text:
Talk:Ephemeris time

Untitled
Should the correct title of this article be "Ephemeris time" or "Ephemeris Time"? The article is at the former title, but the text uses "Time". If someone knows, I can change or move it accordingly. -- Infrogmation 14:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be "Ephemeris time". There were articles under both names, and I merged them together here, so there may be a relic 'Time' left. Salsb 15:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

When adopted?
Using the information that ET and TAI were already 32.184 seconds divergent when TAI was adopted in 1958, and a rough guesstimate of average increasing divergence of 0.7 seconds per year, it looks as if the divergence between UT and ET was first recognized around 1912. Could we add information to this article about when ET was first adopted, and when its divergence from UT was first recognized? arkuat (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RD/Science gave me the hint that Simon Newcomb was probably involved. arkuat (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Further info, copied from the Reference Desk:

 * Ephemeris Time (ET) was so named because it was the independent time scale used in government ephemerides from 1900 through 1983, in the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, the British Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris, the French Connaissance des Temps, the German Astronomisches Jahrbuch, and the Spanish almanac. ET was defined (but not named) by Simon Newcomb in 1895/98 as the weighted average of mean solar time referred to the Royal Observatory, Greenwich between 1750 and 1892. It was implemented at Greenwich mean noon on 31 December 1899 (0 January 1900), meaning that from that date on the stated positions of the planets in the ephemerides would be calculated in terms of ET, not in terms of Greenwich mean solar time (named UT in 1928) which had been used before 1900. ET differs from UT quadratically, not linearally, that is, the difference is generally a parabola. See ΔT. However, this divergence was not recognized in 1895, instead its implemention included a "great empirical term", a sinusoid with a period of 257 years. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes about revision of article
Much additional information (citation-sourced) has been added, and the article rearranged. The 'Reference Desk' info about start date 1900 and definition by Newcomb appears to be incompatible with the sources, but owing to inexperience I'm not quite sure where the 'Reference Desk' is or what can be done about it. (Newcomb published in terms of GMT, as was conventional for his time, and additional sources can be cited if required to show that he regarded the evidence for the rotational fluctuations as not yet conclusive.)

Terry0051 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

definition of 'earth's orbit around the sun'
Is 'earth's orbit around the sun' defined in relation to the 'fixed stars' (aka sidereal year - which corresponds to earth's actual position in space relative to the sun and 'fixed stars'), or to the 'tropical year' (which is the modern standard definition of 'year' but corresponds to the length of time between vernal equinoxes, and is slightly shorter than the period of a full orbit around the sun due to the direction of earth's axial tilt rotating counterclockwise over a 26,580 year period? this should be clarified in the article Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is explained on page 82 of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 3rd ed. It's based on an abstraction of the tropical year. The mean motion of the Sun was calculated by Newcomb at the end of the 19th century. If one takes the derivative of the motion, that is, δL/δT at January 0, 1900, 12 h UT, and calculate how long long it would take the mean longitude of the Sun as viewed from the Earth to increase 360°, the answer is {{val}31556925.9747}} seconds, which implicitly defines the second. The modern definition of the second, in terms of a particular kind of atomic clock, was set up to be as close to the ephemeris second as possible. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ephemeris time based on mean solar day
Yesterday I changed
 * "Although ephemeris time was defined in principle by the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun"

to
 * "Although ephemeris time was defined in principle by the mean solar day"

with the comment "Ephemeris time was defined based on 36525 mean solar days, not on the actual orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun".

Now has reverted that with the comment "Not true. Read the lead of this article. By the 1950s it was certain that the rotation of the Earth on it's axis was irregular, and the time required for the Earth to orbit the Sun was more nearly constant, so the official definition of time used in the calculation of ephemerides was changed."

Yes, I have read the lead, and I have read much of the article by G.M. Clemence. Yes, I know that it was known that the rotationi of the Earth on its axis was irregular. But the fact is that the ephemeris day was based on the length of 36525 mean solar days. It wasn't based on some figure for the length of a tropical year or of a sidereal year. That's why the number of ephemeris seconds in a day is very close to 86,400 -- it's more or less by definition.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will quote some passages from Chapter 3, "Ephemeridies", by McCarthy & Seidelmann
 * "The independent variable in ephemerides is uniform time From the time of the Hellenistic astronomer Ptolemy, the concept of mean solar time was used for this independent variable. Following the recognition of the variability of the Earth's rotation, a new time scale, Ephemeris Time, based on the Earth's orbital motion was introduced. Problems with real-time realization of Ephemeris Time soon became apparent, and atomic time became available as an alternative source of Ephemeris Time. [p. 35]"

 * McCarthy & Seidelmann's Chapter 6 is titled "Ephemeris Time". The development of the definition is described on pages 80 to 83. They describe it as a recommendation at the International Colloquium on the Fundamental Constants of Astronomy in Paris in 1950, followed by a series of improvements until the CIPM put it in it's final form in 1956. When I apply the changes to the starting definition, I come up with
 * In all cases where the mean solar second is unsatisfactory as a unit of time by reason of its variability, the unit adopted should be the tropical year at 1900.0; that the time reckoned in these units be designated Ephemeris Time; that the change of mean solar time to ephemeris time be acomblished by the following correction
 * ΔT = 24.349s + 72.381s T + 2950s T2 =1.82144 B.
 * where T is reckoned in Julian centuries from 1900.0 January 0 Greenwich Mean Noon and B has the meaning given by Spencer Jones in Monthly Notices R.A.S. (Vol 99, 1938, p. 541) and the second is the fraction 1/$31,556,925.975$ of the length of the tropical year for 1900.0
 * A quote from page 86 helps to understand the situation:
 * "Until 1960 the second was defined as 1/$86,400$ of the mean solar day, ignoring the variability in the earth's rotation and assuming that the Earth's rotation was uniform. In 1960 the ephemeris second was introduced as the replacement for the second defined in terms of mean solar time."
 * My interpretation is that the difference between time observed with instruments like those described in the Transit instrument article, and time used in equations to calculate the position of celestial objects, was glossed over. Once ephemeris time was clearly defined, these two different kinds of time could be dealt with more rigorously. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hilton & McCarthy explain the lack of a clear modern definition of mean solar time on their page 231
 * "Underlying the concept of mean solar time was the assumption that the rotation of the Earth was uniform. In the first half of the twentieth century, the lunar ephemeris demonstrated that this assumtion was incorrect. Thus the mean solar time was no longer used in precise timekeeping. It was replaced by two somewhat different concepts of time: Ephemeris Time, (ET), was introduced to satisfy the desire for a uniform measure of time, and Universal Time, UT, to measure the earth's rotation. Originally UT was introduced to specify Greenwich mean Time measured from noon instead of midnight. [References to other sections of the book omitted.]"
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 * James L. Hilton & Dennis McCarthy (2013), "Precession, Nutation, Polar Motion, and Earth Rotation" in Sean E. Urban and P. Kenneth Seidelmann, eds., Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 3rd ed., University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA.
 * Dennis McCarthy & P. Kenneth Seidelmann (2009), TIME From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-527-40780-4.

ΔT is NOT parabolic
Quotation from the article: The difference between ET and UT is called ΔT; it changes irregularly, but the long-term trend is parabolic, decreasing from ancient times until the nineteenth century, and increasing since then at a rate corresponding to an increase in the solar day length of 1.7 ms per century.

It's an error made in the past, in the 50's, to assume ΔT is parabolic. If it was, ΔT in 1870 equals that in 1900 and ΔT in 1650 would equal that in 2024. It's obviously wrong.

