Talk:Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax

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

Older[edit]

Mr. impossible, I think your additions are pretty POV. I'm inclined to revert, but there's probably stuff that can be salvaged. I'd note, also, that you need to describe his anti-semitic behavior, or whatever, towards Hore-Belisha, not just refer to it glancingly. Also, it's pretty questionable to refer to Anthony "who cares what Germany does in its own backyard" Eden as an "anti-appeaser." And Halifax's comments about Hitler were generally in the context of being in meetings in Germany with Hitler or Göring, or whoever. I don't see as "things diplomats say to be polite" can be taken to represent what someone actually thinks. Halifax was certainly less rosy about appeasement than Chamberlain - recall that Halifax led the cabinet revolt after the Bad Godesberg meeting, and also pressed Chamberlain towards a more assertive policy after Prague. Halifax also had pretty much nothing to do with Oswald Mosley (who was a Labour politician before going fascist, first of all). And he did a good job both as Viceroy of India and as wartime ambassador to the United States. john 20:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]



Dear John,

Call me Jo, because it's my name. I pretty much agree with you. I'm still sort of new around here and whatever the tone actually is I don't think I've quite got it. I was updating the list of UK ambassadors, stumbled across this page and was appalled by its stubbiness since Halifax is pretty important in WW2 politics. I didn't have enough info to hand to do a full rewrite so I did a vague and biased one in order to encourage someone to do a better job - which nearly worked (!). In any case, I hate dry articles. So certainly my amendments were more opinion than fact but I sort of question some of your changes - though tentatively.

I did indeed sketch over the anti-semitism because I've just written Leslie Hore-Belisha as well, which I hope you won't also take exception to - it's factually far sounder. I had that in mind so more detail here ("inappropriate to have a Jew in charge of publicity") might be a good idea.

It was much better - I think there were some bits that were kind of POV, and I think you're exaggerating the power of "fascist sympathizers" among the Tories. Certainly Halifax was not a fascist sympathizer. And I'd add that you can find Winston Churchill saying almost exactly the same things about Hitler that Halifax did. That doesn't make either of them fascist or nazi sympathizers. john 23:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to think of Antony "I hate Nasser" Eden as an anti-appeaser because that's (I believe) why he resigned from the cabinet in 1938 and why Churchill appointed him Foreign Secretary and also had something to do with Eden suceeding Churchill as PM. They were a political faction. Semi-coincidentally he resigned about the time that Hore-Belisha's request to mobilise was slapped down as it was becoming more and more clear that Chamberlain could not be persuaded by any means to adopt an aggressive posture. Not by any UK politician anyway.

Eden was an opportunist, pure and simple. When he actually was Foreign Secretary, he was as much of an appeaser as anybody else. He had personal issues with Chamberlain, and thought he was incompetent, but didn't disagree with his basic attitude to foreign affairs. It was only after his resignation that he got all anti-appeasement.

On Halifax's comments about Hitler, these were not just in the public arena but also in his private diary. I'm not saying (and indeed did not say, because it would be completely untrue) that Halifax was a Nazi or even in his own terms a nazi-sympathiser. I'm simply saying that in common with many right-wing politicians in 30's Britain he admired Hitler's transformation of Germany from basketcase to industrial strongman of Europe. I mentioned Mosley to emphasise this movement; probably a bridge too far. Incidentally the one thing that Churchill and Mosley had in common was their propensity to switch parties. The latter was a Conservative first (as the youngest MP in the house) for several years only later switching to Labour. If you're a national socialist I suppose you get schizophrenic about stuff like that.

Yes, a lot of conservative politicians said things like that about Hitler (including Churchill, as I noted above). But I think it's unfair to say it in such an out of context way. As it was written, it did suggest that Halifax was a Nazi-sympathizer, and possibly a fascist. I don't think that's really fair. And also I don't think it's right to connect this with appeasement - Churchill was anti-appeasement, and said many of the same things about Hitler that Halifax did. And Halifax probably said nicer things about Hitler than Chamberlain ever did, but Chamberlain was much more avid about appeasement than his foreign secretary. You're right about Mosley, of course (although they both shared on admiration of Mussolini, as well...). He married Curzon's daughter, and switched to Labour in the 20s sometime. john 23:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of who was the bigger appeaser - Chamberlain or Halifax - I simply don't know enough to comment except to say that I don't think there's a lot of credit to be had here. Certainly if you think he was a good viceroy/ambassador you could back that up. I'm sure he was - although Churchill surely did most of the talking to Roosevelt...actually the more I think about it (and I'm okay on anglo-american relations) the more I think of Halifax as a rather sidelined figure but perhaps we could talk about that.

