Jump to content

Talk:Jim Steranko

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

Chabon "quote" removal

[edit]

The Michael Chabon quote in the Quotes section turned out not be an actual quote, but a paraphrase. The original site is now defunct; here is what it says on the cached page at [1]

"The Inescapable Truth" by Adam Messano

What: The first ever meeting between Jim Steranko and Michael Chabon Where: Lee's Comics in Mountain View When: Saturday, December 14, 2002

"The following is a reproduction of questions and answers given at the first ever meeting between legendary Marvel Comics artist and one-time escape artist Jim Steranko, and the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay," Michael Chabon."

As a note before we dive into the transcript, Jim Steranko is reported to be the influence behind Jack Kirby creating Mr. Miracle. Mr. Steranko was an escape artist for years in the late 1950's, before his brief but significant run as a writer/artist at Marvel Comics. This, along with his later chronicling of the history of comic books, served as great influences on Mr. Chabon.

The following was written down during the meeting of Jim Steranko and Michael Chabon at Lee's Comics on Saturday, December 14th. This is not reproduced from a tape recording, and as such should not be considered verbatim quotes.

Michael Chabon (opening remarks): "I would never have written Kavalier and Clay without [Jim Steranko's] History of Comics. It is the standard history. When I first read it in 1970 was when I discovered that comics had a history...I was mind blown by [Steranko's] body of work. The October 1995 Comic Book Marketplace issue has a detailed account of Steranko as a performing escape artist. Up until I read that, I had heard it but never knew how seriously to take that."

Jim Steranko (opening remarks): "First, I'm very grateful to Lee for working hard to get this together. This is my first meeting with Michael. We've looked at each other's work without having contact. I'm like the mouse Walt Disney saw running across the floor. [the success of Kavalier and Clay] is a tribute to Michael's skill, talent, and vision."

Jim Steranko (on anything not historically correct in Chabon's novel): "In Kavalier and Clay, there was only one minor moment in the book. And this was with Joe painting comics covers. Maybe Green Hornet #1 or #9, but typically that was very unusual."

Michael Chabon (on anything not historically correct in his novel): "I made Joe Kavalier a refugee. I thought there were no comic creators who were. But it turns out one was, but I can't remember who it was. I started out [researching comics] as an outsider. I have many more contacts now."

Michael Chabon (on the novel's first title): "I stared out calling it The Golden Age. But people thought it was about old people. So that didn't work. Then a DC series of that name came out too. And then the same month that Kavalier and Clay came out, Gore Vidal published a book called The Golden Age. For awhile too it was called "Kavalier and Clay" only, but I added "The Amazing Adventures" to fit the movie serial element that's in the book."

Jim Steranko (on the moment now of meeting Chabon): "It's staggering to be here because a few minutes ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning Michael asked me to inscribe some comics for him."

Michael Chabon (in response): "I also looked for hand-colored Joe Kubert drawing I did when I was a kid. I used markers to fill in all right colors. I wanted to bring that, but I couldn't find it in time."

Accuracy of pre-1965 material

[edit]

The account of his life before 1965 (when he started at Marvel) is of questionable accuracy. Almost everything sources back to Jim Steranko himself with no external validation. Examples include:

