text:
Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt

Vlachs — nomadic or sedentary?
This article is severely biased. Stating that the revolters were a "group of Romanian peasants" is historically incorrect. As it stands, this article is just repeating the position of Ceausescu-era Romanian historiography. When I have time, I will write a more detailed account of the revolt. Scott Moore 09:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be more specific about inaccuracies:

- the revolt did not start at Bobâlna

- it was not a group consisting only of Romanian peasants who revolted. The revolt was led by a Hungarian petty noble, three Hungarian peasants, a Romanian peasant and a burgher. Those revolting included both Romanian and Hungarian serfs, as well as burghers.

- The Unio Trium Nationum was not signed just by nobles (the nobles were just one of three Estates in the Union).

Scott Moore 09:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. In addition, it should not be called "Bobâlna revolt"--the name in common use at the time was "Bábolna", with the Romanian form only becoming official after Trianon. I strongly suggest correcting the name.4.231.162.235 08:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Another necessary correction is the replacement of the phrase: "While the Hungarians, the Hungarian-speaking Székelys and the Saxons formed sedentary communities, living in villages and towns, most Vlachs were shepherds, herding their flocks between the mountains and the lowlands." First of all, the allegation is highly offensive against the Romanian population of Transylvania - which where already a sedentary population centuries before the arrival of the above mentioned communities. Another issue is the source of this allegation: a dubious work, published in a "Slavic" review by an extremist so-called "historian". Moreover, the article does not see the clear ethnic aspect of this revolt and is insisting only on the so called social aspect of it. The article reminds me the (ideological) history lessons from the communist history manuals for school children, during Ceausescu regime. I suggest the urgent revision or replacement of this highly un-professional article. Articles like that are lowering of the level of Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transylvanian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is that statement offensive? Why did the Vlachs customarily pay sheep as in kind tax if they were not pastoralists? What is the reliable source stating that the uprising had a clear "ethnic aspect"? Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right in affirming that some Romanians were involved in animal husbandry. BUT the Romanians are not a nomadic population. The large majority of them live in sedentary communities and only a small fraction of the population is involved in transhumance (seasonal migration of the herds between mountain and lowland pastures). Here are some reliable historical sources, by Transylvanian, local, unbiased historians: - "Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State", Cluj-Napoca, Center for Transylvanian Studies, 1996

- "A Social History of Romanian Space.From the Beginning of Dacian state until the rise of Modernity", Mircea Brie, University of Oradea, Romania, 2005

Budai Nagy Antal Revolt or Bobalna Revolt?
This was the first major peasant revolt in the history of Hungary. The revolt is called "Budai Nagy Antal Revolt" by Hungarians and "Bobalna Revolt" by Romanians. Google search gave
 * 861 pages for: Bobâlna revolt (many of these are copies of this very article)
 * 1640 pages for:"Budai Nagy Antal" revolt
 * 538 pages for: Răscoala de la Bobâlna
 * 1340 pages for: "Budai Nagy Antal" felkelés

I suggest that the article is renamed accordingly. --KIDB 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * There have been no comments until today, I do the changes.--KIDB 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Name
, would you look at the title of the article dedicated to the revolt (I mean, Joseph Held's work)? I think the previous title is more in line with WP:Name. Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * J. Held's work is only one source. There are "Bábolna" or "Bobâlna", but "Babolna" is incorrect. We should use Hungarian accents properly even an English-language publication did not use it. "Transylvanian peasant revolt" or its similar versions (uprising etc.) are more common. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. "Transylvanian peasan revolt" can be verified. Borsoka (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transylvanian peasant revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812105214/http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/show.php?l=en&p=4_95 to http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/show.php?l=en&p=4_95

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Orthodoxy
What were the negative consequences of the Vlach peasants' Orthodox religion in Hungary? They did not pay the tithe, while Catholic peasants were obliged to pay this 10% ecclesiastic tax. (Vlachs were only obliged to pay the tithe if they settled in a land abandoned by Catholic peasants.) The Vlachs paid only the fiftieth (that is a 2% tax), while Hungarian and Saxon peasants the ninth (a 10% tax). Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WHY do you keep removing the added content and references cited? Please, carefully review the Five pillars. (Rgvis (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Because they contain highly dubious information. (1) "At the end of the 13th century, the Orthodox Vlachs were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups.": There were several (more than three) privileged groups in Hungary (and Transylvania), including noblemen, clergymen, burghers, Székelys, Vlachs, Pechenegs, etc., but their privileges were quite different, so they were not "on a footing of equality". (2) "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." : What were the negativ consequences if a peasant was Orthodox in Hungary/Transylvania? Please carefully review WP:DUE and WP:PARAPHRASE. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All informations are based on references cited! It is not for wikipedia editors to make judgment on history events (No original research. (Rgvis (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Rgvis - the plural of "information" in English is ... information. Information is not one of those words you just add an 's' on the end of. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.113 (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we do not need to present dubious, marginal information, as per WP:DUE. Are you really sure that Setton-Watson's book, published in 1934, still contains relevant information? Moreover, you are obviously in breach of WP:PARAPHRASING. Borsoka (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Books published in 1934 can still have value but additional sources would make the justification for inclusion stronger, and tertiary sources can help to resolve what is WP:DUE. The caveat is that setton-watson is politically involved in the Balkans during the Post-WWI period and should not be used uncritically - additional secondary sources which discuss his analysis would be preferable, if they are available. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also provided two other different sources:, . For sure, there are a lot many others. (Rgvis (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Are those books available in English? You are allowed to use foreign language sources, but the strong preference is for English language sources under WP:V - the reason for this is so we can verify. Also, the page numbers linked to do not seem to be available. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rgvis, please read my above comment and try to react. We do not need to add all dubious, margional POVs. If we do not know what were the negative consequences if a peasant was Orthodox in Hungary/Transylvania, we do not need provide this information. (Especially if we take into account that an Orthodox peasant paid less tax than a Catholic peasant, which suggest that an Orthodox peasant's position was more favorable than his/her Catholic peer.) Borsoka (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"The voivodes presided over the noblemen's general assemblies, which were annually held at a meadow near Torda (Turda).[7][6] The Transylvanian noblemen were exempted from taxation in 1324.[8][9] They were also granted the right to administer justice to the peasants living in their estates in 1342.[8][10] The prelates acquired the same right in their domains in the second half of the 14th century.[10] From the early 15th century, the voivodes rarely visited Transylvania, leaving the administration of the counties to their deputies, the vice-voivodes.[5][7]" Since we are discussing WP:DUE, I think the entire background section would benefit from a rewrite. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This book explains that Romanian peasants settled on the land were Orthodox which created a problem with the Catholic Church over the tithe, which they were forced to pay. This was before the debasing of the currency - the background section would benefit from revision as calling Romanians Vlachs does not really help the average reader. It's also not clear how this is relevant:
 * Yes, all references are available on Google books (as English books), too (as already linked). The same information is even published (in brief) by Encyclopaedia Britannica, at: On the other hand, I agree that the "Background" section does not fairly represent the entire historical context (for example, about the fact that the Hungarians, Szekelys, and Saxons were settled in Transylvania, during those times, or that some Romanian noblemen converted to Catholicism and Magyarized, in order to maintain their privileges). (Rgvis (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Also, interesting that the user talks about WP:PARAPHRASE, as long as his own contributions are based on copy-paste texts from external sources, for example, this editing  and this source: . It seems that the content of this article became biased made, starting from the first editings made by . QED :) (Rgvis (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

 * , if you do not understand the concept of WP:PARAPHRASE, please do not use it. The article has recently been reviewed twice: both reviewers concluded that the article is fully in line with that specific policy. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * and, what are the pieces of information that you think we should present in the article? Please remember this article is about a specific peasant revolt, not about the history of Transylvania or the history of Hungarian or Vlach nobility in the province. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * (1) The general assemblies of the noblemen played a significant role in the peasant revolt. For instance, the leaders of the peasant were executed during such an assembly. (2) For the noblemen were exempted from taxation, most costs of the defence against the Turks were covered by the taxes paid by the peasants. (3) The agreements between the peasants and the noblemen covered the right of the landowners to administer justice. (4) The vice-voivode was the leader of the noblemen during the phirst phase of the rebellion because of the absence of the voivode. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Please remember that the fact that the Vlachs were Orthodox is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article may have been reviewed (and based on WP:GF), but as long as the content added by Borsoka can not be immediately verified according with the original sources (as already mentioned during the reviewing process, especially those regarding the offline Hungarian language sources), it is hard to say how much of this article is copy-paste with original text, carefully selected by Borsoka from the context. More over, each time I indicated direct links of the references cited (to be accesible by anyone), Borsoka deleted them. It seems that Borsoka has preferences only for authors, or texts that, in his personal opinion, can be cited. If the text serves his biased opinon, than everything is OK; if not, the content is cataloged as not relevant or WP:PARAPHRASE. All different sources witch present other perspectives than his opinion are worthless and must be eliminated with any price, even by the violation of the Wikipedia basic policies (WP:LOP). (Rgvis (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC))
 * You are accusing me of misconduct (baselesly), but you have not mentioned what are the relevant and important pieces of information that you want to add. Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All the information that I have added and I will add is based on reliable and verifiable sources, with the intention to bring real balance in the content's quality (as stipulated by the Wikipedia main policies: WP:CCPOL). (Rgvis (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