Furethermore, parabolic ΔT has a minimum point in 1893, which has no physical meaning. 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:ED1D:EF5E:5A7B:D74C (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 * The quotation mentions ancient times, but your comment doesn't mention any date earlier than 1650. The cited 2004 paper by Morrison and Stephenson shows a graph on page 330 which contains a best-fit parabola to the available data points and it doesn't look all that bad to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not mention an earlier date because 1650 ( 1620 more exactly) has the same ΔT as 2024 according to the parabolic model. Two same ΔT mean that the corresponding UT must be the same, while it is impossible that UT of 1620 equals that of 2024.
 * According to the definition, ΔT = TT - UT, before around 1900, UT went faster than TT and ΔT should be negative, after 1900 UT goes slower than TT and ΔT should be positive. 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:DD2A:EDA5:5E4:32DC (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A more recent article, by Stephenson, Morrison, and Hohenkerk (2016), provides a fit to observations over the year range -700 to 2000. It is
 * ΔT=−320.0 + (32.5 ± 0.6)((year - 1825)/100)2 (Equation 4.1)
 * I suggest you try plugging your ideas into that parabola and see how it does. I must confess I don't quite understand why the ± symbol is in the equation, unless it is an indication of uncertainty. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read since years almost all of their papers concernaing ΔT. The paper 2016 is the last one but not new. the ± symbol in the equation is an indication of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:E8B4:7D59:4CEC:B377 (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "According to the definition, ΔT = TT - UT, before around 1900, UT went faster than TT and ΔT should be negative, after 1900 UT goes slower than TT and ΔT should be positive." I disagree.
 * Using the table of ΔT in the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 on page K8–K9 ΔT the minimum of ΔT occurs in 1895 (-6.47 s) and the value closest to 0 is in 1902 (-0.02 s). If for discussion we neglect that distinction and pretend the minimum and the 0 value were both in 1900, consider time traveling from 1900. Before then, the length of the UT day was shorter than the TT day. (Treat TT as equivalent to ET for discussion). So a clock set to UT spins faster than a clock set to TT as we move back. In 1641 the difference would have accumulated to 60 seconds. 1600 Jan 1 12:00 UT would be 1 minute earlier than TT, so the same moment would have been 12:01. TT-UT = 1 min = 60 s.
 * Traveling into the future from 1900, the UT day is longer so the TT clock spins faster. The difference accumulates to 60 seconds in 1994. So at 1994 Jan 1 12:00 UT, the TT clock has spun more so reads 12:01. Calculating ΔT = 12:01 - 12:00 = 1 min = 60 s.
 * So ΔT is always positive with the approximations used for the discussion. The table shows in real life ΔT was positive except from 1872 to 1902. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As you, I was confused at the beginning of trying to resolve this problem. Just one question before going further: what is the ΔT between 1641 and 1994?
 * The two clocks model is quite right. UT clock is a real one, the rotation of the earth. TT (ET) clock is a fictitous one, as like the mean sun, a fictitious sun called by Jean Meeus. 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:10F7:17CA:640A:30AD (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The values given in the Astronomical Almanac are + 60 s for 1641 and + 59.98 s for 1994. The values in the table are computed differently for different year ranges, depending on what data was available for the ranges.
 * The pages with the data are only available by buying the paper publication, and it would be a pain to try to add those values here. There is another high-quality source online for the years 1846 to now at https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html
 * Also, I have seen online images of the Astronomical Almanac, since much of it is not copyrighted. You could search for that. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, I see the data from IERS is only valid starting in 1956, when atomic clocks came into use. There is an academic collaboration that has put the almanac online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210021820236&seq=7 Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Our discussion does not need a high precision of ΔT. Accoding to the parabolic model, the ΔT between 1641 and 1994 is zero or near zero. It means that UT in these two years is the same. Obviously, it is not true. 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:10F7:17CA:640A:30AD (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Earlier you asked "Just one question before going further: what is the ΔT between 1641 and 1994?" This is not a valid question. ΔT is the value of TT at a certain moment minus the value of UT at that same moment. The  ΔT btween 1641 and 1994 is meaningless. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "ΔT = 60 s in 1994" means that comparing to "ΔT = 0 in 1900", "ΔT = 60 s in 1994". One can compare the ΔT of any two time points.
 * We can regard things from a difrerent angle. dΔT/dt is the difference of the two rotation rates of the two clocks. A decreasing dΔT/dt means an increasing dUT/dt, but we know that the UT clock slows down during 1600 to 1900. 88.167.186.244 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: We can regard things from a difrerent angle. dΔT/dt is the difference of the two rotation rates of the two clocks. A decreasing dΔT/dt means that the UT clock run slower than that of TT clock, but we know that the UT clock run faster during 1600 to 1900. 2A01:E0A:9EE:BD20:7CB9:6263:F7DF:6A82 (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Stephenson FR, Morrison LV, Hohenkerk CY. 2016 Measurement of the Earth’s rotation: 720 BC to AD 2015. Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0404

title: Talk:Ephemeris time


text:
The Wars

The Wars is a 1977 novel by Timothy Findley that follows Robert Ross, a nineteen-year-old Canadian who enlists in World War I after the death of his beloved older sister in an attempt to escape both his grief and the social norms of oppressive Edwardian society. Drawn into the madness of war, Ross commits "a last desperate act to declare his commitment to life in the midst of death." Years later, a historian tries to piece together how he came to commit this act, interviewing the various people Ross interacted with.

Style
The Wars utilizes first-, second-, and third-person narrative points of view, which is very rare in literature. The narrative moves between voices, each telling part of Robert's story.

The novel is also an example of historiographic metafiction.

Prologue
A young man named Robert Ross is introduced as squatting in a tattered Canadian military uniform, with a pistol in hand. A nearby building is on fire, and a train is stopped. There is evidence of war, and Ross is shown to be in the company of a black horse and a dog. Robert, the horse, and the dog seem to have been together for a while, as they understand each other. He decides to free a herd of horses from the train, and the prologue ends with the horses, rider, and dog all running as a herd.

Part One
Robert Ross enlists in the army to escape the guilt he feels after the recent death of his sister, Rowena, who died from falling out of her wheelchair while playing with her beloved rabbits in the barn. Robert feels guilty because he was unable to save her since he was making love to his pillows in his bedroom when he should have been watching her. His mother orders Robert to kill the rabbits after Rowena's death; when he refuses, his father hires Teddy Budge to kill the rabbits. In an attempt to stop Teddy, Robert is beaten up. Later, while he soaks the resulting bruises in the bathtub, Robert's mother comes in to talk to him. Drunk and visibly upset, she says that she knows Robert wants to go to war, and she accepts that she cannot stop him.

Robert goes to army training. There, he meets Eugene Taffler, a lauded war hero. Taffler shows him how to break bottles with stones, prompting Robert to think of him as David throwing stones at Goliath. Robert then goes with his soldiers-in-training to a brothel named Wet Goods. He goes into a room with the prostitute Ella; when she realizes that he has accidentally ejaculated in his pants and therefore will not be having sex, she decides to pass the time by showing him a peephole into the next room. Here Robert sees Taffler having sadomasochistic sex with another man. Out of anger, Robert throws his boots at a mirror and a water jug, scaring Ella.

While sailing to England on the S.S. Massanabie, Robert must kill a horse that broke its leg. While struggling to kill the horse, he fires and misses many times before landing his shots.

Part Two
Robert is now in France and in charge of a convoy. While scouting ahead in the fog, he falls into a muddy sinkhole and nearly drowns. After saving himself, he is met by Poole and Levitt, two of his men. They eventually reach the dugout that will be their temporary home. There, they meet the three other men that live in the dugout: Devlin, Bonnycastle, and Rodwell.

Rodwell cares for injured animals he finds: birds, rabbits, toads, and hedgehogs. The rabbits painfully remind Robert of Rowena. However, Robert manages to build a bond with Rodwell, the only other civil soldier who cares and respects animals.

Robert remembers Harris, another soldier whom he had befriended on the ship when both fell ill. On land, Harris died two days before Robert was scheduled to leave for France. It is during their time in the infirmary together that Robert and Harris meet Taffler again. After Harris dies, Robert asks Taffler to help him in burying his friend. However, Robert learns that Harris has already been cremated. Disappointed by this turn of events, Robert and Taffler dump the ashes into the sea. Robert says, "This is not a military funeral. This is just a burial at sea. May we take off our caps?"

On February 28, 1916, the Germans set off a string of land mines, strategically placed along the St. Eloi Salient. The whole countryside goes up in flames. This is the second half of a battle that the Canadians thought was already over. "30,000 men would die and not an inch of land would be won."

Part Three
Robert is now experiencing trench warfare at its worst. Following a shelling of the dugout, his fellow soldier Levitt loses his mind, and Robert finds himself close to the brink.

Ordered to place guns in a location sure to be a deathtrap, Robert and his men find themselves on the wrong end of a gas attack in the middle of a freezing cold winter. Robert is instructed to place the guns in a crater that is formed by the shelling attacks. As he descends the side of crater, Robert slips and smashes his knees on a discarded machine gun, creatin the men start descending the side of crater, there is a sudden gas attack. The bottom of the crater is full of freezing water, and many begin jumping into it. Robert takes control with his pistol and instructs the men to urinate on strips of clothing and hold them over their faces. One man is too scared to urinate, and Robert must do it for him. The men then lie down, feigning death. Hours later, Robert finally sits up and surveys their surroundings. He immediately realizes that they are being watched by an enemy German soldier sitting at the lip of the crater. Rather than shooting the soldiers, the German allows all of Robert's men to escape the crater. Just as Robert is leaving, however, the German makes a quick motion, and Robert shoots the German. Thinking that the German had been reaching for his rifle, Robert is shocked when he realizes that the German was only reaching for a pair of binoculars to look at the bird flying overhead; Robert is even more horrified to see that the German had had a sniper rifle, meaning that he could have killed Robert and his men if he had wanted to. Robert hears a bird chirping above him and, from then on, is haunted by the sound.

Part Four
In an interview, Juliet d'Orsey explains that the d'Orsey home was converted into a hospital for soldiers during the war. It is here that Robert recovers from his own injuries sustained in Part Three. Once again he meets Taffler, another patient at the d'Orsey home; Robert is devastated to find that Taffler has lost both of his arms in the war. While Taffler seems to be in good spirits, he ends up attempting suicide; one day, as Juliet comes into Taffler's room to give him some flowers, she finds him trying to rub his raw arm stumps against the walls and subsequently bleed to death. Various people, including Robert, respond to Juliet's screams, and Taffler is saved.

Juliet tells Robert that his assigned room is haunted by the ghost Lady Sorrel, who comes into the room every night and lights the candles. One night, Juliet thinks it would be a neat prank to dress up as Lady Sorrel, walk into Robert's room, and light the candles. When Juliet opens the door, she sees Barbara and Robert Ross having sex, so violently that Juliet at first thinks that Robert is hurting Barbara. Although they do not see who opens the door, Juliet begins to feel guilty. When Robert eventually leaves the home, Juliet slips him a candle and a box of matches in an effort to explain herself and apologize.