- That he played with Bill Haley and the Comets - That he put the first go-go girls onstage - His taking up boxing and fencing - That he worked in nightclubs doing magic and escape 12.96.162.45 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurate statement. Steranko was featured in a 1962 and a 1964 issue of Genii magazine. Steranko's card magic book Steranko on Cards was published in 1960. Tony Robertson 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steranko was not "featured" in the Genii articles, he wrote both of those articles. One is on cards and the other is a self-promotional retrospective on escapes. Its been a long time since I've seen the articles, but I dont remember that they proved whats at issue. The escape article in particular read like the work of someone using a variety of other sources. The card book also doesn't prove that he was doing magic in clubs. It proved that he was around magic and interested in magic, but not that he was doing club shows. 12.96.162.45 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are cited, and include more than Steranko's own bio, as the footnotes list. The article already says of single-source statements that, for example, "Steranko claims [emphasis added here] to have put the first go-go girls on stage," or that "one biography states that such-and-so." Additionally, the Steranko print references cited include images of old playbills, newspaper clippings, etc.
Regarding Haley and the Comets, it was common during the early days of rock'n'roll for recording artists to use local talent as backup musicians in each town; it wasn't like arena rock and VIP passes. --Tenebrae 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary cite right now is to a dragoncon bio without an author. Its a really poor source. Can you tell me exactly which "print references" include the images of old playbills and newspaper clippings? If there are better sources, I'd rather use them than the dragoncon thing. As far as Haley and the Comets, there needs to either be some form of real proof or the statement should be backed off to Steranko claims. I know it was common, but if the statement is made as fact there should be some proof. 12.96.162.45 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't argue with a request for more specific cites! I'll go pull the Steranko slipcase thing out from wherever I've stored it and see what I can come up with. Good vetting, partner!! --Tenebrae 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sorry for the delay. I have the slipcase set and will dig it out. Promise! --Tenebrae 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got some more cites and bio in today.--Tenebrae 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a source for the claim that Steranko's art was exhibited in the Louvre in 1967? My understanding is that the cutoff date for inclusion in the Louvre is 1848. Perhaps Steranko's work was exhibited in some other Paris museum? Mtminchi08 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Lead section etc. comment in edit summary

[edit]

I'm sure we could remove the Hulk image without affecting the quality of the article, as the Hulk wasn't a signature character the way Fury and Capt. America were.

I think we're on safe ground with the cover gallery, since in terms of comics history they're seven of the most famous, influential, and subject-of-homage-and-tribute images ever in the medium; one rare homage page is even given in the article. They're also extremely small, very low-res, postage-stamp-sized images, which has bearing on fair use. --Tenebrae 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby full-page, double-page spreads

[edit]

I've commented out this claim until we can get confirmation. I'm virtually certain comics' first full-page story art was Kirby in an early Captain America Comics, but have no verification of that. I've heard anecdotally that Kirby also may have done comics' first double-page spread, but have no no confirmation of that either. Can anyone pin these down? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Simon & Kirby Captain America reprints somewhere, so I can try and verify that. Could take a while to find, though. Meanwhile, it appears that Kirby was certain doing full-page artwork by 1957 in Challengers of the Unknown1 and double-page spreads by FF Annual #1 (1963), which would at least pre-date Steranko, if not prove categorically that Kirby pioneered the technique. (Indeed, surely Eisner's Spirit comes close to being - if not IS - the first full-page artwork...? Although that would generally have been on 'covers' rather than interior work, and not necessarily "comics" per se, so may not be relevent.) ntnon (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - the main body of the article is looking pretty solid (although it could always do with more footnotes) but things fall apart towards the end with all sorts of sections tagged as incomplete and needing expanding. It also has a homages section which can be troublesome as it often requires inferring intent and can be a magnet for original research. The article also lacks a photo. So I have bumped it down to a C.
Although not related to the assessment per se, but I think it might help to split the bibliography off to List of works by Jim Steranko, which would help article feel more focused. I suspect the bibliography might need expanding and clarifying and it is already pretty large. (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I split it off. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

User:K72ndst added a nice photo of Jim Steranko to Steranko's article, as seen here. I didn't think it made the best use of the available space, so I cropped it, and added the cropped version to the article, see here, which devotes more of the space to Steranko, as seen here.

K72ndst disagreed with this, leaving this message on my Talk Page: "Hello: I really do not like how you cropped and edited my photo of Jim Steranko, so I am changing it back. I am a photographer, and I made a serious and thought-out decision how I wanted to best present my image. I took more than 20 of Steranko at the con, and could have had a boring photo like you have cropped my photo down to be. The reason I presented it in this way was to show the con around him. I do not want it presented in this fashion. Or I will take the image down. I have contributed many many images to Wikipedia, and never has anyone just gone in and chopped up an image of mine this way."