If you do not want to cooperate, I try to summarize what you want to add, also providing my comments.
 * If my understanding is correct, you want to mention that "at the end of the 13th century, the [Vlachs] were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups [that is with the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys]". You want to refer to Seton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934. As I mentioned above, there were more than three privileged groups in Transylvania and their legal status did not depend of their ethnicity or religion (, []): Catholic or Orthodox noblemen (of any nation), Catholic or Orthodox nobles of the Church (of any nation), predominantly Orthodox Vlach cneazes, predominantly Orthodox Vlach peasants, Catholic burghers of Saxon towns, Catholic burghers of other towns, newly arrived colonists, etc. Furthermore, the legal positions of these groups were quite different, consequently we cannot say that the Vlachs were "on a footing of equality" with the Hungarians, or the Hungarians with the Saxons, because a Vlach cneaz's position was more favorable than a Hungarian peasant's position. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, you want to mention that "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." As I mentioned above, we should mention what were the negative consequences of being an Orthodox peasant in Hungary. Especially, because we know that the Vlachs only paid (10%) tithe if they settled on a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant, moreover Vlachs only paid the fiftieth (a 2% tax) after their sheep, while Catholic peasants paid the ninth (a 10% tax) on their flocks. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI: I sought assistance from WikiProject Romania Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , instead of adding tags without explanation, you should explain your concerns on the Talk page. Otherwise, one could conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It was already explained (and, not only by me). User:Borsoka, please try at least to behave as a civilized Wikipedia citizen. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC))
 * , no, no concerns were explained either by you or by other editors. Declarations and the presentation of old fringe theories as facts cannot provide an explanation as per above. If you (or other editors) cannot explain your (or their) concern, the tags will be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, for you, the history of the Romanian Transylvanians might be a "fringe theory", but not for an impartial editor of Wikipedia. You know very well that editors do not have to make judgments about historical facts, as they are seen by various historians (even if we like it or not). Anyway, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, and each article is perfectible (whenever and as long as it is needed). (Rgvis (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC))
 * No, the history of the Romanians in Transylvania is clearly not a fringe theory. For instance, the Transylvanian peasant revolt is a relevant part of it. However, the above statements about "equal footing" and about "almost slave Romanians" clearly represent at least marginal theories, as I explained above based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings everyone. A request for a third opinion has been declined, as there are more than two editors involved in this discussion already. I would recommend that you pursue another path such as dispute resolution, or perhaps a Request for Comment. Thank you, and good luck.  C Thomas3   (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
Instead of adding tags without explanation, you should explain your concerns. Please remember, I sought comments from WikiProject Romania more than a month ago, but no other editors have expressed similar concerns. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, first of all, you want to mention that "at the end of the 13th century, the [Vlachs] were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups [that is with the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys]". You want to refer to Seton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934. First of all, there were more than three privileged groups in Transylvania and their legal status did not depend of their ethnicity or religion (, []). For instance, the Catholic (Hungarian, Saxon or Vlach) and Orthodox (mainly Vlach) noblemen's position did not differ from each other even after 1437. On the other hand, an Orthodox Vlach cneaz's position was more favorable than a Hungarian peasant's position. Consequently we cannot say that the Vlachs were "on a footing of equality" with the Hungarians, or the Hungarians with the Saxon. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, you also want to mention that "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." As I mentioned above, we should mention what were the negative consequences of being an Orthodox peasant in Hungary. Especially, because we know that the Vlachs only paid (10%) tithe if they had settled on a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant, while Catholic peasants were always obliged to pay this tax. Moreover, Vlachs only paid the fiftieth (a 2% tax) after their sheep, while Catholic peasants paid the ninth (a 10% tax) on their flocks. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, by revoking templates it means that, starting from this point, you agree with all referenced editings. Also, do not forget that the content of an article must be balanced and reflect all points of view (which are not "marginal, fringe theories", as you are trying to insinuate), and also, Wikipedia editors do not have the status of judge (all the more so as articles refer to historical events). (Rgvis (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC))
 * No, you misunderstood my action: my rationale was summarized above. Our community will of course accept all edits which are in line with the relevant WP policies, especially including PARAPHRASE and WP:Due. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 * No problem, in this case, the disagreement is far to be solved, so all templates will have to stay. (Rgvis (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Rgvis, could you verify your claim? Please remember that you are so far the sole editor claiming that the article is not neutral. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 * No, I am not the only one! Borsoka, you do like to manipulate everything, don't you?? This is an example of how User:Borsoka changed other Wikipedia users editings on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvanian_peasant_revolt&diff=810041766&oldid=810039495
 * Borsoka, you should reconsider your behavior, as a member of this community (WP:EOC). (Rgvis (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC))
 * (1), could you refer to a single editor who says that the article is not neutral? Please remember, I sought comments from WikiProject Romania more than a month ago , but no other editors have expressed similar concerns. (2) Could you refer to reliable sources verifying that the above claims, based on a book published in the 1930s and a tertiary sources, are not marginal, because they contradict to all books cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Why are you still trying to change the editings of Seraphim System? This is not only unethical, it is also very rude from you, Borsoka. (Rgvis (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC))
 * I did not try to change his/her edits. Would you please answer my above questions? Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality II
, the article was significantly modified fully in accordance with the recently closed discussion at the relevant noticeboard. Even Sedlar's marginal POV (which cannot be substantiated by examples) was mentioned in the article. Why do you think that the article is unbalanced and its neutrality is disputed? Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 * No, it was not "significantly modified", at all. It is very clear that you are extremely biased in your edits (including those recently made, and which you call "marginal theory"). Obviously, to achieve the desired minimum balance, the article cannot be improved by the same editor who constantly opposes any change and tries (for many months) to stop any other legitimate edits of this article. On the other hand, I am convinced that, no matter how long it takes, this article can be brought to an acceptable form (and I am not the only editor sharing this opinion). (Rgvis (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC))
 * (1), could you summarize what are your concerns and refer to reliable sources that verify them? (2) Could you refer to reliable sources that share Sedlar's marginal POV about the "almost slave" position of Vlach peasants in Transylvania as a consequence of their Orthodox faith? (Please remember that this marginal POV is mentioned in the article upon your request.) (3) Instead of referring to unnamed editors who allegedly agree with you, could you ping them? (4) Instead of accusing me of misconduct, could you refer to "any legitimate edits" that I opposed without providing valid argumentation? Please remember, I sought assistance from Wikiproject Romania more than two months ago (and no editors have so far joined you) ([]). I also sought assistance from the Neutrality notice board (and I modified the article taking into account all remarks by third parties). (5) Yes, this article can obviously be improved, but this is not an issue of neutrality. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The current article fails to mention the classical Romanian POV about the events, nationalistic as it may be. Considering it has shaped the image of this revolt in Romania, and was supported by publications that pass our reliability threshold (and probably more than 1/3 of the published research on this topic was published in Romanian), this POV should be documented at least in the assessment section. Until you or some interested editor adds this POV (with sources), I think the neutrality tag should be applied only on the last section.Anonimu (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remark. What is the classical Romanian POV? And what are the sources mentioning it? Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * stated that "The article does not keep a balanced content regarding the historical facts presented; it is heavily based on the positions of authors affiliated to the Hungarian historiography, ignoring almost completely opinions of those affiliated to the Romanian historiography." Later, he added that the use of the ethnonym "Vlach" is one of the signs of the biased approach of the article; actually, the use of the ethnonym is based exclusively on publications of non-Hungarian scholars. He also explained that:
 * "the introductory section is ambiguous in terms of some important aspects of the presented event (such as the ethnic component of peasants, or the location of the uprising), but, on the other hand, it abounds in some rather too detailed (and marginal) information for this part of the article" (actually, the lead emphasizes the multiethnic caracter of medieval Transylvania and contain much information about the elements of the society, including commoners, burghers and nobles);
 * "the "Background" section superficially treats the history of the Transylvanian Romanians (of all social classes) and almost ignores the religious aspects of the presented context" (actually, the Background section contain more information on the history of the Transylvanian Vlachs than that of the Transylvanian Hungarians, Székelys and Saxons; the scholarly theory that Hussitism may have played a role in the revolt is mentioned in the article);
 * the "Peasant war" section does not mention essential aspects of the uprising, like the calling for the establishment and recognition of the Universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum - Estate of Hungarians and Romanians; it also selectively uses information from some referenced sources;" (actually, the universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum and its significance are mentioned under the subtitle "First battle and compromise"; no examples of the selective use of information has so far been provided)
 * "the "Aftermath" section does not sufficiently emphasize on the historical consequences of the presented events in terms of social and political life of Transylvania for the next centuries" ( also suggested above that the last section fails to properly describe the "classical Romanian POV" about the events, consequently I must accept that the "Aftermath" section should be expanded.)
 * (For further details I refer to the discussion here: ) Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality III
This is just a reminder or restatement. There was a request for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. After some effort to identify what the issues were with regard to non-neutrality, I closed the dispute resolution with no conclusion because the editors did not consistently respond in a timely manner. A request was then made by one of the editors for formal mediation, but it was declined because the other editor, the one who primarily complains that the article is not neutral, did not respond. Complaining that an article is not neutral but only responding sporadically to third-party requests to facilitate compromise is not productive.

