Talk:Henry Bolton (British politician)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orphan template

This page is no longer orphaned because Bolton is standing as UKIP leader. It also has three references. I will therefore remove the template. Weburbia (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

British diplomat

Why is he listed as a British Diplomat? The biography makes no reference to having worked in diplomacy.91.209.71.109 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)T

Former diplomatic roles are mentioned in ref [17] and could be added into the article. Weburbia (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OBE?

There's some confusion here. In the lede, the Kent Messenger is quoted as stating that Bolton was awarded the OBE in 2013, and further down there's clarification that he was in the New Year Honours "for services to international security and stabilisation" in Helmand: this appears to be borne out by a picture of Princess Anne awarding him a medal in the Daily Mail. However, Wikipedia's page about the 2013 New Year Honours makes no mention of him. Has he been inadvertently omitted from the Wikipedia page? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot more OBEs than listed on that wikipedia page, but he could be added there. Here is a primary source for the citation [1] Weburbia (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that: I've edited this page to include it as a reference, but I don't pretend to know enough about military honours to attempt to edit the 2013 New Year Honours page appropriately! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Redgro (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

– Both Henry Bolton articles are about politicians, making the current disambiguation a mess. Note that the 19th century Bolton predated the Australian federation hence using the colony. Timrollpickering 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In my view, firstly, the British politician is now the primary meaning of Henry Bolton. The other one should remain at "Victorian politician" since Australia existed before it became a federation, and some people would regard Victorian as referring to the historical period. PatGallacher (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support it will make thing easier to navigate and less confusing considering both subjects are politicians. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This will distinguish them more precisely than currently. Ralbegen (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

PatGallacher I presume you mean the other one should remain at "Australian politician"? If so then I agree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early life?

This article would benefit from a section regarding Bolton's early life - especially as the BBC claim he was born in Kenya, which is significant given UKIP's stance on immigration ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't see enough material on his early life in reliable sources yet but I agree that it would be worth including along with his other international relations (personal and professional) because it helps dispel the myth that opposition to immigration is purely due to xenophobia. We will have to wait for more info to emerge. Weburbia (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Sources seem at odds on his early life. This article in the Newbury local paper has him growing up in Cold Ash, and attending a local secondary school, whilst this article on Sky has him being born in Kenya and moving to the UK to attend Sandhurst. Our article has him joining the army as a trooper (hardly consistent with moving to the UK to attend Sandhurst), and only being commissioned after he left the regular army and joined the Territorials, but does say he was educated at Sandhurst. All a bit of muddle, and frankly not a little suspicious. Something with a clear time line might help to sort this out, but I havn't yet seen one. Can anybody help?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There are some details and dates on his linkedin profile He would have attended Sandhurst around 1990 when he was commissioned having already served 10 years as a NCO. He could have returned to the UK for Sandhurst from where he was serving in the army before 1990. We don't know how long he was in Kenya as a child but reports say he was at school in the UK at age 14. He joined the army at 16 in 1979. I don't see any inconsistency but the Sky report is confused. Weburbia (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that does give a rather better idea of how it all fits together. 1979-1990 as an trooper and NCO in the regular army. 1992-2001 as a police officer for Thames Valley Police. 1990-2000 as an officer in the territorial army, at the same time as being a police officer. 1998-2001 doing various roles in Kosovo and Albania, presumably on secondment from Thames Valley Police. Then all sorts of security related jobs thereafter. - chris_j_wood (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the LinkedIn profile can be referenced under WP:ABOUTSELF for details such as dates, although a reliable secondary source would be preferred if available. Weburbia (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