I agree there's not much credit to either Chamberlain or Halifax on appeasement, although I think Chamberlain was almost certainly a much more deeply stupid and naive appeaser than Halifax. But that says more to how bad Chamberlain was than to anything good about Halifax. As to his role as ambassador, I'll look in my copy of Roosevelt and Hopkins, which talks about Halifax's arrival in Washington, but my understanding is that Churchill considered the position to be pretty tremendously important - remember that in the beginning of 1941, he was still trying to get the US to come into the war. Of course he was also trying to get rid of Halifax, and Churchill did do a lot of personal diplomacy with Roosevelt, but I think it's hard to say that the position of ambassador to Britain's most important ally (and he also remained a member of the very tiny war cabinet, too) is some sort of kicked upstairs sinecure. As to his role in Washington, from my memory the Americans were at first highly unenthusiastic about him, because they thought of him as, well, a big appeaser, but that later they warmed to him. john 23:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway that's my analysis. I think we both might have been a bit sweeping but I'm sure we can knock a good article of all this so that's nice and it's my first chance to have a big ramble (can you tell I'm enjoying myself) about a wiki article so that's nice too.

A fresh nugget (I won't do an update until we've come to a gentlemen's agreement -oh rats, that needs an addition as well - on the content) is that Halifax features in the novel (and the film) of The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro. But I promise that's not where I'm getting my information from.

Sorry to have gone on so tediously.

--Mr impossible 23:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably work out a good article. Certainly stuff like casual anti-semitism and comments admiring Hitler can be worked in, but I think it's important to contextualize them, and to try to avoid tying them to support for appeasement, which I think had a lot more to do with an understandable desire to avoid war, and all that, than it did with any admiration of Hitler's government or sympathy for his persecution of Jews. I might work off Britannica's version to get a more substantial article, at some point. john 23:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Finally got round to a properly researched update - though if you're good on international relations 1938-9, that section might need some tweaking. Is there any chance you could put one of those menu things in to break it up a bit? It's now got a bit unwieldy. Also I've removed Goschen from this page because a quick look at Wilmington's biography and a copy of the DK 20th century day by day shows that he was Halifax's successor. I'd recommend that Goschen's article by either rewritten - preferably not by me - or marked for deletion because there's nothing in it but inaccurate information. I won't edit the Viceroy list myself because I know you don't like your lists tangled with and I heard a rumour you were stressed enough as it is.

--Mr impossible 15:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Willingdon? I will just change the Goschen article to say he was governor of Madras from 1924 to 1929, and change the Viceroy article (although you could've done it yourself). At any rate, much good work with this expansion, although it presently seems a bit 1911-ish in its Olympian judgments - it might need a bit of NPOVing, but I think it's okay. I'll add something on 1938 to 1939 when I get the chance. john 20:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title[edit]

Before he was made Lord Irwin, I've generally seen him referenced as "E.F.L. Wood." As such, wasn't the previous location (with the full name) more appropriate? john k 01:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. However, I'm generally in favor of doing these kinds of moves, if only to simplify linking. Mackensen 01:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FIRST Earl of H.?[edit]

Is it possible that TWO 1st Earls with the same name did exist in history: (1) E.F.L. Wood and (2) "Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, KG, PC, FRS (16 April 1661–19 May 1715)", an English poet and statesman? And if so, how?
--ECeDee 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's even more complicated than that. Have a look at Earl of Halifax! These titles are in the gift of the monarch and they revert to the crown if there aren't the correct heirs about (as in Montagu's case) so over long periods of time they can be given out again. And again. --Mr impossible 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: German Alliance Pact documents[edit]

I don´t want to mess around with this piece because most of it reads very well, but this section seems grammatically wonky:

"In August 2008, under the freedom of information act the MI5 released documents revealing amateur diplomat James Lonsdale-Bryans attempts to foster a allegiance between Britain and Germany, and implicated Halifax as James Lonsdale-Bryans strongest proponent in Parliament."

Should this be:

"In August 2008, under the Freedom of Information Act the MI5 released documents revealing the attempts of James Lonsdale-Bryans to seek a peace treaty between Britain and Germany, and implicated Halifax as James Lonsdale-Bryans' strongest proponent in Parliament."

???