User:Rgvis - At this point, it appears that your complaints are empty complaints and should be ignored. If you think that the article needs improvement, you have to help improve it, or accept that other editors will ignore you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt


text:
Nilsen

Nilsen is a surname of Norwegian origin, meaning "son of Nils". It refers to:

 * Adolf Nilsen (1895–1927), Norwegian Olympic rower
 * Alfred Nilsen (1892–1977), Norwegian politician; served one term in the Storting 1950–54
 * Alfred Sigurd Nilsen (1891–1977), Norwegian politician; served three terms in the Storting
 * Anders Nilsen (disambiguation), several people
 * Arne Nilsen (1924–2020), Norwegian government minister
 * Achintya Holte Nilsen (born 1999) Indonesian-Norwegian model and activist
 * B. J. Nilsen (born 1975), Swedish sound artist
 * Betty Ann Bjerkreim Nilsen (born 1986), Norwegian orienteering competitor and cross country skier
 * Dennis Nilsen (1945–2018), British serial killer
 * Einar Nilsen (1901–1980), Norwegian Olympic boxer
 * Elin Nilsen (born 1968), Norwegian Olympic skier
 * Erling Nilsen (1910–1984), Norwegian Olympic boxer
 * Harald Christian Strand Nilsen (born 1971), Norwegian Olympic skier
 * Ida Nilsen (contemporary), Canadian singer and songwriter
 * Jeanette Nilsen (born 1972), Norwegian Olympic handball player
 * Jimmy Nilsen (born 1966), Swedish motorcycle speedway rider
 * Kristoffer Nilsen (1901–1975), Norwegian Olympic boxer
 * Kurt Nilsen (born 1978), Norwegian pop/country singer
 * Laila Schou Nilsen (1919–1998), Norwegian Olympic skater and skier
 * Lars Arvid Nilsen (born 1965), Norwegian shot putter
 * Lillebjørn Nilsen (born 1950), Norwegian singer, songwriter, and folk musician
 * Nils Emaus Nilsen (1886–1976), Norwegian politician; Served one term in the Storting 1950–54
 * Oddvard Nilsen (born 1940), Norwegian politician, served three terms in the Storting
 * Olav Nilsen (1942-2021), Norwegian professional football player
 * Ole-Jørgen Nilsen (1936–2008), Norwegian actor
 * Oliver John Nilsen (1884–1977), Australian businessman and Lord Mayor of Melbourne
 * Peder Nilsen (1846–1921), Norwegian government minister
 * Phil Nilsen (born 1985), English rugby union football player
 * Roger Nilsen (born 1969), Norwegian professional football player
 * Rudolf Nilsen (1901–1929), Norwegian poet and journalist
 * Rune Nilsen (1923–1998), Norwegian Olympic triple jumper
 * Selmer Nilsen (1931–1991), Norwegian fisherman who spied for KGB during the Cold War
 * Spencer Nilsen (born 1961), American video game music composer
 * Steinar Nilsen (born 1972), Norwegian professional football player and manager
 * Tom-Christer Nilsen (born 1969), Norwegian politician from Hordaland
 * Torstein Aagaard-Nilsen (born 1964), Norwegian music composer
 * Werner Nilsen (1904–1992), Norwegian-American soccer player

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

title: Nilsen


text:
Asian Babes

Asian Babes was a British softcore pornographic magazine which featured photographs of women of South Asian, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Thai origin. The magazine was launched in March 1992 and initially used only Indian and other South Asian models from the United Kingdom. Later, Asian models from other countries were also included. The magazine was initially published by Northern & Shell, a newspaper and magazine publishing group owned by the businessman Richard Desmond. In 2004 Northern & Shell sold the magazine to Remnant Media, as part of a package of Northern & Shell's other pornographic titles. Remnant went into administration in 2007 and the magazine was then bought by Trojan Publishing and subsequently by Interactive Publishing. Asian Babes had ceased publication by 2012.

History
In 1983, Northern & Shell obtained the licence to publish Penthouse in the United Kingdom which led to its development of a portfolio of adult titles, with Asian Babes being among them. It was one of the first British pornographic magazines to feature Asian models, and was initially published on an experimental basis. It was, however, an immediate success, with sales of 160,000 copies. The company was also responsible for the release of Electric Blue softcore pornography videos titled Asian Babes in 1993. According to a 1995 survey by the magazine, most of its readers were white men.

Asian Babes, along with other titles such as Readers' Wives, was part of Desmond's portfolio of soft-porn magazines which was offered for sale in 2001. There were concerns that some investors were reluctant to invest in pornography, and that the market for such magazines was changing. Asian Babes was finally sold in 2004 as part of a package of 45 titles to Remnant Media for a reported £20 million (approximately US$39 million). After the magazine had been sold, the Bank of Scotland issued an apology for having loaned £5 million (US$9.8 million) to Remnant Media in order to facilitate the purchase. Remnant Media went into administration in 2007 and the title was bought by Trojan Publishing and subsequently Interactive Publishing. The magazine had ceased publication by 2012.

Controversy
The publication of Asian Babes caused controversy in the British Asian community. Models came into conflict with their families and boycotts were organised against newsagents selling the magazine.

Desmond's ownership of a company that published pornographic magazines was often criticized and frequently used to bolster criticism of his business practices. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for The Independent newspaper in London, England, characterized Desmond as "the seedy porn baron who gives this nation Mega Boobs and Asian Babes and other yuck and muck". The column criticized the way in which Desmond had made use of the Daily Express; Alibhai-Brown's column was not focused on Desmond's publishing activities with regard to pornography. She went on to say: "Actually, I am less bothered about the porn mags than many.... I made myself look at Asian Babes and it is true that the 'babes' themselves look exceedingly full of life, not pushed into any of the poses".

Information about Desmond's ownership of the company that published Asian Babes and other adult magazines was included in a BBC Online 2004 profile which described the controversy surrounding his ownership of a "top-shelf" (pornographic) magazine business at the same time he was attempting to purchase The Daily Telegraph.

title: Asian Babes


text:
Staedtler

Staedtler SE is a German multinational stationery manufacturing company based in Nuremberg. The firm was founded by J.S. Staedtler (1800–1872) in 1835 and produces a large variety of stationery products, such as writing implements (including technical drawing instruments), art materials, and office supplies.

Staedtler claims to be the largest European manufacturer of wood-cased pencils, overhead projector pens, mechanical pencils, leads, erasers, and modelling clays. Staedtler has over 26 global subsidiaries and nine manufacturing facilities. Almost two thirds of the production take place in the four production facilities in Nuremberg, Germany, though some of its products are made in Japan. Its "Noris" line of pencils is extremely common in British schools.

History
The origins of the brand can be traced since the 17th century, when Friedrich Staedtler took over the totality of the pencil manufacturing process, from the lead to the wood. However, that activity was forbidden by the Council of Nuremberg, which stated that the manufacturing had to be developed by two different experts. Eventually, Staedtler's work helped to abolish that regulation, therefore facilitating the work of other pencil manufacturers in Nuremberg.

The company was founded by Johann Sebastian Staedtler in 1835 as a pencil factory, first established in Nuremberg, but the roots of the company go back to 1662, when references to Friedrich Staedtler as a pencil-making craftsman were made in the city annals. Staedtler received permission from the municipal council to produce black lead, red chalk and pastel pencils in his industrial plant. In 1866, the company had 54 employees and produced 15,000 gross (2,160,000 pencils) per year.

In 1900, Staedtler registered the Mars brand (which represented the Ancient Roman god of war), using the name for some lines of products, also launching the head of Mars logo, and the Staedtler products are distributed in Italy in the same year. In 1901 the Noris brand was released by the company.

In 1922 a United States subsidiary (located in New York) was established, It was followed by a Japanese subsidiary four years later. In 1937 the name was changed to Mars Pencil and Fountain Pen Factory and the product range was expanded to include mechanical writing instruments. In 1949, Staedtler began the production of ballpoint pens, which started to be widely used instead of fountain pens (although Staedtler still produces the latter today).

In 1950 propelling pencils (or mechanical pencils) began to be manufactured, the first being made out of wood. Four years later, the "Lumocolor" brand was registered. This brand was used to design the wide range of Staedtler markers. The head of Mars became the Staedtler definitive logo in 1958. This logo has had several style modifications since then, the last in 2001.