Part Five
Robert heads back to battle on a small train. He gets hopelessly lost on the way and loses his pack. After many weeks of travelling in circles, he arrives at Désolé, a mental institution. In the bath house, he is brutally raped by four men. Although he assumes that they are patients of the institution, he is horrified to learn that they are fellow soldiers. When he returns to his room, he finally receives his lost pack. He burns his only picture of Rowena, as an act of charity, reasoning that it would be horrible for something so innocent to exist in such a perverse world.

Robert then returns to the front. The Germans begin firing shells. Robert asks Captain Leather to let the horses out of the barn, as they will die if the barn is hit, but Captain Leather refuses. Robert returns to the barn and asks his friend Devlin to help him release the horses. As Devlin runs out to open the gate, Captain Leather comes out of hiding and shoots Devlin dead. He then fires at Robert but misses. At that moment, three shells land. Soon everything is burning around Robert; even the horses are slowly burning alive. Robert finds Captain Leather and shoots him dead.

Robert runs away, as he knows he will be court-martialed for disobeying orders. He finds a black horse with a black dog beside an abandoned train. Before riding the horse down the track, he realizes that there are horses in the train. He frees 130 horses from the train and flees the area with them. As Robert is riding with all the horses, a soldier stops him and tries to force him to return the horses; Robert shoots him dead.

Robert is finally caught in a barn with the horses. The soldiers surrounding Robert set the barn on fire in an attempt to smoke him out. However, the doors of the barn are locked. Before Robert can open them, the roof collapses on him and the horses. Robert is saved but badly burned, and all the horses and possibly the dog are killed.

Robert turns down an offer of euthanasia from a nurse from Bois de Madeleine hospital before being sent to England and tried in absentia. Since he could not be kept in prison, he was given leave to stay in St Aubyn's for longterm treatment.

Juliet d'Orsey remains by Robert's side until his death in 1922. Mr. Ross is the only member of his family to come see Robert buried.

Robert Ross
The character of protagonist Robert Ross was inspired by T. E. Lawrence and the author's uncle, Thomas Irving Findley, to whom the author dedicated the novel. Findley named the character after Canadian literary figure Robbie Ross.

Robert Ross enlisted when he was eighteen and served as a second lieutenant in the Canadian field artillery from 1916-1917.

He is a compassionate, handsome fellow. He is also an idealist, hindered by youth and inexperience. Robert's personality is serious, practical, determined, and observant of things that other people cannot see. His observations also allow him to react quickly to the situations he encounters in this novel. Robert suffers great guilt over the accidental death of his sister, Rowena, who died from a fall onto cement ground in the barn. After Rowena's death, Robert became distant from his mother and much closer to his father, who continued to support and encourage him throughout his experience in the war.

Rowena's death also leaves him with violent streaks and leads an internal war with himself while also trying to cope with the war going on in the world. Even though Robert is determined, he was not a natural killer; this weakness was seen in his inability to kill the injured horse or Rowena's rabbits. Robert strove to learn from Eugene Taffler, whom Robert hoped could help teach him to kill by example. After all the terrible things Robert witnesses, he gradually descends into madness, and goes AWOL. He kills two fellow officers in an attempt to save hundreds of horses from slaughter.

He dies of his war wounds several years after the war ends.

Rowena Ross
Rowena is Robert's older sister, with whom Robert felt a connection from a very early age. She was hydrocephalic, meaning she was born with water in the brain. This caused her to have an adult-sized head but a body of a ten-year-old, and made her unable to walk. Robert acted as her guardian for most of his life. She was 25 years old when she fell out of her wheelchair onto the concrete floor of their barn and died as a result. Robert took it as his duty to protect her, but Robert was in his room masturbating when she fell out of her chair. Thus, he feels guilty throughout the novel for inadvertently causing her death. She remains in Robert's heart and mind throughout the novel and is constantly referenced.

Rowena had ten rabbits that she looked after and kept as pets while she was alive, but Mrs. Ross insisted that they be killed, against Robert's wishes, shortly after Rowena's death. Robert's desperate attempts to save animals throughout his war experiences reflects his love for the dead animal-loving sister.

The character of Rowena was inspired by Mary Macdonald, daughter of Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, who was similarly afflicted with hydrocephalus.

Thomas Ross
Commonly referred to as Mr. Ross in the novel, he is the wealthy father of protagonist Robert Ross. He was the more lenient parent in the family and loved every member enough to encourage Robert to go for what he wants while withstanding the accusations surrounding Rowena's death. His relationship with his wife became helpless after Rowena's death and Robert's enlisting in the army. He has a strong relationship with his son Robert, and he is the only member of the family to attend Robert's funeral.

Marian Turner
Marian Turner is a young nurse during the war. She cares for Robert when he is injured late in the novel, but the reader is introduced to her earlier. Via transcripts of interviews, an 80-year-old Marian gives accounts of what Robert was like as a young man, and of life during the war.

Lady Juliet d'Orsey
Juliet d'Orsey gives an account of Robert, whom she knew at the age of twelve and for whom she had romantic feelings. She is Barbara d'Orsey's younger sister, who saw too much and acted too maturely for her age. She seems to be the only character who understands the delicate homoerotic undertones in male friendships without being confused or disturbed by them.

Lady Barbara d'Orsey
This lady is Juliet's older sister, who became Robert's lover at a point in the novel. She was uncaring and moved easily from one man to another. She admired athletes and heroes. She constantly frustrated the delicate homoerotic relationships around her without understanding her own destructiveness.

Eugene Taffler
This man was a war hero who was often accompanied by a dog and a horse. From the very beginning when he is first introduced, he plays the game of hitting bottles off of posts with stones, displaying strength and perfect accuracy. This reflects Taffler's reputation in the war as a soldier who kills as though it were some kind of game.

He later loses his arms. When Taffler loses his arms he no longer wants to live because his arms were so much a part of him and his identity that without them he doesn't have the will to live. He attempts suicide, by rubbing his stubs against the wall, but is thwarted by Lady Juliet d'Orsey. Taffler's reputation and self-image are linked closely with his arms. First as he's introduced using them to hit bottles with stones, and even later when he helps Robert toss Harris's ashes into the river.

Taffler is a complex character because although when introduced, Robert makes Taffler his model of masculinity. Later, upon discovering him having sex with the Swede, Robert's homophobia causes him to cease regarding Taffler as a role model. Nevertheless, Taffler goes on to have a seemingly heterosexual relationship with Barbara d'Orsey. It is also noteworthy that Robert himself may have been struggling with his own homosexual tendencies.

Harris
Robert meets Harris in the ship's infirmary. Harris's condition grows progressively worse while in England and he eventually dies before being sent off to France. While under Robert's care at a hospital, Harris talks at great length of his love of the sea. Robert describes Harris as someone he loved deeply.

Introduction by Guy Vanderhaeghe (2005)
In Penguin's Modern Classic edition, published 2005, Canadian author Guy Vanderhaeghe wrote the “Introduction” for The Wars. Vanderhaeghe describes his first experience reading the novel on the “last leg of a long bus trip.” Vanderhaeghe states that he could not stop reading and, upon finishing the book, he was "strangely exalted and disturbed by an encounter with a novel harrowing and uplifting, a novel that was both a marvelous work of art and a passionate indictment of the first cruel idiocy of the twentieth century." Vanderhaeghe also sets The Wars in the context of other works of historical war fiction. His main distinction between The Wars and works like War and Peace, The Naked and the Dead, From Here to Eternity, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and A Farewell to Arms is the compressed size of The Wars, usually being under two hundred pages (depending on the edition). Vanderhaeghe points towards Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front as being perhaps the only other work to "so efficiently compress and crystallize the horrors of combat in so few pages." Vanderhaeghe continues, however, that "But unlike Remarque, Findley achieves this impressive economy by piecing together a collage of arresting images and brief, telling scenes that not only cohere in a compelling narrative but whose form mimics the fractured lives of soldiers and civilians shattered by war."

Throughout his introduction, Vanderhaeghe also argues that "The Wars is the finest historical novel ever written by a Canadian," ending with the personal confession that "The Wars has always been, and shall remain for me, the loveliest, the most moving of novels."

Wars
The plural "Wars" in the title implies that there are multiple conflicts within the novel. Robert's time in the army and his personal conflicts are among them, creating both external and internal struggles. Guy Vanderhaeghe, in his introduction to The Wars in Penguiern Classics 2005 edition, states that "Like the frieze of horse and dog, or the occasional glimpse of Harris's blue scarf, the wars [emphasis in original] hovers in the reader's consciousness, heard as the faintest of dire whispers. It is as impossible to boil simple meaning from these two words as it is to impute clear and unambiguous motives' for Ross's actions, or to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

The bald third-person summaries of casualties, contrasted with Robert's idealized view of war, also heighten the book's impact on readers.

Animals
Animals appear throughout the story. Among the most common or meaningful:
 * Birds represent danger and often appear as a sort of warning, with an attack following every time that Robert notices that the birds have stopped singing. Birds are sometimes shown to reflect what Robert is feeling. Birds also represent life and the personal freedom for which Robert fights.
 * The coyote represents the relationship between man and beast. It symbolizes companionship and loyalty, as the coyote willingly ran with Robert.
 * Rabbits appear throughout the novel, most notably as the pets that Rowena kept and that Robert was told to kill after her death. Rabbits, along with Rowena, symbolize innocence and purity.
 * Horses appear throughout the novel as well. Horses bring Robert to Eugene Taffler: Robert was corralling mustangs when he came across Taffler, who had returned and reenlisted in the war. The horse was often used in the novel as a means of transportation and companionship. When Robert finds a black mare while attempting to free a group of doomed military horses; this refers to the Book of Revelation, in which St. John the Divine describes a vision of a black horse whose rider is holding balances. In Robert's mind, the horses from the abandoned train represent his men, whom he had also been unable to save, as well as the last living creatures that he can attempt to protect. Horses also represent the happiness that Robert experienced before the war, as demonstrated in the old photograph of Rowena on a pony.