Henry Bolton (British politician) → Henry Bolton – As with Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, the article title of their Wikipedia page is simply their name - no (politician) or (British politician) next to it. Now that Henry Bolton is the leader of the UK Independence Party, the title of his Wikipedia page should simply be his name. I have requested the page currently under Henry Bolton to be deleted as I do not feel it is necessary. Lighthouse3050 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support This person may have been a dark horse outsider, but he is now the leader of an important political party. The Australian looks rather obscure, only just above the threshhold of notablity. The Canadian doesn't look that important, and is a different spelling. The British politician is primary. PatGallacher (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Support The Australian politician is well below the standard of notability unless someone can find a lot more notable reports about him. I doubt it would survive an AfD. Furthermore the content of the page has not changed substantially from the initial edit which was summarised as a "paste of text from The Dictionary of Australasian Biography" so it has copyright issues too. Weburbia (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I accept those as technical points but despite the qualification his notability is very low and relying on a source that itself does not seem to reference a source does not look right. The Canadian politician with a differently spelt name is also of minimal interest. A disambiguation link at the top of the Henry Bolton page would be fine. I have changed my position to support. Weburbia (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose - the proposer's reasoning is making a false equivalence. Nobody else with a Wikipedia article is called Jeremy Corbyn, and Theresa May is a clear primary topic by any measure. In general, I'm not sure it's been long enough to tell whether Bolton is also a clear primary topic, and think that it might be a little recentist to move the article now. There's been a lot of coverage and a lot of page views recently, but whilst it wouldn't surprise me if that remains the case, it's far from certain (I'm really not sure that, say, Diane James would be a clear primary topic in a similar situation). I think it'd be easier to judge in six months time or a year. Ralbegen (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Corbyn and May are not good comparisons. Best to take this case on its own merits than try to find equivalents. I also agree that it is too early to judge how notable Bolton will become and only the story so far can be taken into account. I think that first off it is important to see just how low in terms of notability the Australian politician is. As someone pointed out he ticks WP:POL because he held office in a Province, but this was a short stint as postmaster-general in 1881-1883. The article says nothing about what he did in that role. It does not sound like a very political position and unless there is more to it I don't see how this could generate any interest today at all. The question is therefore whether the new UKIP leader has already risen above this very low mark. Weburbia (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's too early to tell whether this Bolton is so much more notable in perpetuity than the others as to warrant being the primary topic without being subject to recentism. Of course he's getting a lot of coverage and attention now: will he in the long run? Very possibly, but I don't think we can assume so yet. Six months or a year and we'll know enough. Ralbegen (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to assume anything about the long run. WP is dynamic and in the unlikely event that Bolton becomes less relevant than the 19th century politician in six months, we can easily reverse the move then. In the meantime, the current setup sends the large majority of readers searching "Henry Bolton" to a page they are not looking for. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think that it's a matter of who's more relevant, rather wheter this Bolton have significantly greater lasting relevance than the alternatives. Whether that's so, time will tell. I expect it will turn out that he does have significantly greater lasting relevance, but the only information we have to go on in terms of page views comes from a time when he's been in the news a lot. Quite possibly he will remain so, and will continue to get coverage and attention, but for now there's not enough information to make a decision on that basis. Ralbegen (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I think as the leader of a significant UK political party he definitely is the primary topic considering the other Henry Bolton on the dab page, regardless of the future. As noted above, Wikipedia is dynamic, and easily changes with the times. The "crystal ball" argument is probably not the right policy to quote regarding a requested move, but I think the general idea of "Wikipedia does not predict the future" should be taken into consideration here. As a WP:TWODABS situation, I don't see anything wrong with a simple hatnote to the Australian Henry Bolton. –72 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Certes. Bolton's profile is not currently high enough to justify a move, especially so soon after the previous discussion was concluded. Let's revisit this in a few months' time. This is Paul (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The previous discussion was not a primary topic discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you'll find it was mentioned by none other than yourself. Remember In my view, firstly, the British politician is now the primary meaning of Henry Bolton? It was only a few days ago. This is Paul (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name is ambiguous, and unlike Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May not exactly well known on the streets (Nigel Farage he ain't; I had to look up who he was). Being appointed as the leader of a party whilst never have won an election in his own right is insufficient to claim primary topic over somebody who was a democratically elected politician, even if not a terribly significant one. The article name should be left as it is, but obviously subject to review depending on how his political career develops. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I would add that although it is theoretically possible that he could have an extremely short term in office, like Diane James, the likelihood is that he won't, so those who put forward this argument are also engaging in crystal ball gazing. UKIP is not that insignificant, it still has around 20 MEPs. PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • But speculating on the possible length of his term in office is in itself crystal ball gazing. He isn't currently that well known, although that could change, depending on UKIP's fortunes. The future is yet to happen though, so nobody really knows. All we can do is consider this with the situation as it stands at present. This is Paul (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed. At present (13 Oct), 438 people read the article about the British politician, 97 landed on the dab page, and 3 read about the Australian politician.[4] - Station1 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too much recency is this. Perhaps some day, but not now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A primary topic, and deleting the 2DABS page in favour of hatnotes speeds up navigation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other people have said good arguments. Corbyn and May aren't good comparisons and I do not think it should be a primary topic due to reasons above. Redgro (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are actually four entries at the DAB, and no evidence that this one meets either of the primary topic criteria. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:Primary topic can be established by usage as follows: Henry Bolton (British politician) 300 views per day, >100 incoming links; Henry Bolton (Australian politician) 0 views per day (before Sept 2017), 5 incoming links; Henry Carrington Bolton 4 views per day, 8 incoming links; Henry John Boulton 4 views per day, ~80 incoming links, and different spelling. Weburbia (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to have a particularly high profile though. For example, the media don't seem to have sought his opinion on the recent Brexit negotiations (see here). At the time of writing, the only notable coverage of Bolton since he took office appears to be announcing his frontbench team and an appearance on LBC. For this to be a primary topic he'd need the kind of coverage Farage or Nuttall were getting. Let's wait for the appearances on Question Time, and for him to be a "Go to" man for opinions on things like Brexit, immigration, the European Union, etc, as was the case with his predecessors. It may happen in time, but it's not happening now, and all we can deal with is now when we decide whether this should or should not be a primary topic. This is Paul (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree on two levels. Firstly his profile has been very high including on Brexit. Here for example is the BBC asking him about Brexit negotiations Secondly, his profile does not need to be comparable to Farage or Nutall to make him the primary topic. It just needs to be higher than the other Henry Bolton's, and this is demonstrated by the relative usage above. Weburbia (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I'm afraid his profile hasn't been very high, particularly on Brexit. That BBC article is from 30 September (shortly after he took office), and anyone following current events will know the last couple of weeks have been very significant in terms of Brexit. Where is Bolton's voice in all of this? It suggests he's currently not as notable as some would like to think, so this is why we need to wait a few months. Remember there are no deadlines here. This is Paul (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
See The Problem With Page Views. This may provide yet another example. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rationale for the move is poor as comparing Bolton with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn is pretty silly. Bolton does not seem to have much of a profile in British media and has never won an election to any elected body. From a global and historical perspective it seems incorrect to suggest Bolton is an unambiguous primary topic. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the two other politicians with whom this guy shares a name were both members of legislative assemblies for a number of years, whereas he is not and has never been to my knowledge. According to this the post of UKIP leader isn't even a paid one, and I'm also intrigued by reports he was naming his frontbench team. Apart from in the Welsh Assembly the party has no frontbench on which to sit them. And, ladies and gents, all of this shows why, presently at least, this should not be the primary topic. This is Paul (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restored recognition of influence