In 1962 the company began producing technical pens. In 1967 the Italian subsidiary, in Milan, was established. In the 1970s, Staedtler bought the Neumarkt factory, which used to be the Eberhard Faber factory. Nevertheless, in 2009 Staedtler sold the rights to the brand "Eberhard Faber" to Faber-Castell, although the company kept the Neumarkt factory, where Staedtler makes wood pencils nowadays. As from 2010, Fimo (modelling clay products), Mali, Aquasoft and further brands were marketed under the Staedtler name. In addition, the company celebrated its 175th anniversary that same year.

Products
Staedtler's products include: Noris, Mars Lumograph (pencils); Mars plastic (erasers); 925- series (mechanical pencils), Mars micro (pencil leads); Triplus (fineliners); Textsurfer (highlighters); Lumocolor (markers, colored pencils etc.). The following chart contains all the Staedtler product lines:

Awards
Staedtler has won awards for its products, most recently for the Wopex Graphite Pencils (designed with "Teams Design") and the Triplus line.

2008

 * Red Dot Award, Lumocolor Twister Dry Markers

2009

 * Bio Composite of the Year, Wopex Graphite Pencils
 * ISH Design Plus Award, Wopex Graphite Pencils
 * Red Dot Award, Triplus 776 Mechanical Pencils

2011

 * Red Dot Award, Triplus 426 Ballpoint Pens

title: Staedtler


text:
Line clipping

In computer graphics, line clipping is the process of removing (clipping) lines or portions of lines outside an area of interest (a viewport or view volume). Typically, any part of a line which is outside of the viewing area is removed.

There are two common algorithms for line clipping: Cohen–Sutherland and Liang–Barsky.

A line-clipping method consists of various parts. Tests are conducted on a given line segment to find out whether it lies outside the view area or volume. Then, intersection calculations are carried out with one or more clipping boundaries. Determining which portion of the line is inside or outside of the clipping volume is done by processing the endpoints of the line with regards to the intersection.

Cohen–Sutherland
In computer graphics, the Cohen–Sutherland algorithm (named after Danny Cohen and Ivan Sutherland) is a line-clipping algorithm. The algorithm divides a 2D space into 9 regions, of which only the middle part (viewport) is visible.

In 1967, flight-simulation work by Danny Cohen led to the development of the Cohen–Sutherland computer graphics two- and three-dimensional line clipping algorithms, created with Ivan Sutherland.

Liang–Barsky
The Liang–Barsky algorithm uses the parametric equation of a line and inequalities describing the range of the clipping box to determine the intersections between the line and the clipping box. With these intersections it knows which portion of the line should be drawn. This algorithm is significantly more efficient than Cohen–Sutherland, but Cohen–Sutherland does trivial accepts and rejects much faster, so it should be considered instead if most of the lines you need to clip would be completely in or out of the clip window.

Cyrus–Beck
Very similar to Liang–Barsky line-clipping algorithm. The difference is that Liang–Barsky is a simplified Cyrus–Beck variation that was optimized for a rectangular clip window.

The Cyrus–Beck algorithm is primarily intended for clipping a line in the parametric form against a convex polygon in 2 dimensions or against a convex polyhedron in 3 dimensions.

Nicholl–Lee–Nicholl
The Nicholl–Lee–Nicholl algorithm is a fast line-clipping algorithm that reduces the chances of clipping a single line segment multiple times, as may happen in the Cohen–Sutherland algorithm. The clipping window is divided into a number of different areas, depending on the position of the initial point of the line to be clipped.

Fast clipping
This algorithm has similarities with Cohen–Sutherland. The start and end positions are classified by which portion of the 9-area grid they occupy. A large switch statement jumps to a specialized handler for that case. In contrast, Cohen–Sutherland may have to iterate several times to handle the same case.

O(lg N) algorithm
This algorithm classifies vertices against the given line in the implicit form p: ax + by + c = 0. As the polygon is assumed to be convex and vertices are ordered clockwise or anti-clockwise, binary search can be applied and leads to a O(lg N) run-time complexity.

Skala
This algorithm is based on homogeneous coordinates and duality. It can be used for line or line-segment clipping against a rectangular window, as well as against a convex polygon. The algorithm is based on classifying a vertex of the clipping window against a half-space given by a line p: ax + by + c = 0. The result of the classification determines the edges intersected by the line p. The algorithm is simple, easy to implement and extensible to a convex window as well. The line or line segment p can be computed from points r1, r2 given in homogeneous coordinates directly using the cross product as
 * p = r1 × r2 = (x1, y1, w1) × (x2, y2, w2)

or as
 * p = r1 × r2 = (x1, y1, 1) × (x2, y2, 1).

title: Line clipping


text:
Queens Arcade

The Queens Arcade (Arcêd y Frenhines) is a shopping centre in Cardiff city centre. It opened on 28 April 1994.

History
Developed on the site of the Allders department store and the similarly named Queen Street Arcade, the main entrance is located on Queen Street, and the second entrance faces Working Street near Cardiff Central Market. The arcade has two levels, and is unusual in that the levels are sloped, so that despite its two entrances being on the same level the upper floor at the Working Street entrance is the ground floor at Queen Street. The centre internally connects with the St David's Centre.

The arcade recorded 11.2m annual footfall in 2012 and is anchored by New Look, Argos, Tim Hortons and Post Office. Four of its stores – Argos, Christopher George, F. Hinds and Whittard of Chelsea – have been in the centre from its launch and others from the opening year line-up have changed their company names – such as Cookie Jar, now Millie's Cookies, and Partners, now Ryman. By 2016 it had a 10 million annual footfall.

It was put up for sale in 2016 for £33 million. It was proposed to be demolished in plans in 2021. In February 2023, the centre was put into receivership.

In popular culture
The original architecture was inspired by the many late 19th-century arcades of Cardiff city centre and has appeared as the backdrop for various TV programmes, including the 2005 Doctor Who story "Rose", starring Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper, which was set in London.

title: Queens Arcade


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National "Say 'Hi' to Joe" Day

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

National "Say 'Hi' to Joe" Day
Non- or barely-existing "holiday"; "Say Hi to Joe Day" returns 20 Google hits. tregoweth 09:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; vanity page and not notable. Do I get a Wikipedia article if I make up a new holiday, too? Russ Blau (talk) 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, google hits indicate it is not notable. Thue | talk 10:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and vanity. I could start a "International have hot, passionate sex with User:JIP day" but that wouldn't make it notable, or even work, for that matter.   — J I P | Talk 10:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable (but I will say hi to Joe). -- BD2412 talk 13:23, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Delete. Goodbye, Joe. No Account
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text: Template:Backlog

title: Template:Backlog


text:
Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies

Ransomes, Sims and Jefferies Limited was a major British agricultural machinery maker also producing a wide range of general engineering products in Ipswich, Suffolk including traction engines, trolleybuses, ploughs, lawn mowers, combine harvesters and other tilling equipment. Ransomes also manufactured Direct Current electric motors in a wide range of sizes, and electric forklift trucks and tractors. They manufactured aeroplanes during the First World War. Their base, specially set up in 1845, was named Orwell Works.

Ransomes' railway equipment business was hived off in 1869 with a different ownership as Ransomes & Rapier and based nearby at Waterside Ironworks.

18th century
The enterprise was started by Robert Ransome (1753–1830), who was born into a Quaker family in Norfolk, and became an apprentice to an ironmonger in Norwich. The Quaker values of frugal living, avoiding debt and keeping regular accounts served him well when he set up one of the first brass and iron foundries in East Anglia near White-Friars Bridge, Norwich. He obtained a patent for iron roofing tiles in 1783, and another for tempered cast iron plough shares some 18 months later. In 1789, he moved with his family and one employee named William Rush to Ipswich, where he started casting ploughshares in a disused malting at St Margaret's Ditches, with capital of £200. It was not an obvious place to go, as the town had been in decline for more than a century, and the Ipswich Corporation was almost insolvent due to huge debts.

The fortunes of Ipswich improved when Commissioners were appointed in 1793 to pave the streets, number the houses, and carry out other public works. It became a garrison town when war with France restarted in the same year, which resulted in increased economic and industrial activity. In 1805, an Act of Parliament was obtained, enabling River Commissioners to be appointed, who were to improve the river, allowing ships to reach the town. Despite a period of social unrest, caused by a really bad winter, high prices for coal, and food riots, Robert's son James James Ransome (1782–1849) served his apprenticeship in the foundry, and then moved to Great Yarmouth to start his own business.

As a result of a mishap in his foundry in 1803, when a broken mould caused molten metal to come into contact with cold metal, making the metal surface extremely hard, Robert discovered the process of chilled casting. He used it to refine the manufacture of plough shares, which he advertised as 'self sharpening' ploughs, and obtained a patent for his discovery. His next patent was obtained in 1808, and was for the standardisation of plough fittings, enabling parts to be easily replaced when they wore out.