Elements
The four classical elements of earth, air, fire, and water are all featured in the novel. They each represent a trial that Robert Ross must overcome on his journey:
 * Earth appears as the mud that almost claims Robert's life in Ypres.
 * Air represents life. In the chlorine gas attack against the Allies, Robert neutralizes it with urine.
 * Fire represents destruction, pain, and death. It appears as gunfire, artillery fire, and flamethrowers. Harris's body is cremated instead of being buried. Finally, the flaming barn which appears in the Prologue and in Part Five claims the lives of Robert's horses and dog.
 * Water represents change: Robert takes a bath after Rowena's death; the skies are snowing at Rowena's funeral; Robert stands in the rain at the train station; the snow begins to melt when Mrs Ross leaves the church; and the war trenches are filled with rain.

Pistol
Robert's pistol is a powerful symbol of authority and security. It is also a tool with which Robert vents his violent feelings, such as when Juliet witnesses him destroying a tree with his gun.

In other media
A feature film version of The Wars was released in 1983. The film was directed by Robin Phillips from a screenplay written by Findley, and starred Brent Carver as Robert Ross.

The novel has also been adapted for the stage by Dennis Garnhum. It premiered at Theatre Calgary in September 2007.

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

title: The Wars


text:
Tuberous morning glory

Tuberous morning glory can refer to these plants:

 * Ipomoea batatas or sweet potato
 * Merremia tuberosa or Spanish arborvine

title: Tuberous morning glory


text: Talk:Education in Tasmania

title: Talk:Education in Tasmania


text:
Pite River

The Pite River (Bidumedno in Pite Sami. Piteälven, Pite älv or Piteå älv in Swedish.) is a river in northern Sweden, flowing through the Norrbotten County. It is one of the four major rivers in Norrland that have been left mostly untouched by water power plants, the river has a single dam at Sikfors approximately 15 km upstream from the sea.

It starts in the large lakes in eastern Sweden, such as Tjeggelvas, Vuolvojaure and Labbas, in Jokkmokk Municipality, and flows to the east coast, discharging in the Gulf of Bothnia, in the Piteå Municipality.

It has a length of 400 kilometers, covering an area of 11,200 km².

Its largest waterfall is Storforsen, which has also become the most popular place to visit in Norrbotten. It is located in Älvsbyn Municipality.

title: Pite River


text:
Talk:Jainosaurus

...and "Jain" is who, exactly? DS 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reference for the length estimate?
I am preparing to do a complete overhaul of this page, because it needs it, including more information and some polishing. I find it intriguing though that both this page and the Isisaurus page mention each Dinosaur to be around 18 metres in length (Both of them having the same length does hold some strength, as their humerus are of similar length, with Jainosaurus having a slightly smaller humerus at 1.3 metres, but that is probably due to poorer preservation (Wilson et al. 2008)) But neither pages cite any reference for the length estimates, I have read a lot of literature on both the dinosaurs, and one of them did say that they were medium built sauropods, but so far none of them has given me an exact estimate on eithers length, same goes for the height as the current page says that Jainosaurus held it's head 6 metres above the ground, but does not cite any source for this. Any help with finding a source for their size would be appreciated. Thanks, Ansh Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing the size estimates for now
Hello! I have been closely monitoring the pages of Indian Dinosaurs and working on revising some of them. My concern revolves around both Jainosaurus and Isisaurus for now. Both their Wikipedia pages mention that their lengths were 18 metres, the page about Isisaurus even mentions the weight of the animal. However, neither page cites any sources for their estimates. I spent a lot of effort to find any verification for these estimates, I for example read every single piece of literature I could find on these two animals online. Unfortunately none of them estimates the sizes of either animals. As a last ditch effort, I emailed Dr. Wilson and Prof. D’Emic, both of whom authored the detailed reassessment of Indian Titanosaurs in 2010. They both told me that no estimates for the sizes of these animals actually exist due to insufficient material.

That’s right, the estimates on both the pages don’t have any sources to back them up and come from nowhere. As such, I am removing both the pages’ claims about the animals’ sizes for now under Wikipedia’s no original research policy.

The good news is that Dr. Wilson did refer me to a method to determine the size of Sauropods by analysing the cross sections of their femur and humerus to determine their mass. This method might be possible to be applied to Jainosaurus, and I am going to do it, if I come to any conclusions about their sizes I will try my best to get the research published in a peer reviewed journal and finally cite the size of at least one of these dinosaurs. But for now, consider their sizes indeterminate. Thanks, have a good day, Ansh Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jainosaurus


text:
User:Dividim

=dvd ankara=

Ankara'da DVD izlemenin en kolay ve en hesapli yolu.
www.dividim.com

- Ayrica yüzlerce orjinal poster.
=dividim= =dvd ankara sinema poster kira oyuncu=

title: User:Dividim


text:
Talk:Fore-Caucasus

Old talk
I merged all the info provided by the original author into the North Caucasus article, and made this a redirect. Also made a redirect at Ciscaucasus. I don't believe anyone disputes that these are synonyms. North Caucasus is the usual term in English. Google hits:

Ciscaucasus: 29 (mostly geologists) Fore-Caucasus: 359 (mostly history) North Caucasus: over 1,200,000

title: Talk:Fore-Caucasus


text:
Computer-aided facility management

Computer-aided facility management (CAFM) is the support of facility management by information technology. The supply of information about the facilities is the center of attention. The tools of the CAFM are called CAFM software, CAFM applications or CAFM systems. CAFM is often interchangeably with CMMS since both categories of software practically fulfill the same purposes.

History
The International Facility Management Association (IFMA) defines facility management as the practice of coordinating the physical workplace with the people and work of the organization. It integrates the principles of business administration, architecture and the behavioral and engineering sciences. As such, facility management has been practiced, whether specifically identified as its own discipline or not, since the inception of the business organization. It has evolved over the years through the development and codification of processes into a clearly defined field of expertise.

title: Computer-aided facility management


text:
User talk:Occono

 * User talk:Occono/archive

Your draft article, Draft:The Goldfinch (painting)

Hello, Occono. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Goldfinch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of deprecated parameter
Hey Occono,

just a quick heads-up, I noticed that in your recent revision of Big Finish Productions, you used the dead-url parameter in several citations. This parameter was deprecated a while ago and now causes an "Unknown parameter ignored" error message. The appropriate replacement is url-status or urlstatus, which can be set to either dead or live. Kind regards, AngryHarpy (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, I'll keep that in mind and fix that now, thank you.-- occono (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Monotown and company town
Hi, you added templates about merging Company town to Monotown but failed to begin a discussion explaining why you think the articles should be merged. Please follow the steps at WP:MERGEINIT, thanks! Schazjmd  (talk)  00:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style, Video Games
Some games are released in 'PAL' but since most if not all are converting or already converted to different outputs, should this maybe be changed to accord to that. as in the Manual of Style, it states games released in PAL? any help on this would be nice, thankyou :) EzeeWiki (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Occono


text:
User talk:EKBK

I have used Wikipedia as a source, and never bothered doing any editing. When I noticed what I considered a good definition being continually slammed down after the user was obviously working hard to come up with something better than the lame one it replaced, I went in and reverted it, only to be promptly blocked by some person called jayjg, and termed a "sockpuppet". What a trip. I emailed a few administrators, including him, and got nowhere. That makes me think its more important for the administrators here(at least Jayjg and Angela, the ones I contacted) to stick together than be fair. Apparently USERS of the site aren't as important as EDITORS! --EKBK 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Aside from the fact that you're more than a "user", you are in fact an editor (you become an editor when you edit something... including a revert), Angela seems to have unblocked you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * She also warned me to not do anything else that would get me blocked. Seeing as how I only expressed my opinion between the two articles in question by picking the one I liked best, as per Wikipedia 3RR instructions, it looks like it's pretty hard to avoid getting blocked or called names unless I stay just a user.  --EKBK 22:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unalienable Rights
Thanks for speaking up when you see blatantly corrupt editing. You should see this guy, Mel, over at Inalienable rights. He's changed the wording of the Declaration of Independence from unalienable to inalienable. If you want to speak up about this too, please feel free. -- Zephram Stark 22:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Why, thank you! I do believe I will go check it out! I haven't been a big contributor here, but big or small, we all count, right? --EKBK 15:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked this account indefinitely as a sockpuppet used to violate policy. If you feel this block is unfair or mistaken, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What a joke! I emailed you SEVERAL times the FIRST time I was blocked. I used my regular email, which made my IP apparent. What do you want, an invitation to dinner? This is absolutely ridiculous. I broke no rules, and you know I am not a sockpuppet. You are intimidated by anyone who voices an opinion on any page Zephram Stark edits, that's what has become obvious to me.--EKBK 15:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * By all means e-mail me, and we can discuss how you can show you're a genuine editor. I'm very willing to be persuaded. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked this account. Feel free to post evidence or something that's convincing (other than your say-so) as to why this user should be blocked. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also unprotected this page... I'm not sure why it was protected in the first place. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Account has been re-blocked by SlimVirgin and this talk page re-protected as well. I have not yet unblocked the account again, but I am unprotecting this page. No reason was given on Protected page, and I had to dig in the protection logs to find SV's stated reason. The given rationale "indefinitely blocked user continued to post" is not a commonly accepted reason to protect a page. Furthermore, even if it were, the failure to follow procedure (leave a notice of protection on this page and a rationale on WP:Pp) alone would justify my unprotection. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Dante. I re-iterate: I am NOT Zephram Stark, or anyone else other than ME! Slim Virgin, I went over to Dante's discussion page and found you were discussing the fact I had emailed you, and that I had sent you a few examples of my work. You promised our emails would be CONFIDENTIAL, and here you are publicly stating elements of such. It's not a joke to me, and I do not appreciate the fact you made it impossible for me to respond here. You asked me to email you from a different email other than my hotmail, and when I told you I am not allowed to use my work email for personal stuff, you didn't offer an alternative OR accept alternatives I offered(which, I may add, would have given you DEFINITIVE proof I am not anyone other than who I say I am). The fact I do not go online at home is not a reason to discriminate against me. My IP is plain to see when I send directly from hotmail, so what's the problem? Do you want an email with a header that shows my NAME? Why should I have to jump through these hoops? I don't know you from Adam. This source, Wikipedia, is supposed to be a fair and impartial place. I stated some opinions on another user's posts and you seem to be trying to do your level best to make sure I can't do that again. I can think of no other plausible reason for your actions. It's unfortunate. I wish to be un-blocked immediately, and to add that you have treated me in a biased and unfair way.--EKBK 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)(NOTE: EKBK wishes me to clarify that there was an error in the above, it was SV's user talk page not mine where EKBK asserts that confidence was violated. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