I've reversed the deletion of the reference to Bolton's placement in 'The Top 100 Most Influential People on the Right'. This sentence was originally deleted as "commentary", but restored by another user. It has now been deleted a second time as "not a notable designation in any way; just a single editorialist's ranking of people". I thought I'd note here why I've reversed that second deletion.

First it's inaccurate to refer to the source as "a single editorialist's ranking" - as the cited source says, this is an analysis published by a major UK broadcaster, and compiled by "a national newspaper journalist, two ex-Spads, two online commentators and an ex Conservative MP". This seems to have sufficient weight to qualify as a relevant source.

Second this analysis is relevant to the subject's Wikipedia entry, given that it is an assessment on the public record of his political standing following his election to his Party's leadership. Bolton's position as a party leader is the reason for the existence of this entire Wikipage, so analysis of that is relevant to this entry. Carentan75 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I support its inclusion as well. It's reasonably common for inclusion on lists like this to be noted on Wikipedia. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Move Review ?

Would anyone else support a move review? WP:Primary topic says that page usage is one of two major criteria for determination or the primary topic. Henry Bolton's page views settled down to a base level of about 300 views per day. There was a spike of 4000 when he appeared on Question Time. As pointed out in the discussions above he is now regularly in the UK news because of the relevance that his career experience and position as leader of UKIP have to Brexit and other topics that will be newsworthy for years to come. One person objected because of a user opinion user:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views which claims that "pageviews only indicate what readers found, not what they were searching for." Does anyone seriously think that Henry Bolton gets 100 times as many views as anyone else on the disambiguation page by mistake? Frankly the failure to make his page the primary topic here is a severe embarrassment to anyone who would claim that Wikipedia does not have political bias. Weburbia (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to reconsider this. To address the comment Frankly the failure to make his page the primary topic here is a severe embarrassment to anyone who would claim that Wikipedia does not have political bias: it just hasn't reached primary topic status yet. Firstly, the guy has never held a political office, secondly the role of UKIP party leader is an unpaid one, and thirdly he just doesn't get the media coverage of his predecessors. Indeed, Farage still seems to be the media's UKIP Brexit go to man whenever a soundbite is needed. Let's consider this again in a few months, perhaps March or April 2018. This is Paul (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. For the purposes of this discussion Henry Bolton needs to be compared with the other people on the disambiguation page, not with Farage. His page view count has now stabilised at a level that is 100 times higher than the other pages on the disambiguation page. If we must compare with other politicians his page usage is comparable to frontbench government ministers such as Jeremy Hunt, Liam Fox, Greg Clark, Chris Grayling and Sajid Javid. UKIP have demonstrated that the threat of holding political office is sufficient to be a major influence in British politics, but he is also leader of a party with many elected Councillors, assembly members and MEPs. Henry Bolton's recent appearance on BBC Question Time is testament to his political notability. I accept that those commenting on the move request did so in good faith but the risk that Wikipedia may look biased is justification for reviewing this now rather than in a few months time. When measuring consensus, comments must be weighted according to how well they address relevant Wikipedia policies and if this is done objectively then the case for primary topic here was overwhealming and continues to strengthen. Weburbia (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody else supports it I wont initiate another page move request, but here are some plots of the pageviews for future reference Weburbia (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Henry Bolton (British Politician)