I cropped the photo because the article is about Steranko, not the convention, and I think the cropped version shows him better. Pursuant to K72's statements, including his intention to possibly take the photo down, I began this discussion on the WP:Images Talk Page, where a number of people weighed in, including K72, who made this statement. One participant in the other discussion said that K72's wishes should be respected, but most of the others agreed that nothing prevents cropping as a legitimate choice, and that this conflict should be resolved with discussion on consensus-building, just as any other, here on this Talk Page. Of those who opined a preference, User:Asmeurer opined that the cropped version is better, and User:Dicklyon preferred the uncropped version. So that's two for the cropped version, and two for the uncropped version. What say you? Cropped or uncropped? Nightscream (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Here's the thing. Cropped is bigger, shows more of Steranko and less of other things, which seems proper for the article. However, it's also slightly fuzzy, static, and uninteresting. The uncropped shows a bit less of Steranko, but gives him context, and the image is more vital, and interesting. I think that here we benefit more from the energy of the uncropped image, despite a little loss of close-up. Steranko, surrounded by 'his environment' is far better in the context of his achievements. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to reduce this to a 'vote'. I won't be doing that, because we don't do that here. I've made my support for the uncropped clear, and prefer to leave a reasoned response. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were not asked to "reduce" your post to a vote. I merely asked you to format your post so as to put your vote at the beginning with a bullet. Your elaborations could simply follow after that, much as others did here after you. Sorry if I was unclear. Nightscream (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will vote either, but I will comment for discussion, and you can use that as needed. I like the photo, viscerally, and think it would make a great addition to the article as-is. However, all the negative space makes for a poor infobox image choice unless cropped. So, consider my opinion as Cropped if used for infobox, otherwise Uncropped if used anywhere else in the article. BOZ (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I like the uncropped version. I don't care about showing the con, but it's pleasing to the eye. The cropped version takes away the elegance, but I'm not sure we care about that in an encylcopedia. I wonder if a different cropping, just above the book on the table, and just to left of the background guy's elbow would look good? It would make Steranko larger, and still (kinda) put him in context. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped (but hopefully even that will be replaced eventually with a photo that shows his face in focus). The article is not about the convention. In the info-box, a cropped version is even more important.  HWV258  05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped version (that I notice has been put in the article) is quite striking and works well. Personally I would have cropped slightly more off the right-hand side in order to remove the distracting bright splotch, and to balance the area around the shoulders (but that's just me).  HWV258  21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped if used in the infobox, although it is probably not ideal for that purpose (it is grey scale and slightly fuzzy). I don't think the uncropped image is appropriate for the infobox, although aesthetically speaking it is a good photo and the composition works better uncropped. I'd suggest a compromise: We use the cropped version until someone can come up with something better that fits and we put the uncropped version in the article. I know we are legally on safe ground but I am happy to take on board the photographer's wishes, so if they don't want the cropped version to be used then we put the image in the article further down and wait until someone comes up with something we can use (after all we aren't on a WP:DEADLINE). So, yes, too complicated for a simple vote. (Emperor (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Cropped Given the Creative Commons license that allows modifcation, this really is a moot point. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the cropped version here in the infobox for this article, and the full version in Silver Age of Comic Books? :) BOZ (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am discouraged by the preference for an out-of-focus image over an in-focus one. Further, the image is a Sepia tone, not a gray scale. Peregrine Fisher's compromise cropping idea is one I could accept, as it would yield some context, and avoid the majority ofthe fuzziness. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the above, I think I have to agree with nearly everyone (and yes, I think that's possible : )

If used for the infobox, then the image should be cropped for various reasons, though I also agree that perhaps the current "cropping" may not be the best (due to ThuranX's concerns, and possibly Peregrine Fisher's suggestion).

For other places in this or other articles, the uncropped version would seem to be appropriate, for the reasons stated by the original uploader and others.

Would User:K72ndst be interested in uploading a cropped version of the photo, taking this discussion into account? If so, I think (based upon the above comments), that such a compromise might be amenable to all. - jc37 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue to me with the cropping of the image itself, because of the license the image has been released under. The uncropped image is the better photo. Whether that means it is the best image to use in an infobox is another question which everyone has already given their opinion on. While I would prefer the uncropped one, I'm not going to stand in the way of any consensus which prefers the cropped one, no matter how aesthetically unpleasing it is. Hiding T 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