19th century
In 1809 Robert Ransome, now aged 56, was looking for someone younger to take the business forwards. His eldest son James returned from Great Yarmouth to become his father's partner, bringing with him several of his skilled craftsmen. Now called Ransome and Son, the business prospered, with output doubling over the next six years. Another period of social unrest followed, with agricultural depression and the introduction of the Corn Laws in 1815. Robert had employed William Cubitt in 1812 as the company engineer, and they diversified so they were not solely dependent on the sale of agricultural products. They cast the components for Stoke Bridge, Ipswich, which was swept away in a flood in 1818. Cubitt was responsible for the new design, and the bridge lasted for over 100 years. Cubitt's designs for wind-regulating vanes for windmills and a treadmill for grinding corn in prisons were also manufactured, and he then supervised the installation of gas lighting in Ipswich, which included the construction of a gasometer near to the foundry. Cubbitt became a partner in the firm in 1821, but continued to carry out consultancy work in his own right. He was in such demand that he moved on in 1826, to pursue his civil engineering career, for which he was later knighted.

In 1826 James's son known as Allen but technically James Allen Ransome (1806–1875) went to live at Yoxford, Suffolk, where he established a branch of the business. In 1839 Allen Ransome moved from Yoxford to Ipswich and under his direction the firm of J, R & A Ransome (James, Robert and Allen Ransome) was to assume huge proportions. Charles May had joined the company in 1836, and played a major part in the expansion, as he was a brilliant chemist and scientist. In 1837 William Worby the works manager was asked to find a new location for some of the workforce, as the St Margaret's Ditches site was no longer big enough. He found an old shipyard on the eastern bank of the River Orwell, covering 10 acre. This became the Orwell Works, and the company embarked on the construction of a dock scheme, to give them over 900 ft of quay on the eastern edge of the new wet dock, construction of which had begun in 1837, and continued for some five years. The designer and chief engineer for the wet dock was Henry Robinson Palmer, assisted by James Jones, one of the founder members of the Institution of Civil Engineers. He left the scheme in 1842 to become Ransomes' manager, a position he held until 1852.

After about 1841 the manufacture of ploughs and other agricultural machinery was supplemented by production of portable, traction and other steam engines and thrashing machines.

In the middle decades of the 19th century the company produced heavy iron work for astronomical telescopes, mountings, and observatories.

These included In 1851 export trade was initiated which by the early 20th century was more important than the home market and included distributing agencies throughout the world with a branch establishment in Odessa.
 * The Airy Altazimuth Telescope for the Royal Observatory, Greenwich (1847)
 * The dome of Arthur Kett Barclay's observatory in Bury Hill, Dorking, Surrey (1848)
 * The Trophy Telescope (1851)
 * The Airy Transit Circle for the Royal Observatory, Greenwich (1851)
 * The Great Equatorial for the Royal Observatory, Greenwich (1857)

In 1869 four engineers, Allen, who remained the senior partner in the parent firm, his elder son R.J. Ransome, R.C. Rapier and A.A. Bennett, took the firm's railway department aside from the parent business and established Ransomes & Rapier at Riverside Works, Ipswich.

An independent factory was set up for the manufacture of lawn mowers of every class Ransomes produced the 'Automaton' hand-powered lawn mower in 1867.

20th century
In 1902 Ransomes produced the first commercially available powered lawn mower, driven by an internal combustion petrol engine. In 1910 they won gold medal at the South Russian Regional Agricultural Industrial and Crafts Exhibition for steam thrashing machines and portable steam engines.

During the First World War, they began building "Orwells", a brand of battery-electric commercial road vehicles. They also manufactured aeroplanes, producing 350 Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2b fighters. These were constructed in a large building occupying 2.5 acre, while the site at that time contained an administrative block of offices including a large drawing office, and laboratories in which physical, chemical and photo-micrographic testing of materials used in production was carried out. Once the War was over, aeroplane production ceased, and the aeroplane shop was used for the production of Orwell battery lorries from January 1919. In 1924 they added trolleybuses to their portfolio, continuing production of them until 1948, and selling them in Britain and abroad.

In the 1950s Ransomes started producing forklifts, Class 1 Lift Code 5 (Electric Sit Down Counterbalance). With the start of production of the A Series, Ransomes forklifts were sold by the Hyster dealership network under Hyster serial number codes (A21R, A22R, A23R - the R standing for Ransomes Ipswich plant). The codes still show in the Hyster serial number system.

Ransomes also started producing Class 2 Lift Code 3 (Electric Stand On Reach Straddle) machines. Later the company expanded to producing Class 6 Lift Code 1 (Electric Tow Tractors).

When Hyster Corporation bought Lewis Sheppard, the largest market for Ransomes forklifts disappeared. In the early 1980s Ransomes sold their forklift line to Hawkins Mechanical Handling, which produced machines under the Hamech Ransomes brand name. Hawkins Mechanical Handling was later purchased by Crown, and the Hamech name retired, until 2004, when Crown brought it back for use in an Internal Combustion Engined forklift line.

Ransomes also made electric stillage-carrying trucks for use in factories.

In 1989 the whole of the agricultural implement business was sold to Electrolux and merged with their subsidiary Överum.

This left Ransomes solely as a manufacturer of lawn mowers, with the Ransomes, Westwood and Mountfield mower brands. The company accepted a take-over offer from Textron Inc., USA, and their independent existence ended early in 1998. Westwood and Mountfield were later sold in a management buyout.

Museums and preservation
Somewhere in the region of 140 of the company’s various steam engines survive in preservation.

The history of the company and preceding businesses is the subject of an exhibition at the Museum of East Anglian Life in Stowmarket, Suffolk and they are also represented in Ipswich Transport Museum.

Mowers
Ransomes started producing lawnmowers in 1832, at a time of social unrest when labourers were destroying machinery such as thrashing machines, and agitation for Parliamentary reform meant that some Tory farmers would not buy items made by the Quaker firm of Ransomes. The product had been invented by Edwin Budding of Stroud, and was manufactured under licence. They sold 70 to 80 machines a year for the next two decades.

Ransomes to this day still produce a variety of grass cutting equipment; from professional high quality turf machines to more industrial gang mowers for use on wider areas such as public parks etc. yet they do still make a range of pedestrian mowers for use on manicured lawns and bowling greens for example.

Orwell electric vehicles
In the 1910s there were a number of electric road vehicles operating in Britain, but most were of American or European, particularly German, manufacture, and with the First World War cutting off supplies from the Continent, Ransomes decided to begin production of a suitable replacement. The construction of the vehicle was quite simple, with an electric motor mounted on a plate, which was attached to the stub axle of each front wheel. Helical gearing then drove the front wheels. 40 batteries were mounted in two panniers, one on either side of the chassis, which could easily be pulled out on a system of rollers, to aid maintenance. The controls were designed to be similar to those on a petrol lorry, with a foot pedal in the clutch position, which disconnected the batteries when pressed down, and reconnected them in three stages when it was released. The brake pedal operated brakes on both of the rear wheels, and the motor speed was controlled by a lever mounted above the steering column, similar to the throttle on petrol-engined vehicles of the time. There were five positions for forward motion, one for reversing, and one for electric braking. In 1916, the vehicles were marketed by Mossay and Co.

In September 1918, it was noted that the only other British manufacturer of electric vehicles was Richard Garrett & Sons of nearby Leiston, although there were two companies selling American imports. However, buying the vehicles was not straightforward, as an application had to be made to the Ministry of Munitions, to obtain a Priority Certificate. They were still subject to restrictions in January 1919, when they asked for a penalty clause to be removed from a contract for supplying vehicles to Ilford UDC, as they were a controlled firm and had no say as to when they could deliver their products. They regularly sold vehicles to local authorities, with many of these sales recorded in the "Wheels of Industry" columns of Commercial Motor magazine. In November 1918 two lorries with automatic tipping bodywork were driven from Ipswich to local authorities in Wolverhampton and Stoke-on-Trent. They proceeded at 9 mph, and were able to find charging points at regular intervals. A delivery to Birmingham in 1919 found that the only place without a proper charging station was Northampton, and a spare battery was used to mitigate that problem.

In September 1919, they were producing four vehicles a week, but the limiting factor was the difficulty in buying the machine tools necessary for manufacture. They were hoping to double that output by the end of the month, and produce 12 vehicles per week shortly afterwards. At the time they were producing two models, a 2.5-ton model with the motors mounted on the front wheels, and a 3.5-ton model where the motors were mounted in the middle of the vehicle and drove the rear wheels though helical reduction gears and roller chains. Both types used regenerative braking, where the motor was driven as a dynamo, which not only slowed the vehicle down, but put power back into the batteries. A standard charging socket was fitted, as approved by the Electric Vehicle Committee, and the vehicle could not be moved while the charging plug was inserted. Tipping bodies were controlled from the cab, and had a central screw which ran parallel to the chassis. Power to the motor was automatically disconnected when the body reaches its highest or lowest extent. The company had been successful in selling to their own local authority, as Ipswich ran a fleet of 13 Ransomes electric vehicles.

