massive capital investment to again become competitive in the world marketplace.

Nationalisation
BSC was formed from the assets of former private companies which had been nationalised, largely under the Labour government of Harold Wilson, on 28 July 1967. Wilson's was the second attempt at nationalisation; the post-war government of Clement Attlee had created the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain in 1951 taking public ownership of 80 companies but this had been largely reversed by the following Conservative governments of the 1950s with only Britain's largest steel company, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, remaining in public ownership.

BSC was established under the Iron and Steel Act 1967, which vested in the Corporation the shares of the fourteen major UK-based steel companies then in operation, being:
 * David Colville & Sons;
 * Consett Iron Company Ltd;
 * Dorman Long & Company Ltd;
 * English Steel Corporation Ltd;
 * GKN Steel Company Ltd;
 * John Summers & Sons Ltd;
 * The Lancashire Steel Corporation Ltd;
 * The Park Gate Iron and Steel Company Ltd;
 * Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd;
 * Round Oak Steelworks Ltd;
 * South Durham Steel & Iron Company Ltd;
 * The Steel Company of Wales Ltd;
 * Stewarts & Lloyds, Ltd; and
 * The United Steel Companies Ltd.

At the time of its formation, BSC comprised around ninety per cent of the UK's steelmaking capacity; it had around 268,500 employees and around 200 wholly or partly-owned subsidiaries based in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Africa, South Asia, and South America.

Dorman Long, South Durham and Stewarts and Lloyds had merged as British Steel and Tube Ltd before vesting took place. BSC later arranged an exchange deal with Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds Ltd (GKN), the parent company of GKN Steel, under which BSC acquired Dowlais Ironworks at Merthyr Tydfil and GKN took over BSC's Brymbo Steelworks near Wrexham.

Restructuring
According to Blair (1997), British Steel faced serious problems at the time of its formation, including obsolescent plants; plants operating under capacity and thus at low efficiency; outdated technology; price controls that reduced marketing flexibility; soaring coal and oil costs; lack of capital investment funds; and increasing competition on the world market. By the 1970s, the government adopted a policy of keeping employment high in the declining industry. This especially impacted BSC since it was a major employer in a number of depressed regions.

One of the arguments made in favour of nationalisation was that it would enable steel production to be rationalised. This involved concentrating investment on major integrated plants, placed near the coast for ease of access by sea, and closing older, smaller plants, especially those that had been located inland for proximity to coal supplies.

From the mid-1970s, British Steel pursued a strategy of concentrating steelmaking in five areas: South Wales, South Yorkshire, Scunthorpe, Teesside and Scotland. This policy continued following the Conservative victory at the 1979 general election. Other traditional steelmaking areas faced cutbacks. Under the Labour government of James Callaghan, a review by Lord Beswick had led to the reprieve of the so-called 'Beswick plants', for social reasons, but subsequent governments were obliged under EU rules to withdraw subsidies. Major changes resulted across Europe, including in the UK:

 * At Consett, the closure of the British Steel works in 1980 marked the end of steel production in Derwent Valley and the sharp decline of the area.
 * At Corby, the closure of the former Stewarts & Lloyds site in the early-1980s saw the loss of 11,000 jobs, leading to an initial unemployment rate of over 30%.
 * In Wales, works at East Moors (Cardiff) closed in 1978.
 * Shotton closure of the heavy end with the loss of over 6,000 jobs.
 * In Scotland, Western Europe's largest hot strip steel mill Ravenscraig steelworks, near Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, was closed by British Steel in 1992, leading to high levels of unemployment in the area. It also led to the closure of several local support and satellite businesses, such as the nearby British Steel Clydesdale Works in Mossend, Clyde Alloy in Netherton and equipment maker Anderson Strathclyde. Demolition of the site's landmark blue gasometer in 1996, and the subsequent cleanup operation, has created the largest brownfield site in Europe. This huge area between Motherwell and Wishaw is in line to be transformed into the new town of Ravenscraig, a project partly funded by Corus.

Privatisation
The Conservative manifesto for the 1987 general election noted that "British Steel has more than doubled its productivity since 1979 and made a profit last year for the first time in over ten years."

"We will continue the successful programme of privatisation."

Following Margaret Thatcher's re-election, on 3 December 1987 the Conservative government formally announced in a statement by Kenneth Clarke, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, that it intended to privatise the British Steel Corporation.

"… the Government are committed to returning successful state industries such as steel to the private sector as soon as practicable. It is quite apparent that the British Steel Corporation has now reached the stage where it would benefit from a return to a fully commercial environment. I am therefore pleased to announce that I am setting in hand the work necessary to privatise the corporation as soon as possible, subject to market conditions.

[…]

I believe that early privatisation and full commercial freedom will enable the company and its work force to be best placed to go on to further achievements and to secure a firmly based competitive industry with a long-term future."

On 5 September 1988 the assets, rights and liabilities of British Steel Corporation were transferred to British Steel plc, registered under the Companies Act as company number 2280000, by the British Steel Act 1988.

The government retained a special share which carried no voting rights but until 31 December 1993, permitted the government to stop any one party controlling more than 15% of the shares.

British Steel employees were given a free allocation of shares, and offered two free shares for each they purchased up to £165, discounted shares up to £2,200, and priority on applying for shares up to £10,000.

Dealing in shares opened on the London Stock Exchange on 5 December 1988.

Post-privatisation
The privatised company later merged with the Dutch steel producer Koninklijke Hoogovens to form Corus Group on 6 October 1999. Corus itself was taken over in March 2007 by the Indian steel operator Tata Steel.

Chairmen

 * Lord Melchett (1967–1973)
 * Monty Finniston (1973–1976)
 * Charles Villiers (1976–1980)
 * Ian MacGregor (1980–1983)
 * Robert Haslam (1983–1986)
 * Robert Scholey (1986–1992)
 * Sir Brian Moffat (1992–1999)

Ian MacGregor later became famous for his role as Chairman of the National Coal Board during the UK miners' strike (1984–1985). During the strike the "Battle of Orgreave" took place at British Steel's coking plant.

Sponsorships
In 1971 British Steel sponsored Sir Chay Blyth in his record-making non-stop circumnavigation against the winds and currents, known as 'The Impossible Voyage'. In 1992 they sponsored the British Steel Challenge, the first of a series of 'wrong way' races for amateur crews.

British Steel had agreed a sponsorship deal with Middlesbrough Football Club during the 1994–95 season, with a view to British Steel-sponsored Middlesbrough shirts making their appearance the following season. But the sponsorship deal was terminated before it commenced after it was revealed that British steel only made up a tiny fraction of steel used in construction of the stadium, and that the bulk of the steel had been imported from Germany.

In popular culture
The English rock band XTC mentioned British Steel in their 1979 song Making Plans for Nigel.

The heavy metal band Judas Priest named their 1980 album British Steel after the British Steel Corporation. Lead singer Rob Halford explained in an interview that the 'sounds of heavy metal' have been with him since childhood, due to the close proximity of the BSC plant where he grew up.

title: British Steel (1967–1999)