Henry Bolton (Australian Politician)

Henry Carrington Bolton

Henry John Boulton

Weburbia (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I will reconsider my position on this in a few months from now, but at the moment I feel another move discussion would not be constructive. It's still too soon after the previous one, and they can become disruptive if held too often (see Talk:Cheryl (entertainer) for what I mean). For future reference it would be advisable not to chuck round allegations of political bias, as they're likely to turn people off. Time will determine whether this article should be moved. This is Paul (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Weburbia and would support this article being the primary topic. In light of the ongoing Brexit situation which is bound to drag on for years, and indeed the recent headlines regarding Bolton's personal life, this article will certainly become the most significant/relevant (in my opinion, it already is). LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with Jo Marney

How much of this section should we include, and should this topic even have a section of its own? Is it necessary for us to know they were "spotted" dining together and holding hands? (As I read that sentence, in my mind I can imagine a radio announcer shouting "SPOTTED!") Could we not express it in another way that seems less like tabloid gossip? Is it necessary to state that he wants to rekindle his relationship with Marney at some point in the future? Surely that is only relevant if he actually does so and it has an impact on his political career? (And who would care about it anyway if he's forced to resign?) Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I share your doubts. Better to have a general 'Personal life' section w/o the sub-sections and prune the tabloid details (including the "glamour model" description of Marney). Also the "leader of the UKIP councillors in Walsall" actually leads one other cllr - her husband - so not exactly a major player. Nedrutland (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, might have a go at rewriting it a bit later, and cutting out the unnecessary stuff. When I Googled "Jo Marney" "glamour model" a bit earlier, one of the first results I got was from The Sun. It was followed by links from the Daily Mail and The Mirror. So, no quality sources using the term it would appear. This is Paul (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
ok, so I've now taken out some of the unnecessary stuff, and a couple of references. In particular I've taken out the Metro links as I'm never sure if that's regarded as a tabloid. This is Paul (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd use neither word to describe her, however, reputable sources have:
"Glamour Model" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/14/girlfriend-ukip-leader-suspended-racist-meghan-markle-remarks/
"Model" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42679187 LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, are we sure he had an "affair" with her? In that BBC link above, Bolton said he split from his wife first. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to In January 2018, it became known that Bolton had left his wife and children, and embarked on a relationship with Jo Marney, a model, and party member nearly 30 years his junior, which I think is better. We don't know the circumstances of their relationship, i.e., whether he left his wife for Marney or whether he left his wife then met Marney afterwards, so the wording here should not suggest one thing or the other. If anyone can think of better wording then feel free to change it again. This is Paul (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind but I have removed "and children" from that as it gives the impression he is now voluntarily estranged from them which I do not believe is the case. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Not at all, it could be misinterpreted. This is Paul (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence

Just wondering how to deal with this topic. No doubt we'll need an article covering these events, as the outcome will determine UKIP's future. I've created a redirect, 2018 vote of no confidence in the leadership of Henry Bolton, but that may not be appropriate. If it leads to a leadership contest then it has similarities to Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2003. But if not? What would we title such an article? Any thoughts on what to do, as it sounds like it won't be a conventional leadership election. This is Paul (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless UKIP party members back the NEC to get rid of Bolton, I don't really think a seperate article is necessary. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Deputy or no Deputy

Isn't this meant to be updated in real time? I was prompted to remove Margot Parker in the light of recent machinations over at Theresa May where we had to show clearly that she has no deputy. Personally, I think the current format here is more informative and am happy to keep it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure about this. She was his deputy, but the post is currently vacant. I re-added Parker with the dates of her office, and then put vacant below it. But feel free to take it out again. Do we show all deputies or just the current one? This is Paul (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Country of birth

Most BLP articles contain a section for "Early life" etc. which contains date and place of birth, with appropriate sources(s). All we currently have here is the infobox. The advice at Template: Infobox person does say "do not typically link countries". But I linked to Kenya as that country was a different entity in 1963 and that information was not available elsewhere in the article. I also didn't consider that link to be an "Easter egg" since, as far as I know, the country has never been called "Kenya Colony". Other views welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Some information about Bolton's parents and background would improve the article. Nick Michael (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but there doesn't seem to be much out there in reliable sources. JezGrove (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Shadowing Gavin Williamson?

I don't think it's accurate to say that Bolton is 'shadowing' the Secretary of State for Defence - can we remove that reference? Paulharding150 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Surely the position of shadow minister for X or Y is restricted to parliamentary parties. I'll remove it if it hasn't already been taken out. This is Paul (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Bolton_(British_politician)/Archive_1&oldid=1144864183"