For the 1920 motor show, they introduced a new 2.5-ton model where the rear wheels were driven by roller chains, similar to the 3.5-ton model. In 1921 Ransomes produced a 40-seat battery-electric bus for conveying miners between a railway station and the mine entrance in Lancashire. Commercial Motor noted that the seats were not upholstered, as they would soon become dirty and damaged in that application. They also felt there was sufficient interest in Ransomes vehicles to carry a 3-page article on their maintenance in February 1921. By the end of the year, Ransomes had added a 4.5-to-5-ton model to their range, which was similar in construction to the 3.5-ton model. A review of electric vehicle usage by municipalities in 1922 showed that Ransomes were the second most popular type, with some 120 vehicles in operation, only exceeded by the 234 vehicles supplied by Edison of Detroit. By late 1925, the cleaning departments of 40 local authorities were using Ransomes vehicles for the collection of refuse.

In practice, the vehicles proved to be highly reliable. For the Commercial Motor cup, held in 1927, London Wholesale Dairies entered three vehicles into the electric section. They had been driven around 50 mi per day, delivering milk to wholesale buyers, doing railway station work, and finally taking empty bottles back to the station. This was achieved by using two crews, and two top-up charges during the day, before full recharging in the evenings. Two of the vehicles were from Ransomes, and had covered 84000 mi and 96000 mi since delivery. The third vehicle, which won the competition, had covered 150000 mi and was made by Edison. One of the vehicles supplied to Ipswich Corporation in 1915 and used constantly since, was still working well in March 1934.

The electrical engineer and pioneer of electric vehicles, Frank Ayton, was a managing director of the company.

Trolleybuses
In 1923, Ipswich Corporation opened their first trolleybus route in the town, using three vehicles from Railless. Ransomes saw an opportunity opening up on their doorstep, and produced an "improved electric trolleybus". It was based on the Railless design, with a high, straight chassis, but in other respects was simpler. A 35 hp motor powered the back axle through a worm and wheel arrangement. They built their own motors and controllers, which were hand-operated as they were based on those used in trams. They also built their own bodywork, with seats for 30 passengers and a front entrance. After testing, the trolleybus entered public service in Ipswich during 1924. They assessed the vehicle in operation, and then designed a Type C prototype, based on their conclusions. The chassis was lower, enabling the floor level to be 2 ft above the road level, and requiring passengers to negotiate two steps, rather than the three on the first vehicle. This was made possible by moving the motor, this time rated at 40 hp, over the front axle. Another significant advance was the replacement of the hand-operated controller with a foot-operated pedal, leaving the driver's hands free to steer the vehicle, use the handbrake and sound the horn. It ran for five months on the Ipswich system from December 1925, and when further vehicles became available, it was fitted with pneumatic tyres, had its entrance moved to the other side, and was sold for use in Poznań, Poland.

Following the trials of the Type C prototype, Ipswich placed an order for 15 Type D trolleybuses, with an entrance forwards of the front axle, and another behind the rear axle, designed for two man operation in peak periods and one man operation at other times. This required the motor to be mounted in the centre of the vehicle, and the floor level was increased to 2 ft. They produced a number of variations to suit the needs of individual customers, and in 1928 produced two double-deck vehicles based on the Type D chassis for Nottingham, and a D6 3-axle chassis. As well as fitting their own electrical equipment, they also used equipment from British Thomson-Houston and Allan West if customers required it, but stopped building their own bodywork. The business prospered, and although they sold a total of 123 vehicles to eleven municipal users in Britain, 305 trolleybuses were sold abroad. They also entered into an agreement with the Italian company Stigler some time before 1935, allowing them to build Ransomes-Stigler 3-axle trolleybuses for Milan. These had 24 seats, but could also carry 66 standing passengers.

Overseas customers included the trolleybus systems in Cape Town, who placed an order for 20 single-deck and 30 double-deck vehicles in 1935, Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago, George Town, Penang, and Singapore. They sold their last trolleybus in Britain in 1940, when a 2-axle demonstrator built for a tour of South Africa, which was cancelled when the Second World War started, was bought by Ipswich, and their final order in 1948 was for six vehicles for Drammen in Norway, after which they withdrew from the trolleybus market. Ipswich Corporation had bought 66 of their first 86 trolleybuses from Ransomes, and although Ransomes produced a leaflet in 1939 stating that all of the trolleybuses operating in Ipswich had been made by them, this was never actually true. Three Ransomes trolleybuses are known to survive in preservation, two at the Ipswich Transport Museum, who also own the chassis of a fourth, and one at the Science Museum, London's store at Wroughton near Swindon.

Styles
The business begun by Robert Ransome was later owned as partners by various individuals. The different names or styles by which the one enterprise was known before it was bought in 1884 by the limited liability joint-stock company Ransomes, Sims & Jeffries Limited were:
 * 1789 Robert Ransome. sole trader on his own account
 * 1809 Ransome & Son. Owners Robert (1753–1830) and his son James Ransome (1782–1849)
 * 1818 Ransome & Sons. Owners Robert the elder and his sons James and Robert Ransome (1795–1864)
 * 1823 J & R Ransome. Owners brothers James and Robert Ransome
 * 1830 J R and A Ransome. Owners James and Robert Ransome and James's son Allen (James Allen Ransome) (1806–1875)
 * 1835 Ransomes & May. Owners Ransomes and Charles May
 * 1852 Ransomes & Sims. Owners Ransomes and William Dillwyn Sims who replaces May
 * 1869 Ransomes, Sims & Head. Owners now joined by John Head (and as this company exhibited in Lima in 1872. Separate firm Ransomes & Rapier took railway department
 * 1881 Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies. Owners J R and A Ransome, William Head and John Robert Jefferies (1841–1900)
 * 1884 Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies Limited, a limited liability company, was incorporated and it purchased the business from the former partners
 * 1911 Public listed company. In June 1911 £250,000 of preference shares were offered to the public and they were listed on the London Stock Exchange

Products
Ransomes & May 1848 catalogue
 * Ploughs
 * Scarifiers
 * Cultivators
 * Rollers
 * Clod crushers
 * Corn gatherers
 * Dag rakes
 * Stack stands
 * Thrashing machines
 * Winnowing machines
 * Chaff engines
 * Turnip cutters
 * Mills

Publications

 * "Good Ploughing" by E.J. Roworth, published by Ransomes Sims & Jefferies Ltd. 1973?

title: Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badass Game

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Badass Game
Looks like vanity article about non-notable "game." tregoweth 09:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - It was created and editd by a single user, possibly in effort advertise the game. —Kjammer 11:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Referenced in an Eyedea song (unsigned edit by 66.9.126.26))
 * Keep - Refers to actual unsolved problem in game theory. Agree with user on discussion page that the theory section must be cleaned up.  Perhaps a language warning as well? User:DiceDiceBaby
 * User ID created today. RickK 04:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't even qualify as a game. --Xcali 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Way to reference my (yes, I take ownership of it) Eyedea article... but I'm not so sure you're right about him referencing it. Which song?  My vote is conditional on this statement by the unsigned user being true and on the theory section being cleaned up.  The amateur graphics don't help.  Xcali is wrong, though, it does qualify as a game - not a board game or video game, but a game theory exercise, like the Prisoner's Dilemma.216.158.31.195 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete unless references are given to appropriate peer-reviewed journals, or atleast somebody with a proper academic post is revealed to behind the experiment, and with the intention of publishing it somewhere. It hardly seems to be akin to Axelrod and Hamilton. Dunc|☺ 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In its current form, delete as original research. --Tabor 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Really interesting, but would need massive rewrite 130.58.218.6 18:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 02:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 04:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable & original research. JamesBurns 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey everybody. I'm really sorry.  I just wanted to help out and write some articles for the magazine about comedy and music and things I found interesting.  I'm sorry I pissed everybody off and I promise to never come back.
 * Keep maybe it's non-notable but the game looks really interesting!  Grue   13:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Nuclear force

The nuclear force (or nucleon–nucleon interaction, residual strong force, or, historically, strong nuclear force) is a force that acts between hadrons, most commonly observed between protons and neutrons of atoms. Neutrons and protons, both nucleons, are affected by the nuclear force almost identically. Since protons have charge +1 e, they experience an electric force that tends to push them apart, but at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electrostatic force. The nuclear force binds nucleons into atomic nuclei.

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or $10,000 N$), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. (The size of an atom, of size in the order of angstroms (Å, or $25,000 N$), is five orders of magnitude larger.) The nuclear force is not simple, though, as it depends on the nucleon spins, has a tensor component, and may depend on the relative momentum of the nucleons.

The nuclear force has an essential role in storing energy that is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Work (energy) is required to bring charged protons together against their electric repulsion. This energy is stored when the protons and neutrons are bound together by the nuclear force to form a nucleus. The mass of a nucleus is less than the sum total of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons. The difference in masses is known as the mass defect, which can be expressed as an energy equivalent. Energy is released when a heavy nucleus breaks apart into two or more lighter nuclei. This energy is the internucleon potential energy that is released when the nuclear force no longer holds the charged nuclear fragments together.