I'd like a response, because I don´t wish to intervene in a subject that i don´t know anything about (maybe that´s a bit deviant in wikipedia ...) Compromiso (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added this section sorry for my bad grammar, this entire section of the article was removed by Mleimon and the only explanation was he/she was adding balance to the article, given it is a documented fact with references the manner in which this was done was completely abhorrent I will add the section again and with the grammatical improvements suggested. RohypnolFTW (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most significant event[edit]

The mosat significant political event, the death sentences of martyrs Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru has not even been bloody mentioned!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.170.35 (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cripple?[edit]

"was born with a withered left arm with no hand, a disability that in no way affected his riding, hunting or shooting"? I'd think it would affect anyone, even if they found a way to overcome that (and how?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurast (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had an artificial hand with a spring-operated thumb.Paulturtle (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement, etc.[edit]

Some of the strongest condemnation of Lord Halifax isn't mentioned. I added the Guilty Men link. Another thing to consider might be the Auxiliary Units/Michael Foot stuff. The somewhat sloppy text on the gateway page to the Dad's Revolutionary Army episode of BBC radio programme Document claims, "the early Home Guard believed that Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax was leading the call to give in ⌈to Germany in the Second World War⌉. Michael Foot, who then backed a guerrilla war, had plans for Halifax if he did. The 93 year-old former Labour leader told this programme: 'I'd have killed him' ". Open4D (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also hear a minute of an interview with Foot here on You Tube. Open4D (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty men isn't a serious historical source, it's a rabid screed by the Marxist wing of the Labour Party. Should we also include "The Left Was Never Right": The 'answer' to 'Guilty Men'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.72.43 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a push to say Foot was on the Marxist wing of the Labour Party. More than a push frankly, just plain daft. Or perhaps you meant the Liberal Owen or the Tory Howard were on the Marxist wing of the Labour Party? DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Sake of England[edit]

Whereas Dominion and Afrika Reich are well-known novels, I cannot find any reference on Amazon to this novel or it's author who has been set up as a redlink. Can someone assist? 217.155.193.120 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Destroy" Czechoslovakia?[edit]

Is the following sentence, from roughly halfway through the article, correct? "The eventual Munich settlement, though humiliating to many in the British government, while hugely popular around the world, was short of Hitler's desires (and of Chamberlain's proposed concessions) and increased Hitler's determination to return to destroy Czechoslovakia in the spring." Hitler's determination to destroy Czechoslovakia? That can't be right, surely? Hitler wanted to *claim* Czechoslovakia, not destroy it. --Stickie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.230.9 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and no. Czechoslovakia was an artificial construct barely 20 years old. Hitler didn't want to physically destroy the country ala Carthage. He wanted to destroy the concept: Take parts for himself and give Poland and Slovakia the rest. 90.184.72.43 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

last appeaser[edit]

The article states "In January 1941 Halifax was sent to Washington, D.C., on the death in office there of Ambassador Marquess of Lothian; he was the last man linked with appeasement to leave the Cabinet, as Chamberlain, Hoare and Simon had already departed."

A couple of quibbles with this. Firstly, Chamberlain didn't depart; he died. Secondly, while Simon was not a member of the War Cabinet, he held the position of Lord Chancellor throughout Churchill's ministry, which was generally a cabinet-level office. Saying he'd "left the Cabinet" seems rather strong - he'd rejoin it as soon as a normal sized cabinet was re-established after the war in Europe ended. Finally, I'm not sure you can say that either Sir Kingsley Wood, a close associate of Chamberlain, or especially Anthony Eden, who had been the primary executor of appeasement throughout his first tenure as Foreign Secretary, can be considered to not be "linked" with appeasement. john k (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon was not restored to the Cabinet when the war ended. I'll retire back to pedants' corner now.Paulturtle (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Was it Winston Churchill or Jennie Jerome who was elected President in 1936? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality questioned[edit]

This article whitewashes Lord Halifax. It doesn't even mention the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis. It was my understanding the reason Churchill became PM was that, unlike Halifax, he did not want to sue for peace. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. He declined to become PM (and this was right at the start of May 1940, just as Hitler was attacking the West), although almost everyone wanted him to, as he felt that Churchill would have been running the war leaving him as a puppet, much as Lloyd George had wanted Asquith to be in Dec 1916. The official reason given was that as a peer he could not realistically be PM. At that stage a long war still seemed to be in the offing.
The suing for peace stuff came a week or two later after the catastrophic French defeat at Sedan. Halifax favoured approaching Italy to see if acceptable terms were on offer, as it would give a chance to extract the BEF from France and in his view better terms might be obtained with France still in the war than after her defeat. Churchill - who appears to been deluding himself about the likelihood of France fighting on and about the imminence of US entry - in drumming up the support of the Labour ministers, asserted that peace would mean "surrender" and handing over the Royal Navy, a view which has passed so deep into popular mythology that most historians just skate quickly over the matter as it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about it. It is simply impossible to say what armistice terms might have been on offer.Paulturtle (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 March 2015[edit]