title: User talk:EKBK


text:
Wisconsin State Fair

The Wisconsin State Fair is an annual event held at the Wisconsin State Fair Park in West Allis, Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee. The modern fair takes place in August (occasionally beginning late July) and lasts 11 days.

History
The first Wisconsin State Fair was held in 1851 in Janesville, with approximately 13,000 to 18,000 people in attendance. Sponsored by the state's Agricultural Society, it was held on a six-acre plot along the banks of the Rock River. It featured a 200-pound squash and a quarter-acre plowing competition with teams of horses and oxen. It was reportedly the largest gathering in Wisconsin history.

When the second fair was held in Milwaukee in 1852, fairgoers took their carriages for rides around the Cold Spring Race Course.

Abraham Lincoln was invited to give the annual oration at the fair in 1859. He spoke on the principles of free labor - farmers and their families working for themselves without the use of hired labor - and of the interconnectedness of farmers, merchants, and other businesses. He advised farmers to embrace new methods of agriculture, with the goal of raising the standard of living.

The fair added new attractions each year, and in 1869, there was a fire engine demonstration where boxes, barrels and a large wooden building were set aflame. For decades, the fair moved from city to city, including Janesville, Watertown, Fond du Lac, Madison and Milwaukee, until 1892, when it was first held at its permanent and present location at Wisconsin State Fair Park.

During the 2011 fair, a small but violent flash mob was formed and began attacking fairgoers, with some witnesses stating that the attacks were racially-motivated. Eighteen people, including seven police officers, were injured during the event. In response, fair managers added a youth curfew and worked with civic and youth leaders to prevent a recurrence.

On May 28, 2020, the state fair's board of directors announced the cancellation of the 2020 State Fair, due to the state's COVID-19 pandemic. Previous Fairs had been cancelled in 1917 and 1918, then 1942 through 1945, all due to World Wars I and II.

The Milwaukee Mile
The Milwaukee Mile is a one-mile paved oval racing circuit on the grounds of the State Fair. It is the oldest continuously-operated motor racing circuit in the world. Racing or exhibition events are often held on the circuit in conjunction with the state fair.

Events and entertainment
Yearly features at the fair include a wide variety of vendors, many local and national bands, the Kids From Wisconsin, and a large assortment of food and drink, including cream puffs, which are one of the fair's most popular attractions. In 2010, the Wisconsin State Fair introduced Comet 2, a forty-foot roller coaster. New in 2012, the Wisconsin State Fair took over the Midway, creating Spin City, a collection of independently contracted rides including the Sizzler, the Freak Out, and the Stratosphere, a 200-foot-tall swing ride.

The Main Stage features headline performance every evening of the fair. Many local bands can also be seen on smaller stages and pavilions located throughout the grounds.

Agricultural exhibits of horses, cattle, sheep, chickens and other animals are featured every year at the fair.

The Wisconsin State Fair is also home of the Wisconsin Wine Garden. Established in 1996 by the then ten member-wineries of the Wisconsin Winery Association, the Wine Garden features wines from dozens of Wisconsin wineries.

Fairgoer demographics

 * Average age of a fairgoer: 40
 * 84% of fairgoers reside in Wisconsin – half of them live in metropolitan Milwaukee
 * Average visits to the fair: 3 times
 * Average hours spent at the fair: 5 – 7 hours

Attendance

 * Attendance: 1,130,572 in 2019

title: Wisconsin State Fair


text:
Grant Mitchell (EastEnders)

Grant Mitchell is a fictional character from the British soap opera EastEnders, played by Ross Kemp. He was introduced by producer Michael Ferguson to revamp the show, and originally served as one of the show's leading protagonists throughout the 1990s; with the character first appearing in 22 February 1990 and then departing on 25 October 1999 after Kemp had opted to leave the show. He then returned to the show on 24 October 2005 for a few weeks and returned again between March and June 2006. Kemp was persuaded to return to the role for brief stints during a period of heavy media criticism aimed at EastEnders. The return proved to be a ratings success. Kemp reprised the role of Grant for various guest stints in 2016, appearing in twelve episodes between 13 May and 9 September. An archived recording of his voice was heard on 25 January 2022. On 26 July 2022, it was announced that Grant would feature in a flashback episode focusing on the Mitchell family in 1979. Teddy Jay played the role of Grant for this special episode, which aired on 5 September 2022.

Throughout the course of his 1990s duration, Grant established himself as one of the show's most prominent characters. He was portrayed as a tough persona, known for his fiery temper and his tendency to resort to violence. Despite this, however, his family is important to him – particularly his relationship with his older brother Phil (Steve McFadden). Known as the "Mitchell brothers", Grant and Phil have become household names in the United Kingdom – due to their association with the stereotypical black leather jacket-wearing bald and brutal thug. They have been parodied even in adverts where their gruff, tough talking, cockney accents have been impersonated. One of EastEnders' most popular and highly rated storylines was "Sharongate", where Grant discovers that his wife Sharon Watts (Letitia Dean) has been having an affair with his brother. In light of this iconic revelation, Grant attacked Phil and exacted revenge on Sharon until she departed the programme following her betrayal. Grant then went on to embark on a second marriage with local barmaid Tiffany Raymond (Martine McCutcheon), up to the point where she gave birth to their daughter – Courtney. However, their marriage ended in tragedy when Grant’s stepfather Frank Butcher accidentally runs her down.

The character has also become a prime suspect in the murder of Sharon's hated boss Eddie Royle (Michael Melia); sparked a longstanding feud with her best-friend Michelle Fowler (Susan Tully); clashed with Peggy's campaign rival George Palmer (Paul Moriarty); developed a close friendship with local shopkeeper Nigel Bates (Paul Bradley); formed a conflict with Sam's former boyfriend David Wicks (Michael French); slept with David's wife Lorraine Wicks (Jacqueline Leonard) they secretly harbored feelings for each other; cheated on Tiffany by having an affair with her mother Louise (Carol Harrison); triggered a rivalry with his archenemy Beppe di Marco (Michael Greco); disputed with Beppe's younger brother Gianni (Marc Bannerman); worked with Palmer's daughter Annie (Nadia Sawalha) on a jointed business venture at the local gym; established an antagonistic business partnership with Phil's would-be sworn nemesis, Steve Owen (Martin Kemp); had a one-night stand with Phil's estranged wife Kathy Beale (Gillian Taylforth); exonerated Sam for the murder of Sharon's adopted father, Den (Leslie Grantham), by proving to his ex-wife that her stepmother Chrissie (Tracy-Ann Oberman) was responsible for the crime; teamed up with Phil to confront their mother's gangland enemy, Johnny Allen (Billy Murray), and get justice for the death of Sharon's adopted brother-turned-second husband Dennis Rickman (Nigel Harman) in the Get Johnny Week scenario; infuriated Kathy's son Ian (Adam Woodyatt) after sleeping with his eventual lover Jane (Laurie Brett) prior to their wedding; ended his third ill-fated marriage to Carla (Christianne Oliveira) upon learning that she turned him against Courtney; and discovered that he is the father of Michelle's secret son, Mark (Ned Porteous), in light of coping with losing his mother Peggy to cancer.

Despite his tough nature, he is also a womaniser and has been involved in several relationships with an array of women – including Julie Cooper (Louise Plowright), Nina Harris (Troy Titus-Adams), Chelsea Fox (Tiana Benjamin) and Belinda Peacock (Carli Norris). While he has calmed down in recent years, Grant is still feared by people in and around Walford.