A quantitative description of the nuclear force relies on equations that are partly empirical. These equations model the internucleon potential energies, or potentials. (Generally, forces within a system of particles can be more simply modelled by describing the system's potential energy; the negative gradient of a potential is equal to the vector force.) The constants for the equations are phenomenological, that is, determined by fitting the equations to experimental data. The internucleon potentials attempt to describe the properties of nucleon–nucleon interaction. Once determined, any given potential can be used in, e.g., the Schrödinger equation to determine the quantum mechanical properties of the nucleon system.

The discovery of the neutron in 1932 revealed that atomic nuclei were made of protons and neutrons, held together by an attractive force. By 1935 the nuclear force was conceived to be transmitted by particles called mesons. This theoretical development included a description of the Yukawa potential, an early example of a nuclear potential. Pions, fulfilling the prediction, were discovered experimentally in 1947. By the 1970s, the quark model had been developed, by which the mesons and nucleons were viewed as composed of quarks and gluons. By this new model, the nuclear force, resulting from the exchange of mesons between neighbouring nucleons, is a multiparticle interaction, the collective effect of strong force on the underlining structure of the nucleons.

Description
While the nuclear force is usually associated with nucleons, more generally this force is felt between hadrons, or particles composed of quarks. At small separations between nucleons (less than ~ 0.7 fm between their centres, depending upon spin alignment) the force becomes repulsive, which keeps the nucleons at a certain average separation. For identical nucleons (such as two neutrons or two protons) this repulsion arises from the Pauli exclusion force. A Pauli repulsion also occurs between quarks of the same flavour from different nucleons (a proton and a neutron).

Field strength
At distances larger than 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a centre–centre distance of about 0.9 fm. Beyond this distance the force drops exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force is negligible. Nucleons have a radius of about 0.8 fm.

At short distances (less than 1.7 fm or so), the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive Coulomb force between protons; it thus overcomes the repulsion of protons within the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much greater range as it varies as the inverse square of the charge separation, and Coulomb repulsion thus becomes the only significant force between protons when their separation exceeds about $0.8 m$.

The nuclear force has a spin-dependent component. The force is stronger for particles with their spins aligned than for those with their spins anti-aligned. If two particles are the same, such as two neutrons or two protons, the force is not enough to bind the particles, since the spin vectors of two particles of the same type must point in opposite directions when the particles are near each other and are (save for spin) in the same quantum state. This requirement for fermions stems from the Pauli exclusion principle. For fermion particles of different types, such as a proton and neutron, particles may be close to each other and have aligned spins without violating the Pauli exclusion principle, and the nuclear force may bind them (in this case, into a deuteron), since the nuclear force is much stronger for spin-aligned particles. But if the particles' spins are anti-aligned, the nuclear force is too weak to bind them, even if they are of different types.

The nuclear force also has a tensor component which depends on the interaction between the nucleon spins and the angular momentum of the nucleons, leading to deformation from a simple spherical shape.

Nuclear binding
To disassemble a nucleus into unbound protons and neutrons requires work against the nuclear force. Conversely, energy is released when a nucleus is created from free nucleons or other nuclei: the nuclear binding energy. Because of mass–energy equivalence (i.e. Einstein's formula E = mc2), releasing this energy causes the mass of the nucleus to be lower than the total mass of the individual nucleons, leading to the so-called "mass defect".

The nuclear force is nearly independent of whether the nucleons are neutrons or protons. This property is called charge independence. The force depends on whether the spins of the nucleons are parallel or antiparallel, as it has a non-central or tensor component. This part of the force does not conserve orbital angular momentum, which under the action of central forces is conserved.

The symmetry resulting in the strong force, proposed by Werner Heisenberg, is that protons and neutrons are identical in every respect, other than their charge. This is not completely true, because neutrons are a tiny bit heavier, but it is an approximate symmetry. Protons and neutrons are therefore viewed as the same particle, but with different isospin quantum numbers; conventionally, the proton is isospin up, while the neutron is isospin down. The strong force is invariant under SU(2) isospin transformations, just as other interactions between particles are invariant under SU(2) transformations of intrinsic spin. In other words, both isospin and intrinsic spin transformations are isomorphic to the SU(2) symmetry group. There are only strong attractions when the total isospin of the set of interacting particles is 0, which is confirmed by experiment.

Our understanding of the nuclear force is obtained by scattering experiments and the binding energy of light nuclei.

The nuclear force occurs by the exchange of virtual light mesons, such as the virtual pions, as well as two types of virtual mesons with spin (vector mesons), the rho mesons and the omega mesons. The vector mesons account for the spin-dependence of the nuclear force in this "virtual meson" picture.

The nuclear force is distinct from what historically was known as the weak nuclear force. The weak interaction is one of the four fundamental interactions, and plays a role in processes such as beta decay. The weak force plays no role in the interaction of nucleons, though it is responsible for the decay of neutrons to protons and vice versa.

History
The nuclear force has been at the heart of nuclear physics ever since the field was born in 1932 with the discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick. The traditional goal of nuclear physics is to understand the properties of atomic nuclei in terms of the "bare" interaction between pairs of nucleons, or nucleon–nucleon forces (NN forces).

Within months after the discovery of the neutron, Werner Heisenberg  and Dmitri Ivanenko had proposed proton–neutron models for the nucleus. Heisenberg approached the description of protons and neutrons in the nucleus through quantum mechanics, an approach that was not at all obvious at the time. Heisenberg's theory for protons and neutrons in the nucleus was a "major step toward understanding the nucleus as a quantum mechanical system". Heisenberg introduced the first theory of nuclear exchange forces that bind the nucleons. He considered protons and neutrons to be different quantum states of the same particle, i.e., nucleons distinguished by the value of their nuclear isospin quantum numbers.

One of the earliest models for the nucleus was the liquid-drop model developed in the 1930s. One property of nuclei is that the average binding energy per nucleon is approximately the same for all stable nuclei, which is similar to a liquid drop. The liquid-drop model treated the nucleus as a drop of incompressible nuclear fluid, with nucleons behaving like molecules in a liquid. The model was first proposed by George Gamow and then developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. This crude model did not explain all the properties of the nucleus, but it did explain the spherical shape of most nuclei. The model also gave good predictions for the binding energy of nuclei.

In 1934, Hideki Yukawa made the earliest attempt to explain the nature of the nuclear force. According to his theory, massive bosons (mesons) mediate the interaction between two nucleons. In light of quantum chromodynamics (QCD)—and, by extension, the Standard Model—meson theory is no longer perceived as fundamental. But the meson-exchange concept (where hadrons are treated as elementary particles) continues to represent the best working model for a quantitative NN potential. The Yukawa potential (also called a screened Coulomb potential) is a potential of the form
 * $$V_\text{Yukawa}(r) = -g^2 \frac{e^{-\mu r}}{r},$$

where g is a magnitude scaling constant, i.e., the amplitude of potential, $$\mu$$ is the Yukawa particle mass, r is the radial distance to the particle. The potential is monotone increasing, implying that the force is always attractive. The constants are determined empirically. The Yukawa potential depends only on the distance r between particles, hence it models a central force.

Throughout the 1930s a group at Columbia University led by I. I. Rabi developed magnetic-resonance techniques to determine the magnetic moments of nuclei. These measurements led to the discovery in 1939 that the deuteron also possessed an electric quadrupole moment. This electrical property of the deuteron had been interfering with the measurements by the Rabi group. The deuteron, composed of a proton and a neutron, is one of the simplest nuclear systems. The discovery meant that the physical shape of the deuteron was not symmetric, which provided valuable insight into the nature of the nuclear force binding nucleons. In particular, the result showed that the nuclear force was not a central force, but had a tensor character. Hans Bethe identified the discovery of the deuteron's quadrupole moment as one of the important events during the formative years of nuclear physics.

Historically, the task of describing the nuclear force phenomenologically was formidable. The first semi-empirical quantitative models came in the mid-1950s, such as the Woods–Saxon potential (1954). There was substantial progress in experiment and theory related to the nuclear force in the 1960s and 1970s. One influential model was the Reid potential (1968)
 * $$V_\text{Reid}(r) = -10.463 \frac{e^{-\mu r}}{\mu r} - 1650.6 \frac{e^{-4\mu r}}{\mu r} + 6484.2 \frac{e^{-7\mu r}}{\mu r},$$

where $$\mu = 0.7~\text{fm}^{-1},$$ and where the potential is given in units of MeV. In recent years, experimenters have concentrated on the subtleties of the nuclear force, such as its charge dependence, the precise value of the πNN coupling constant, improved phase-shift analysis, high-precision NN data, high-precision NN potentials, NN scattering at intermediate and high energies, and attempts to derive the nuclear force from QCD.