  • It looks like most of the above comments have hit the broad points:
    • The infobox image should, as much as possible, focus on the subject of the article.
    • Images uploaded as public domain or "free use just ID the author" can be modified as needed, without the permission of the uploader or original author of the work. And they really don't have any recourse about it.
    • The sepia, or even a black and white image, is an odd choice for an article on a still living individual.
Just a few other things though...
  • Even non-free images can, and are, cropped for use. So arguing about it is a bit moot. The only difference I could see is that if the image had been uploaded as non-free, K72ndst could ask that it be removed if it were modified.
  • Since BLP holds that only free images can be used for infoboxes or like purposes. So if it were uploaded as non-free, it could not be used here.
  • Given the size of the image (376 across in the crop) and the use size for the infobox (220), the focus on the face isn't really an issue. The compression hides the fuzziness.
The upshot is, the tighter focus on Steranko is more appropriate for the infobox here. If K72ndst is concerned about the quality and integrity of the work, as JC37 notes, they are free to upload a version of their work that is more compatible with use in the infobox. The catch is still going to be that it will have to be a free use image. Otherwise, Nightscream's cropped version is more appropriate to use in the 'box.
- J Greb (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is often unwise to go with an infobox image in landscape as it means you lose a lot of height and can't usually get as much detail as you would with something in portrait ratios. There may be exceptions to this but this isn't such a case. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Cropped. Article is about Steranko, not the convention. If contributor doesn't like to be edited, s/he shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.14:13. Konczewski (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped. The supposed "fuzziness" of Steranko's image in the cropped version isn't half as bad as the overall lack of clarity in the background of the original. Without prior information on where the photo was taken, I would have been unsure exactly what the background was. A closer focus on Steranko is definitely preferable when the alternative is a wide angle of the man set against an indistinct backdrop. -- Pennyforth (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is, this article will not go to B Class without a photo of Steranko. This is how I took the photo and want to see it presented. It is a well-written article, and I don't think you would "crop" pieces of it to suit your "artistic" desires. There is no "fuzziness" because I took it a certain way during the convention. If you want to stick a camera in the man's face, then go to the convention and take a photo yourself. I was being respectful of him, which is what I'd like to see for my contribution. How big a deal is this? Look how terrible the Frank Miller photos are. K72ndst (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I already recorded your vote above, so please don't vote multiple times. Second, no one is arguing that the article should proceed without a photo. The issue is whether we use the cropped version or the uncropped version, so I'm not sure why you're talking about going "to B Class without a photo of Steranko." Nor do I see what the fact that the article is well-written has to do with this. How you took the photo and want it presented is noted, but is not a substitute for consensus. As for the "fuzziness", I personally do not think that any fuzziness is detectable when it's reduced to the Infobox thumbnail. And I'm a sucker for sepia-toned photos, so I actually like that. As for a different crop, I'm all for it, but I don't think K72ndst is interested in creating one himself, so I suggest that one of you who favor this do the cropping yourself. Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a photo isn't the only thing keeping this from becoming a B - if this was GA or A-quality and still lacked a photograph then that would be a big issue we'd need to rectify somehow.
One point though - this isn't a vote and I see no evidence of K72ndst voting multiple times - I think we're all interested to hear their feelings on this issue. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Uncropped but I'd like a slightly different crop, if that's possible. A few more degrees to the left and cropping out the half a guy on the right. Since I know most votes are going the other way, let me explain why. Steranko is half the photo and he is the only thing in focus -- it's not like a con photo he happens to be in. The photo is not a studio portrait -- it's a photo at a convention. Cropping it down to just the person is attempting to make it something it is not, a photo in a controlled environment. Why are those two people standing behind him? Who would ever take a picture like that?! Attempting to crop out the environment makes the image worse. In the full context, you see him at a con, you see people and displays behind him, etc. This is probably not the best photo ever taken of the guy, but comparing the two, I think the uncropped one is significantly better. A different argument is whether the photo should be a tightly-cropped image of the guy. In general, I would agree with a tightly-cropped image in an infobox. But, if that is what consensus is here, a different photo should be used, one that was intended to have a tight crop. RoyLeban (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncropped, BUT NOT in the infobox. It's a good photo, but it belongs in the article - and in the New York Comic Con article - as is. I strongly suggest we merely look for another picture for the infobox. That respects the wishes of the photographer, but supports the absolute common sense argument that the infobox picture be of the individual in as uncluttered a manner as possible. Since there will then be a recent photo of Steranko in the article, I'd even tentatively suggest that the infobox picture could be a piece of art; a self portrait by Steranko. Something like this. ntnon (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Cropped Enough. Something need to be done to remove Jim's horrible toupee. --Captain Infinity (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an artwork (that we don't even know is a self-portrait in the first place) is a substitute for a photograph, particularly where a photo is available. Right now, we don't have any other photo, so I think we should be focusing on how to use this one, and yes, we're talking about the Infobox. If Steranko shows up at the next Big Apple Con, I could always take one of him myself if I'm given a press pass like last time, but in November, he declined to be photographed when I asked him. As for cropping more to the left, the cropped version I created is already cropped to the left edge of the one currently in the article, and if there's an original that shows the rest of him, K72 doesn't seem very inclined to provide it. As for a toupee, I wasn't aware that he wears one, and in any event, if he wears one, then that's how he appears in public, in which case, that's how we can present him. How to present a photo of someone is one thing; How the person presents themselves is another. Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped. When the uncropped picture appears in the inforbox, his face looks too small to see properly. The cropped one is clearer. Also it isn't actually obvious in the uncropped picture that he is in a comics convention. When I read that that's where the picture was taken, I could see that that's what it was, but if you saw the picture first, without any text to say what it is, then I don;t think you could immediately tell that it is a picture of a man at a comics convention. You certainly wouldn't be able to tell from the photo that it was a comics convention. Also, as others have said, the article is about the man. Finally, and with the greatest possible respect for the photographer, I honestly don't think that the photographer's wishes about how the photo should be presented artistically should carry any weight (that is, any more weight than anyone else's opinion). A consensus should be based on what is best for the Wikipedia article, not about sensitivity to someone's feelings: it should be decided entirely on its own merits. And to say that the photographer should have a special claim on what should happen strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Richard75 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped. The cropped picture is perfect for the infobox. While the background is fuzzy, Steranko isn't. The image of him is as clear as a bell and, since the subject of this article is Jim Steranko, that's exactly as it should be.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped. I can only agree with all of the above. The focus here (no pun intended) is Jim Steranko, not the convention.