1990–1999
Grant Mitchell first arrived in Albert Square in February 1990 with his older brother Phil (Steve McFadden), and the pair become co-owners of the local garage, The Arches. Grant had returned to civilian life in London having been a paratrooper in the Army, which included serving in the Falklands War at the age of 19. After a brief fling with Julie Cooper (Louise Plowright) and getting involved in various dodgy deals, Grant starts wooing the local barmaid, Sharon Watts (Letitia Dean). She grows attracted to his machismo, and soon their flirting progresses into a relationship. Fiercely protective of his girlfriend, most of Grant's initial problems in the Square revolve around his over-possessive nature and jealousy. He puts Sharon's boss Eddie Royle (Michael Melia), the landlord of The Queen Victoria public house, in hospital after he makes a pass at Sharon; he later becomes prime suspect for Royle's murder, but is proved not guilty when the killer is revealed to be Nick Cotton (John Altman), the well established local villain who eventually owns up to the crime but is found not guilty in court. In the wake of this, Grant decides to re-enlist in the army; however, he is left despondent after getting rejected for failing their psychiatric tests.

Despite his hot-headed tendencies, Sharon sees a different side to Grant, and when he proposes marriage to her, she accepts on the condition that he buys her childhood home, The Queen Vic, which he does. Grant marries Sharon in December 1991 and together they run The Queen Vic. Their marriage is stormy and punctuated with violent rows and fights. Grant is desperate for a child, although Sharon would rather concentrate on the pub for the time being, and when he discovers Sharon is still taking contraception, he smashes up the pub and then disappears. In his absence, Sharon is comforted by Phil and they begin an affair, although this comes to an abrupt end when Grant returns and promises to change his ways. He cannot live up to his promises, however, and, on Sharon's birthday in October 1992, Grant sets fire to The Queen Vic to generate insurance money to pay off debts. He does not check to see whether Sharon is out of the way, and she and her dog Roly nearly die in the blaze. The insurance money is insufficient, and Sharon reacts with fury when she discovers what Grant has done. She leaves Grant for a while, and, when she returns and attempts to seize control of The Queen Vic, Grant turns violent, assaults Sharon and her best friend, Michelle Fowler (Susan Tully), and is imprisoned on remand. While he is in prison, Sharon and Phil rekindle their affair, but neither can confess to Grant, and it ends when he is released from prison. Sharon and Grant patch up their relationship; however, in the autumn of 1994, Grant discovers a tape on which Sharon talks about her affair with Phil, and plays it to a packed pub at Phil's engagement party to his fiancée, Kathy Beale (Gillian Taylforth). In response, Grant batters Phil – leaving him with a ruptured spleen – and is abusive towards Sharon until she flees to the United States, signalling the end of their marriage after just three years. She returns briefly to enact revenge – making Grant realise that he is still in love with her, he chooses to be with Sharon over his family. Sharon is ready to turn him down in front of a packed pub and his family; however, in the end, she cannot go through with it, and stops him from publicly proposing before he humiliates himself. She then tells him that she no longer loves him, before returning to the US, leaving Grant heartbroken. They are then divorced and do not see each other for more than 10 years after this. Michelle has a volatile relationship with Grant but, following Sharon's exit, falls pregnant following a one-night stand with him and then flees to the US without telling Grant that he is to be a father. Grant would not find out that the baby is his until years later.

With Sharon and Michelle both gone, he goes on to marry the much younger Tiffany Raymond (Martine McCutcheon), who soon becomes pregnant – although it is unclear whether he or Tiffany's ex-partner Tony (Mark Homer) is the father of her child. When Grant discovers this, he is incensed and throws Tiffany out. He begins a relationship with Lorraine Wicks (Jacqueline Leonard), until a paternity test reveals that Grant is the father of her baby, Courtney (Carissa and Josephine O'Meara), who is born in March 1997. He reunites with Tiffany to be near his daughter, but by this time his marriage has deteriorated. During an argument, Tiffany falls down the stairs of the Vic and is seriously injured, but makes a full recovery. Just after Christmas 1998, Tiffany discovers that Grant has had an affair with her mother Louise Raymond (Carol Harrison), and plans to flee to Spain with Courtney. However, Grant discovers her plan and retrieves Courtney. Tiffany attempts to snatch Courtney, but is hit by a car driven by Grant's stepfather Frank Butcher (Mike Reid); she dies seconds later as the clock struck midnight. Grant tries to move on by dating barmaid Nina Harris (Troy Titus-Adams) for a while, but dumps her after discovering her past as a prostitute.

It is at this point that Grant and Phil have established themselves as the undisputed hardman of the square's local borough – Walford; the pair have spent the entirety of the 1990s decade embarking on criminal activities, amongst other separate shenanigans. Despite the majority of occasions when the pair clashed, particularly in the follow-up to Phil's affair with Sharon, the two brothers remained faithful to each other. This impact heightens in 1999 when Grant goes into partnership with Phil's new enemy Steve Owen (Martin Kemp), and they end up having a feud – which ends with Grant punching Steve after getting annoyed with his disrespectful attitude towards him. By then, Grant and Phil have conducted a plan to cheat some gangsters by intercepting a drug deal and stealing a large amount of cash – in order to take care of their debts. The job is initially successful, but it quickly grows obstructive when Phil finds out that Grant had slept his ex-wife Kathy before doing the job. He confronts Grant after the job and Grant admits he did it in revenge for Phil’s affair with Sharon. As they attempt to flee from the oncoming police, Phil pulls out a gun and shoots the steering wheel in their getaway car – causing Grant to plunge the car into the River Thames. Phil is rescued, but Grant is not found and presumed dead. It soon transpires a week later that Grant has survived, and he leaves the country with both Courtney and the stolen money to Rio de Janeiro. He does not return to Walford for six years, although he remains in contact with his mother and brother.

2005–2006
Grant returns to Walford with Phil to exonerate their younger sister, Sam (Kim Medcalf), for the murder of her ex-boss and Sharon's adopted father – Den Watts (Leslie Grantham). Although she was involved in the events surrounding Den's murder, Sam was framed for the crime by his widow and her nemesis Chrissie (Tracy-Ann Oberman) – the real murderer. Grant manages to put behind him his differences with both Phil and Sharon, forgiving Sharon when she confesses that she aborted his child. The two brothers manage to convince Sharon that Chrissie is the real killer and that Sam is innocent. Whilst teaming up with Phil and Sharon to prove Sam's innocence, Grant forms a rivalry with her husband Dennis Rickman (Nigel Harman) – who had previously teamed up with Den to imprison Phil for robbery. Grant and Dennis soon put their differences aside to help Phil with their conflict against Johnny Allen (Billy Murray), the local gangland kingpin who holds a grudge against the Mitchell brothers because of their mother – Peggy (Barbara Windsor). When Johnny extracts CCTV footage of Chrissie confessing to her boyfriend Jake Moon (Joel Beckett) that she killed Den, he plans to use the tape as bait for Phil and Grant – intending to kill them. The brothers eventually beat Johnny at his nightclub office in order to get the tape, which is promptly delivered to the police; as a result, Sam is released from prison and Chrissie is arrested for Den's murder.

Following Sam's release, Grant initially returns to Rio – only to later come back to Walford with Courtney (now played by Megan Jossa), citing family and financial problems back in Brazil. When Phil learns about his brother's return, he tricks Grant into helping him with quest against Johnny. During Grant's absence, Phil and Johnny embarked on a feud that led to Dennis and Sharon getting involved. The impact escalated after Dennis humiliated Johnny on Christmas Day 2005, which prompted Johnny to throttle Sharon with an ultimatum; Dennis will be killed unless she and him leave Walford for good. On the eve of 2006 commencing, Dennis learned from Phil about the threat Johnny made to Sharon – as well as being told that Johnny killed his best-friend and Sam's ex-husband, Andy Hunter (Michael Higgs), on the same night Chrissie killed Den. This resulted in Dennis beating up Johnny, who then ordered Jake's brother Danny (Jake Maskall) – his henchman – to kill Dennis. Following Dennis' murder, Phil was wracked with guilt for sparking the events of Sharon losing her husband and has vowed revenge on Johnny more than ever. After hearing Phil explain his reasons for wanting to bring Johnny to justice for killing Dennis, specifically as a promise he made to Sharon before she left Walford, Grant reluctantly accompanies his brother in settling their score with Johnny once and for all. Their efforts quickly falter by Grant arguing with Phil about the situation he has put them in, all the while Phil demands Grant to maintain their course against Johnny – who uses this opportunity to capture the brothers. Johnny later orders Danny to kill the brothers and bury them in the woods. After marching them into the forest for execution, Danny prepares to kill Grant; however, the brothers are saved when Jake appears and shoots Danny – accidentally killing him. After telling the brothers that it was Danny who killed Dennis on Johnny's orders, Jake allows Phil and Grant to flee whilst he himself proceeds to bury Danny in the woods. Phil and Grant rush back to Johnny's mansion to confront him once more, only to find out that he has already been arrested; Johnny surrendered to the police after his daughter, Ruby (Louisa Lytton) threatened to disown her father unless he confessed to his crimes. Following his arrest, Johnny is sentenced to life imprisonment and later dies of a heart attack – allowing Phil and Grant to finally put their demons to reason for good. The brothers reconcile after Phil apologises to Grant for the situation he put them in, and Grant forgives Phil for his actions.