As a residual of strong force

The nuclear force is a residual effect of the more fundamental strong force, or strong interaction. The strong interaction is the attractive force that binds the elementary particles called quarks together to form the nucleons (protons and neutrons) themselves. This more powerful force, one of the fundamental forces of nature, is mediated by particles called gluons. Gluons hold quarks together through colour charge which is analogous to electric charge, but far stronger. Quarks, gluons, and their dynamics are mostly confined within nucleons, but residual influences extend slightly beyond nucleon boundaries to give rise to the nuclear force.

The nuclear forces arising between nucleons are analogous to the forces in chemistry between neutral atoms or molecules called London dispersion forces. Such forces between atoms are much weaker than the attractive electrical forces that hold the atoms themselves together (i.e., that bind electrons to the nucleus), and their range between atoms is shorter, because they arise from small separation of charges inside the neutral atom. Similarly, even though nucleons are made of quarks in combinations which cancel most gluon forces (they are "colour neutral"), some combinations of quarks and gluons nevertheless leak away from nucleons, in the form of short-range nuclear force fields that extend from one nucleon to another nearby nucleon. These nuclear forces are very weak compared to direct gluon forces ("colour forces" or strong forces) inside nucleons, and the nuclear forces extend only over a few nuclear diameters, falling exponentially with distance. Nevertheless, they are strong enough to bind neutrons and protons over short distances, and overcome the electrical repulsion between protons in the nucleus.

Sometimes, the nuclear force is called the residual strong force, in contrast to the strong interactions which arise from QCD. This phrasing arose during the 1970s when QCD was being established. Before that time, the strong nuclear force referred to the inter-nucleon potential. After the verification of the quark model, strong interaction has come to mean QCD.

Nucleon–nucleon potentials
Two-nucleon systems such as the deuteron, the nucleus of a deuterium atom, as well as proton–proton or neutron–proton scattering are ideal for studying the NN force. Such systems can be described by attributing a potential (such as the Yukawa potential) to the nucleons and using the potentials in a Schrödinger equation. The form of the potential is derived phenomenologically (by measurement), although for the long-range interaction, meson-exchange theories help to construct the potential. The parameters of the potential are determined by fitting to experimental data such as the deuteron binding energy or NN elastic scattering cross sections (or, equivalently in this context, so-called NN phase shifts).

The most widely used NN potentials are the Paris potential, the Argonne AV18 potential, the CD-Bonn potential, and the Nijmegen potentials.

A more recent approach is to develop effective field theories for a consistent description of nucleon–nucleon and three-nucleon forces. Quantum hadrodynamics is an effective field theory of the nuclear force, comparable to QCD for colour interactions and QED for electromagnetic interactions. Additionally, chiral symmetry breaking can be analyzed in terms of an effective field theory (called chiral perturbation theory) which allows perturbative calculations of the interactions between nucleons with pions as exchange particles.

From nucleons to nuclei
The ultimate goal of nuclear physics would be to describe all nuclear interactions from the basic interactions between nucleons. This is called the microscopic or ab initio approach of nuclear physics. There are two major obstacles to overcome: This is an active area of research with ongoing advances in computational techniques leading to better first-principles calculations of the nuclear shell structure. Two- and three-nucleon potentials have been implemented for nuclides up to A = 12.
 * Calculations in many-body systems are difficult (because of multi-particle interactions) and require advanced computation techniques.
 * There is evidence that three-nucleon forces (and possibly higher multi-particle interactions) play a significant role. This means that three-nucleon potentials must be included into the model.

Nuclear potentials
A successful way of describing nuclear interactions is to construct one potential for the whole nucleus instead of considering all its nucleon components. This is called the macroscopic approach. For example, scattering of neutrons from nuclei can be described by considering a plane wave in the potential of the nucleus, which comprises a real part and an imaginary part. This model is often called the optical model since it resembles the case of light scattered by an opaque glass sphere.

Nuclear potentials can be local or global: local potentials are limited to a narrow energy range and/or a narrow nuclear mass range, while global potentials, which have more parameters and are usually less accurate, are functions of the energy and the nuclear mass and can therefore be used in a wider range of applications.

title: Nuclear force


text:
A Milhouse Divided

"A Milhouse Divided" is the sixth episode of the eighth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on the Fox Network in the United States on December 1, 1996. In the episode, Milhouse's parents Kirk and Luann get a divorce, causing Homer to examine his own marriage. It was directed by Steven Dean Moore and is the only episode for which Steve Tompkins has sole writing credit.

Plot
Marge invites the Flanders, the Lovejoys, the Hibberts and the Van Houtens to a dinner party. While the other guests enjoy themselves, Kirk and Luann Van Houten bicker. They get more quarrelsome as the party continues, making the other guests uncomfortable. After a volatile game of Pictionary, Luann demands a divorce. Afterwards, Kirk moves into a singles complex and gets fired from his job at the cracker factory, as they feel he sets a bad example for the company with his recent breakup, not to mention the company is run by Luann's father. Luann, on the other hand, adjusts to life as a single parent with Milhouse and starts dating Chase, an American Gladiator.

At Moe's, Kirk reveals to Homer that he has decided to pursue a singing career and introduces him to his new "girlfriend" Starla, who soon steals his car and tosses his demo tape onto the street. Kirk muses that he never saw the divorce coming and regrets being a bad husband, remarking that "one day your wife is making you your favorite meal, the next day you're thawing a hot dog in a gas station sink". Homer tries to console him and boasts that his marriage to Marge is rock-solid. At home, however, Homer discovers that Marge has gone out and left him hot dogs for dinner, and becomes terrified that Marge is going to leave him.

Homer enlists Lisa's help to save his marriage, but she is unable to offer any advice beyond observing that he is lucky to have Marge as his wife. He recalls their no-frills wedding, followed by a cheesy wedding cake at a roadside truck stop. To save their marriage, Homer attempts to perform "selfless" gestures for Marge such as giving her a new haircut and making soothing noises as she sleeps, which only annoy her.

Deciding that Marge deserves a fresh start, Homer secretly files for a divorce. Marge returns home that night and is surprised to find all of the Simpsons' friends gathered in the living room. Homer declares that he wants to be remarried, with a perfect wedding this time. Reverend Lovejoy reads the rambling wedding vows Homer has written himself, and Marge and Homer are remarried. Later at the party, Kirk tries to reconcile with Luann by singing her a corny love song from his demo tape. Though Luann appears touched at first, she rebuffs Kirk instantly when he asks her to remarry, after which Chase kicks him out of the house.

Production
"A Milhouse Divided" is the only episode for which Steve Tompkins has sole writing credit, although he had been a part of the writing staff for several years. The writers wanted to do an episode that involved a couple getting divorced. The Van Houtens were chosen because the writers felt that they were the most developed couple next to Marge and Homer and the Lovejoys. The scene in the episode "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming" where Milhouse is in a jet pretending to fire missiles at his parents is where they got the idea to have his parents' marriage be in trouble. A deleted scene involving Kirk's firing from the cracker factory had him trying to save his job by apologizing for crying repeatedly at business meetings, along with Kirk revealing that his severance package consisted of a box of crackers (which birds attempted to take away from him when he went to his car after being fired).

Originally, the episode also focused on the divorce's effects on Milhouse and there was a subplot that involved Bart being jealous of Milhouse and wishing that Marge and Homer would also separate. Several scenes were written and animated for the episode, but ultimately, they were cut because the script was very long. A similar idea would go on to be used as a plot point in the season 17 episode "Milhouse of Sand and Fog". The third act of the episode shifts the focus from the Van Houtens to Homer and Marge because the writers felt that tertiary characters could not carry an audience's interest for an entire episode. Bill Oakley has said that he felt the episode would have failed had they stuck with the Van Houtens for the third act and most of the other writers also felt that it was the right move.

The idea for the dinner party came from Oakley, who had wanted to have a party similar to the one in "The War of the Simpsons". For the second half of the episode, Luann was redesigned to look more youthful and was given a new outfit. A big name singer was originally sought to sing "Can I Borrow a Feeling?" over the end credits. The writers wanted Sheryl Crow, but she declined and the concept was later dropped.

Reception
In its original broadcast, "A Milhouse Divided" finished tied for 50th in the weekly ratings for the week of November 25 – December 1, 1996, with a Nielsen rating of 8.3 and was viewed in 8 million homes. It was the fourth-highest-rated show on the Fox Network that week.

Since airing, the episode has received positive reviews. Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, the authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, called it "More drama than comedy, and very honest in its dealings with the Van Houtens' divorce and its effects on Milhouse."

In 2018, a scene from the episode where Bart hits Homer with a chair (replicating a stunt Luanne's new boyfriend Chase showed him) while taking a bath became an internet meme.

title: A Milhouse Divided


text:
Category:Wikipedia backlog

This category contains backlogs which need to be dealt with. A backlog is a list of things that need to be done, but have not been done for some time. Backlogs which require the attention of administrators may be found at Category:Administrative backlog. Managerial tasks that are not necessarily backlogged can be found at Maintenance.

Use to add pages to this category.

title: Category:Wikipedia backlog