Asgardian (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim HATES this photo! Partially because there is a lot of non-Steranko art in it. He would be very pleased if you would revert to the prior photo or I can supply his official PR photo. Thanks, J. David Spurlock Agent of STERANKO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8AA4:8300:851D:E00B:81F0:37F9 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits

[edit]

I removed an uncited, unattributed Steranko quote, as well as POV wording and another chunk of uncited content. I then tracked down the quote (at http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/07/it-would-only-take-me-one-story-to-do.html), and Steranko's not talking about "At the Stroke of Midnight" — he's talking about a story for Epic Illustrated and mentions "At the Stroke of Midnight" in passing in reference to a later Phantom Stranger-like project with Harlan Ellison, called "Dante's Inferno":

DANIEL BEST: I read that a Steranko story will be included in Marvel's Epic Illustrated magazine. Can you give me some details about it?

STERANKO: When Rick Marschall called and asked if I could do anything for Epic Illustrated, I told him that I'm retired from commercial work. Then I remembered a story that I had done for Stan when the mystery-horror books were first coming out. I had created a character called Karstone (an anagram of Steranko), and Harlan Ellison agreed to write the scripts for the series. The character was a lot like The Phantom Stranger. He wore a white vested suit, a turban and had a cane. You couldn't tell if he was Oriental or not. I handed the story in, but Stan didn't like it because it wasn't drawn in the Kirby-Marvel style. There weren't any arms or legs flying out of panels. I was purposely trying to make it non-Marvel and drew it in the style of “At the Stroke of Midnight". There is a fight scene that is drawn very realistically and it's not as exciting as a Jack Kirby fight scene, because real fights are not like that. It was bloodier, more realistic, but less dramatic. The story's called "Dante's Inferno." I was inspired by the plot from the movie of the same name.

--Tenebrae (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriages

[edit]

Steranko's first wife was Paty Greer. After they divorced she married Dave Cockrum in 1978. Not certain of his second wife's name, or of children. However, these are verifiable facts which should be included in the article at some point.

Of perhaps less interest (since this isn't William Shatner's wiki page) is the time frame in which Steranko began to wear a toupee. There are early 1980s photos out there of him with VERY thinning hair, prior to donning the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.214.210 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Steranko&oldid=1212761772"