As time goes on, Grant begins flirting with Jane Collins (Laurie Brett) – the girlfriend of Kathy's son Ian (Adam Woodyatt) – after seducing her. Their affair ends when Phil catches them together and Grant then has a one-night stand with 19-year-old Chelsea Fox – to his mother's outrage. Shortly after, his estranged Brazilian wife, Carla (Christianne Oliveira), shows up in Walford. Grant and Carla resume their relationship, but Carla's ex-partner Ray (David Kennedy) soon arrives to retrieve £12,000 that Carla has stolen from him. Carla and Ray resume their affair and plan to fleece Grant for £25,000. Grant learns of Carla's scam; unbeknownst to Carla he chases Ray away and leads Carla to believe he has fallen for her lies. Grant catches her attempting to steal his money and reacts by dumping her in a litter bin, ending their marriage. After quitting his job at the newly reopened Scarlet nightclub, currently owed by Jake following Johnny's imprisonment, Grant leaves the country again with Courtney for a new life in Portugal.

2016
In May 2016, Peggy returns to Albert Square following a diagnosis of terminal cancer. She decides to stop her treatment, but Phil tries to change her mind, enlisting the help of Sharon. Sharon then calls Grant in Portugal, leaving a voicemail saying that his family needs him. Grant returns to the square for the first time in nearly a decade soon after and walks in on Phil and Peggy. He plans to take Peggy with him back to Portugal, only for her to say that her cancer is active. Grant is angry when Peggy reveals that her plan for him and Sam to learn about it was by letters to them after her death by suicide, however Phil and Grant seemingly convince Peggy not to do this. Grant tells Phil he immediately needs the money that he lent him. Knowing he cannot get it, Grant threatens him unless he returns the money. Grant returns to Portugal, and Sharon has to call him about Peggy having killed herself. When Sam returns to Walford for Peggy's funeral, she reveals that Grant is unable to attend the funeral, although Grant secretly attends, laying a flower and watching from a distance.

When Grant's nephew Ben Mitchell (Harry Reid) goes missing and Phil is reluctant to get the police involved, Sharon contacts Grant for help, but Courtney (now played by Alice Nokes) meets Sharon instead; Grant has not seen the messages. Sharon decides to go to the police and finds Grant outside the police station as a result of being drunk and disorderly. Grant goes to The Queen Vic where he flirts with Belinda Peacock (Carli Norris). Grant tells Courtney that Phil killed Peggy. When Courtney tells Grant that Sharon wanted to meet him, he goes to see Sharon and declares his love to her, but she is not interested. Grant accuses Phil of killing Peggy and asks for his money back, but Phil does not have it. Grant tries to persuade Sharon to go to Portugal with him but she declares her love for Phil. Grant telephones Courtney to ask to stay with her but she refuses. Grant then meets Belinda again and they go to her home for sex but are interrupted by her family. Phil finds a letter in Sharon's bag that Michelle sent Peggy, revealing that Grant fathered Michelle's child, Mark Fowler Jnr (Ned Porteous) 21 years previously. Grant visits Jane where he learns that she has been paralysed by her adoptive son Bobby Beale (Eliot Carrington). He admits that he has lost his home and business in Portugal and is in debt. Grant and Jane both comfort each other, but Ian walks in on them and shouts at Grant for deserting his family. Grant leaves, ignoring Phil, who is attempting to tell him about Mark. Courtney calls Grant, who is staying with Aunt Sal (Anna Karen) due to losing his villa and bar in Portugal, for help after Ben and Jay Brown (Jamie Borthwick) are kidnapped by the men who attacked Ben and killed his boyfriend Paul Coker (Jonny Labey). Grant rushes to Courtney's aid and assumes Mark is attacking her, but Sharon tells him he is Michelle's son. Phil initially insists he does not need Grant's help but then accepts it. Phil collapses so Grant vows to rescue Ben. Mark gets in Grant's car to help him, and they find Ben and Grant scares off the men. Grant reconciles with Phil, admitting he no longer wants the money Phil borrowed from him, and Phil tells Grant that Mark is his son. Courtney is angry with Grant when he stops her kissing Mark. Grant confronts Ian about keeping the secret for so long and punches him after Ian insults his parenting skills. Sharon tells him the reasons Michelle did not want him involved and Grant agrees that Mark would be better off not knowing, but Jane convinces Grant otherwise, so Grant offers to take Mark for a drink. After a heart to heart, Grant realises that Mark would be better off not knowing and decides to return to Portugal after seeing Phil. Phil gives him money, and he reunites with Courtney and the pair return to Portugal. Mark also works out who Grant is, but Sharon convinces him he is better off with his adoptive father – Tim.

Background
In the latter part of 1989 EastEnders executive producer Michael Ferguson, had taken over from Mike Gibbon. Ferguson had previously been a producer on ITV's The Bill — a hard-hitting and successful police drama, which seemed to be challenging EastEnders in providing a realistic vision of modern life in London. Due to his success on The Bill, Peter Cregeen, the Head of Series at the BBC, poached Ferguson to become executive producer of EastEnders.

Following a relatively unsuccessful inclination towards comedic storylines throughout 1989, Ferguson decided to take the soap in a new direction in 1990. Big changes were implemented both off-screen and on-screen. Ferguson altered the way the episodes were produced, changed the way the storylines were conceptualised and introduced a far greater amount of location work than had previously been seen. EastEnders scriptwriter Colin Brake has said that it was a challenging period, but "the results on-screen were a programme with a new sense of vitality, and a programme more in touch with the real world than it had been for a while".

As a consequence of these changes, a large number of characters, including Marge Green (Pat Coombs), Julie Cooper (Louise Plowright), Trevor Short (Phil McDermott) and Paul Priestly (Mark Thrippleton), were axed in early 1990 as the new production machine cleared way for a new direction and new characters. Two major new characters, the Mitchell brothers, made their first appearance in February 1990. Ferguson wanted to introduce a couple of young men who would bring an air of danger, characters who would be "unpredictable" and "bursting with energy". Phil and Grant Mitchell went on to become major long-term characters, rooted firmly at the heart of the series.

Casting
To cast Phil and Grant Mitchell many actors were screen-tested together. This was done to assure that the chosen actors — who would work predominantly alongside each other — had a strong rapport and physical resemblance. Producer Corinne Hollingworth has commented: "There were some good actors we had to turn down because we couldn't find the 'right' brother". Ross Kemp was chosen to play Grant. Kemp was an actor with a stocky, muscular build and shaven hair, making him an ideal choice to play one of Walford's latest "tough-men". Steve McFadden was given the role of Phil. Both actors worked well and convincingly together and both shared similar physical characteristics, such as short cropped hair and a "round, open face" — facial characteristics also shared by Danniella Westbrook, who was chosen to play their sister Samantha partly because of this (Westbrook was later recast, with Kim Medcalf taking over).

Personality
Of the two brothers Grant was the more volatile, but both had a sense of physical danger about them, and both displayed stereotypical masculinity, thuggish behaviour and a tendency to resolve problems through violence. Grant was originally depicted as the more spontaneous of the Mitchell double-act, suffering from a lack of self-control, often incapable of restraining himself and requiring his elder brother to do it for him. Despite the brothers' closeness, rivalry between them was sometimes evident. It was later revealed that Grant's terrible temper was due to post-traumatic stress disorder, caused by nightmares and scarring memories of his combat in the Falklands War.

Grant often displayed laddish, thrill-seeking behaviour; drinking, chasing women, clubbing, gambling and living off of his wits. He became restless easily and actively sought the thrill of danger in order to regain excitement in his life, which led to his participation in numerous crimes, fights and affairs. Grant showed impulsive behaviour, a disregard for social rules and an indifference to the feelings of others, particularly the women in his life. He was often portrayed as arrogant and egotistical, with an inflated opinion of his own importance. Because of this, he rarely admitted to being at fault or backed down from an argument. While the character mellowed in his later years, such behaviour was still apparent. However he is not completely without showing rare signs of compassion. An example of this was that he was one of the few people who offered support to Mark Fowler when he was isolated by the rest of Albert Square (led ironically by Grant's mother, Peggy), because of his HIV illness. Another was that he went to console Nigel Bates after his wife, Debbie, was killed by in a road accident.

Grant took great pride in being a Mitchell, his late father had a local reputation as a boxer. He always strived to live up to the family name and enjoyed the reputation he inherited and maintained. While Grant liked to think of himself as indestructible, he at many times showed emotional vulnerability and a need to be mothered. Indeed, at times he was just as likely to burst into tears as he was to throw a punch. Because of this, he attracted many women, despite the fact that he often treated them as possessions, disregarding their feelings and eliciting exaggerated revenge should they cross him (resulting in spousal abuse and the destruction of all three of his marriages). His quick temper was off-set by a period of genuine remorse and promises that he would change. However, more often than not, Grant reverted to form and when placed under pressure he seemed incapable of controlling his aggression, disregarding all consequences.

Character development and impact
The Mitchell brothers quickly became two of the soap's most popular characters and storylines involving the brothers soon began to dominate the programme. Their arrival heralded a new era for the soap, which aptly coincided with the beginning of a new decade — EastEnders during the 1980s having been very much dominated by the hugely popular Fowler and Watts families.