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: To be moved to Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax. No firm consensus or case based on reliable sources has emerged for the proposed name, but there does seem to be some sense that his name is often spelled out in full in sources, rather than initialised. The proposer said below that the spelled out title is acceptable, so going with that. Note: move requires admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax → Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax – WP:NCPEER. His entry in the ODNB confirms he was known by his first name of Edward. The article seems to have been placed here in 2005 on the grounds that he was more commonly referred to by his initials (like F. E. Smith), but no source for this is given - and he certainly would not have been so known after his ennoblement, so using the initials in combination with the peerage title is anachronistic. Opera hat (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: other sources suggest he was referred to by his initials see: UK War Cabinet, a site which seems to be connected to the National Archives (here), IMDB (here), and this image held by the Library of Congress (here). Other sources tend to spell out his name in full as 'Edward Frederick Lindley' rather than just as Edward such as Cracroft's Peerage (here) and Halifax College, York, which is named after him (here). Ebonelm (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That UK War Cabinet site clearly uses Wikipedia as a source and IMDB is not reliable. Even if Halifax was known to the public as EFL Wood, this would no longer have been the case after he was created Lord Irwin in 1925, succeeded to the viscountcy of Halifax in 1934 and was raised to an earldom in 1944. The only people who would have used his Christian names after 1925 would have been close friends and family, and they called him Edward. The current title is a form of his name that would never have been used by anyone. Any printed encyclopaedia would have its article at "Halifax, Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 1st Earl of" and if you'd prefer this article to be at Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax I wouldn't object. Opera hat (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 18 May 2016[edit]

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: Moved (non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax → Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax – He went by the name Edward, and we don't usually keep people articles with all forenames. Google hits on "edward wood lord halifax": 373,000; on "edward frederick lindley wood lord Halifax: 48,600. He also appears in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as "Edward Wood". HandsomeFella (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree with you, but in Lord Halifax's case there may be something to be said for his three first names. Before he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Irwin, he was often referred to in official contexts as E.F.L. Wood (although Hansard went by Hon Edward Wood or Major E. Wood). In modern academic sources E.F.L. Wood isn't unusual either. Atchom (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar case: Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who was created Baron Lytton in 1866, "after he had done the bulk of his writing and political activity" (quote move discussion on Talk:Edward Bulwer-Lytton. "E. F. L. Wood" – with spaced initials per WP:SPACEINITS – is an alternative target for the move, if that can be agreed upon. It actually has 410,000 google hits. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax or E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax, but whatever, get rid of the God-awful current title. It was never used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I proposed a move to Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax in March, I suppose I'd better support it now. I oppose E. F. L. Wood: are people really suggesting that he is better known by the name under which he served as a minor government minister in the 1920s, rather than as Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India, or Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary and wartime Ambassador to the USA? And I strongly oppose a move back to E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax: at least the full name and title was and is used by other encyclopaedias, biographical dictionaries, peerage reference works and the like, but the combination of initials and title is a nonsense hybrid never seen outside Wikipedia. Opera hat (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Recent edit-warring[edit]

I see the article's introduction, which I scribbled a few months back (it probably needs a brief summary of his India policies as well) has attracted the attentions of an anonymous editor with only a few edits to his name, possibly the same tedious troll who keeps resurfacing in British political history articles of this era (sorry if I'm jumping to wrong conclusions).

Just so as we are clear here, I'm not aware of any historian who seriously disputes the version of events given in the introduction, namely that Halifax, as is shown in documents from the time, was unwilling to be a figurehead PM with Churchill running the war (this was when the German attack on the West had just started but before it became clear that France was about to go down to catastrophic defeat). I don't know of anybody, not even Boris Johnson (I checked) who claims that Churchill "refused to serve under him", even if he may or may not have kept tactically silent at one meeting. This wasn't 1916 when everyone was at each other's throats and threatening to resign. Feel free to post a correction if I'm wrong.Paulturtle (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austria annexed Germany[edit]

More Austrians (by percentage) voted to merge with Germany than Germans voted to merge with Austria. More than 99% of both countries supported the merger but te Austrian vote was higher by a fraction of a percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.133 (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German alliance with Britain[edit]

Hitler stated often that he was a supporter of Britain and its empire, evensuggesting a military alliance o prevent Stalin overtaking Europe. When the British Luegenpresse repeatedly claimed that Hitler was Britain's enemy, Hitler wrote a letter to Lord Rothermere that stated he had given between four and five thousand speeches, and in none of them had he said or written anything against Britain or its interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.133 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax&oldid=1196509058"