Sharongate
One of the most notable and popular early storylines involving Grant was a love triangle between him, his brother and his wife Sharon (played by Letitia Dean). Despite the fact that Sharon married Grant initially, EastEnders writer Tony Jordan has revealed in The Mitchells – The Full Story that the love-triangle storyline had been planned since Phil and Grant's introduction, after the writers came to the realisation that Sharon was perfect for them both. This storyline was slow burning and was spread over several years, providing a plethora of dramatic tension along the way. The episode in which Phil betrayed his brother with Sharon occurred in September 1992 in one of the soap's notorious three-handers. Sue Dunderdale directed the episodes and the performances of McFadden, Kemp and Dean have been described as memorable and filled with high-tension drama. Things finally came to a head in 1994 with some of EastEnders' most popular and renowned episodes, which have been dubbed "Sharongate". The episodes — which were watched by 25.3 million viewers — centred around Grant's discovery of the affair and his startling reaction. The repercussions of Phil's betrayal contributed to many subsequent storylines involving the brothers throughout the 1990s. Writer of Sharongate, Tony Jordan, has stated that of all the storylines he has penned for the soap, Sharongate is the one he is most proud of. He comments "Three of the strongest characters that have ever been in EastEnders are the Mitchell brothers and Sharon... when we actually blew that story it was incredible... being able to reach that many people with your work is what makes EastEnders exciting." Sharongate has also proven a popular storyline with viewers and it was voted the sixth top soap opera moment of the decade in a poll of 17,000 people for What's On TV magazine.

Volatile marriage to Tiffany
From 1996 to 1998 viewers were gripped by Grant's combustible marriage to Tiffany Raymond (played by Martine McCutcheon). Their relationship was a typical portrayal of unrequited love on Tiffany's side and was fraught with tragedy and drama. For Grant it was more a marriage of convenience, allowing him access to his daughter, Courtney. Grant's poor treatment of Tiffany included physical and emotional abuse and two affairs, one of which was with her mother Louise (played by Carol Harrison) and the other with Lorraine Wicks (played by Jacqueline Leonard). Their volatile relationship made headlines in July 1997 amid reports that EastEnders bosses were considering airing a highly controversial storyline that saw Tiffany brutally raped by Grant. The plot, which was slated to be aired on Christmas Day 1997, evoked high criticism from female MPs and children's groups, TV clean-up campaigners and church officials, who were all expressive in unanimous condemnation about the BBC's "cynical ploy to win the seasonal ratings war over arch-rival Coronation Street." Labour MP Anne Clywd suggested that the BBC should "reconsider" and Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, said: "This is an appalling, outrageous, utterly nauseous example of rape for ratings." Reports also alleged that actor Ross Kemp was not happy about the plot either and threatened to quit the role unless the scripts were altered. Subsequently, the plot never came to fruition.

The following year EastEnders topped the ratings at Christmas 1998 when Grant was accused of the attempted murder of Tiffany, and the following Monday 15.7 million viewers tuned in to see Grant make a first court appearance. The year finally culminated with the death of Tiffany — killed in a motor accident, while trying to reclaim her daughter from Grant. 22 million viewers tuned in to see Grant and Tiffany's final clash on New Year's Eve 1998.

Initial departure and the Mitchell Brothers car crash
On 24 March 1999, it was reported that Kemp had decided to leave EastEnders after almost ten years of playing Grant. The storyline signifying his departure played heavily on the Mitchell brothers' fragile and damaged relationship. After discovering that Grant vengefully had sex with his wife Kathy Mitchell, Phil went ballistic with a handgun causing the car Grant was driving to career at high speed into the River Thames. The episode was written by Tony Jordan, directed by Paul Annett and was watched by 19.5 million viewers. Shot in London's Docklands, the scenes required stunt doubles, divers and crash test dummies and it has been hailed as "one of the soap's most dramatic storylines ever."

Initially viewers were left uncertain as to whether Grant survived the crash, but the character was not killed off and a week later viewers saw Grant depart along with his daughter Courtney for a new life in Rio, Brazil. A spokesperson from the BBC confirmed, "the door is always open for a return."

2005 return
After nearly six years away, Kemp was lured back to EastEnders for a fixed period in order to reunite the Mitchell family on-screen. Executive producer, Kate Harwood, commented: "We are so pleased that Ross will be back on the show. His character is one of the most iconic and popular in the history of soap. The impact of his return for the inhabitants of Walford should not be underestimated. It is going to be fireworks from the start."

Grant’s high-profile return, which aired in October 2005, proved to be a ratings success. The first two episodes drew respective audiences of 13.15 million (52.9%) and 12.8 million (55.2%) in the overnight ratings alone, consolidating to 13.34 and 13.21 million viewers, respectively. Although he only featured in the show for a period of three weeks initially, his contract was subsequently extended for a further three months, beginning in the spring of 2006. The character was involved in numerous storylines, including the unveiling of Den Watts’ killer; an affair with Ian Beale’s (Adam Woodyatt) girlfriend, Jane Collins; and a week’s worth of episodes dubbed “Get Johnny Week,” which saw the Mitchell brothers embroiled in a vendetta against gangland boss Johnny Allen. Soon afterwards, Kemp departed the role again on 9 June 2006.

In 2011, Kemp told Radio Times that he has no plans to return to EastEnders: "I enjoy the fact that I've far more control over my destiny than I ever had when acting. I didn't even watch the soaps when I was in them because it's like a coal miner coming home and staring at the coal scuttle—I was never a great lover of watching myself act."

2016 return
On 18 January 2016, it was announced that Kemp had agreed to reprise his role for a few episodes. His return coincided with Windsor's final appearance as Grant's mother Peggy. Grant was also reunited with Phil, Sharon and Kathy. Of his return, Kemp commented, "When I was approached about returning to EastEnders for Barbara's final episodes, it was something I could not turn down. Barbara is a very close friend so when I learned of the storyline, it felt right that the Mitchell brothers are reunited with their mother for the last time. I am really looking forward to going back to EastEnders and filming what are set to be some classic EastEnders episodes." Kemp returned to filming on 6 April 2016. Later, it was announced that Kemp would film a further three weeks, and he resumed filming on 6 June 2016 and finished on 26 June 2016.

Reception
The character of Grant Mitchell has been hailed as "one of the most iconic and popular in the history of soap". In a study by the Stirling Media Research Institute called Men Viewing Violence, participants branded Grant "a fascinating character" because of his complexity and likened him and Phil to a soap operatic version of the notorious East End criminals, the Kray Twins. He has become one of EastEnders biggest sex-symbols — described by the magazine, Women Republic, as "an ideal bit of rough... the antithesis to the pretty boys who spend longer in front of the mirror than we do." He was also voted the second most hunky man in British soap by gay readers of the magazine, attitude, who described him as "a dashing big, bad bully boy." In addition, Grant and Phil were voted as the second most popular King Of Soaps in a Channel 4 poll in 2002 and Grant was voted as one of the Top Ten TV Hard Men in a separate poll.

Grant's long-awaited return eventually happened in 2005, during a period of heavy media criticism aimed at EastEnders. The character was reintroduced along with his brother Phil. Of the Mitchell brothers' highly publicised return, one reporter commented "Soapville must confess that we did get goosebumps and feel properly excited when we first saw the Mitchell Brothers back on the Square... After all, you associate them with the golden days of Enders". Their return was voted as one of the Golden TV Moments of 2005 in a BBC poll.

Kemp has won several awards for his role as Grant. He was named 'Best Actor' at the 1999 and 2006 British Soap Awards, as well as the 1998 TV Quick and TV Choice Awards. Collecting his award, he commented: "People have a go at all soaps, but the people you see on screen are giving their all 52 weeks a year." Kemp also received 'Most Popular Actor' nominations at the 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2006 National Television Awards, and British Soap Award nominations for 'Villain of the Year' in 1999, and 'Spectacular Scene of the Year' in 2006, for Grant's brush with death in 'Get Johnny Week'.

The character has been the focus of varying EastEnders merchandise in other media, which includes the VHS EastEnders – The Mitchells – Naked Truths and EastEnders: Blood Ties – The Life and Loves of Grant Mitchell, a novelisation written by Kate Lock, which chronicles facts about the character, explores his background and attempts to explain the source of his aggression and vulnerability.

In 2009, a poll by magazine Inside Soap named Grant as the UK's favourite leading male character in a soap opera.

Although popular with many viewers, the character has garnered criticism, mainly regarding the way his anti-social behaviour is sensationalised by the programme makers. In November 2005 the character was blamed for turning children into playground bullies by Dr. Sally Henry, who claimed that impressionable children look to male soap characters as role models and subsequently copy their violent behaviour.

In addition, the character's predisposition to violence has allegedly been criticised by actor Ross Kemp. In 1998, press reports claimed that Kemp had asked producers to tone down Grant's violent behaviour because "it was insulting the viewers' intelligence."

Grant and Phil's brotherly confrontation — marking Grant's initial exit in 1999 — was panned by critics. Ian Hyland of the Sunday Mirror branded the storyline a "farce... hardly a fitting exit for Walford's dodgiest geezer since Dirty Den." He mocked the episode's stunts, commenting: "There are so many post-watershed dramas on TV that do these kind of scenes properly that Phil and Grant ended up looking like two little kids playing on a building site. Instead of wasting all their time on this ridiculous ending they could have made it a heart-wrenching farewell..."

There were mixed reviews for the highly publicised storyline (dubbed "Get Johnny Week") involving the Mitchell brothers reunion in 2006. It was criticised as "patchy" and "awkwardly written... unveiling a common weakness in the EastEnders camp, that character continuity can often fall by the wayside when you are dealing with larger characters". Additionally, the show was criticised for turning the brothers into a comical farce by incorporating uncharacteristic humour into their dialect, which was described as "cringeworthy."

Following Grant's third departure in September 2016, Kemp revealed that he did not think he would ever go back to EastEnders again but even so, he refused to rule out a return.

title: Grant Mitchell (EastEnders)