Jump to content

Talk:Rutgers University–Newark/Archive 1

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

Major Edit 30 JULY 2006

This article needs to be expanded. I will begin to do so today and in the next few days following. Also, I will propose that it be renamed Rutgers-Newark, as that is the name used officially and the current title of the article is both rarely, if ever used, and awkward. —ExplorerCDT 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war March 2013

I would prefer to avoid an edit war/3RR problem with User:Biala Gwiazda who continues to persist inserting incorrect information into the article and reverting my attempts to correct it. I am a Rutgers alumnus and briefly taught there years ago. I rarely edit articles regarding my alma mater and former employer, but I do watch them to prevent vandalism. User:Biala Gwiazda, an editor putatively residing in or from Poland, does not have any obvious connection to the university and his edits indicate a obvious lack of knowledge about it, to wit:

  • User:Biala Gwiazda renamed the article "Rutgers University, Newark" on 27 February 2013 (10:43 UTC) claiming it was more "clean" and "professional" and keeping with the University of California system. This was a baseless rationale for an incorrect move. I asked at WP:RM for it to be moved back on 3 March 2013 citing the mistake and WP:COMMONNAME. It was restored to its original name on 3 March 2013 at 09:16 UTC. At this time, on 3 March, I reorganized and revised the article.
  • The general public, press, students, faculty, and university pubications refer to it predominantly as Rutgers-Newark and the Newark campus. There is no common usage or regularly-used alternative form as "Rutgers University, Newark" or "Rutgers University in Newark" and any edits to these unused names is improper and grossly inaccurate.
  • I added to the lede section during my revision that Newark is in Essex County which was entirely accurate. Removing Essex County from the lede is not appropriate, and User:Biala Gwiazda did not provide any reason for twice removing it on 4 March 2013 (02:01[1] and 4:45[2] UTC). (removing the titling of the article in the lede a moment beofre at 2:00 UTC[3])
  • Because I had the audacity to attempt to discuss this with User:Biala Gwiazda via his talk page, he resorts to ad hominem attacks advising me "take some time off to think about your mental problems that you may be having".[4] and characterises my entirely acccurate and appropriate revisions as "tampering" [5]

If his disruptive edits continue, I will bring his behaviour to the attention of adminsitrators for their appropriate intervention. I have sought a third opinion, sought attention for his disruptive edits in the appropriate forum, and sought page protection in my attempts to avoid an edit war. Thank you for your consideration. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Third opinion here: Rutgers-Newark is the more correct name of the two. If their own website[7] describes them as "Rutgers-Newark", then it is clearly going to be the more common name. Also, Biala's personal attacks should probably be reported at ANI. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR report here: [8]

  • User:ColonelHenry has been constantly attacking me and posting offensive remarks against me and now it became obvious its because he is a racist. I already told you in your first message to me on my talk page that renaming the article was a mistake but you continued to attack me and didnt add anything positive only derogatory remarks and even making references to my country. The original opening to the article was completely fine and did not need any other additions to the first sentence as that was the original for so long. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Simply wow. The original opening to the article was not fine and needed revision. as for the other nonsense, WP:CIVIL. It is not possible or really worth my effort to continue talking to you. wow.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • George, I don't think the requested move is the issue. User:Biala Gwiazda admitted on several occasions since that he made the move in error. The issue at contention presently is that user's disruptive conduct and repeated reverting on content in the article's lede.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm another vote in favor of keeping it "Rutgers–Newark". Though I do think "Rutgers University, Newark" does look somewhat professional, it certainly wouldn't be commonname. This article SHOULD be moved back to the EM–dash EN-dash version, though. -Kai445 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Meant en-dash. Because it had been that way for forever and a day, and the Camden and New Brunswick articles both have it. And the actual Rutgers style guide says to do that... "Note: Use a closed en dash between Rutgers and the city (as is used here on previous page). Do not use an em dash (longer) or a hyphen (shorter)."[9] -Kai445 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • @Kai445: Thanks for bringing that style guide to my attention...I never knew that existed (not hard to miss considering Rutgers has at least 500,000 separate pages--no hyperbole--on its websites). I have no objection either way (hyphen or en-dash). On the other hand (as a matter of "guideline theory"), if we weigh (1) Rutgers' desire for an en-dash, vs. (2) the guidelines at WP:ENDASH on combining forms and A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities...which rules the day? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda wants to rekindle this edit war

User:Biala Gwiazda seems to want to rekindle the edit-war resolved above by reinserting Rutgers University, Newark. This was resolved and consensus obtained above. Further, the reference added to Newark as a research university is not entirely accurate or informative. Rutgers as a whole is an research university which is discussed at Rutgers University. This article is about the campus in Newark. While I welcome a mention that the university as a whole is a research university, the means used to incorporate this were not proper. The linked to the article at Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education offers nothing edifying concerning Rutgers-Newark and ought not to be included here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Discussion at WP:ANI can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Biala Gwiazda is at it again with Rutgers-Newark.

  • You dont need to be provoking me or other users and you certainly have no authority over this page or anyone else. If you would comply and co-operate then there wouldnt be an "edit war". The edit that you have made to the page is grammatically incorrect and isnt as appealing or clear as it could be. It was fine before you started tampering with it. No one refers to the campus as "The Newark Campus of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey". Also Rutgers-Newark is a research campus so it does need to be classified as so because there are numerous research projects and departments at the campus. I propose this introduction to the page:
  • Rutgers University, Newark or Rutgers-Newark is a public research university and one of three satellite campuses of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey located in the city of Newark, New Jersey, in the United States.
  • This is the most clear first sentence into the page and provides a more clean interface directed at the page. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't presume any authority over anything. I just hate seeing incorrect information no matter how much someone persists in it. You assume it's an ego trip and a power grab, it isn't. You're wrong, we established it above, and I see a duty to correct the record. If someone's name was John Smith, but the article identified him as James Smith, it deserves correction. First. It isn't Rutgers University, Newark...we established that above. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Any attempt to put Rutgers University, Newark ought to be changed because it is incorrect. If you can't see that, refer to the above where a few people agreed with me. As much as you want to make it comport with the Style of University of California, Davis or UC Irvine as you wanted above does not make is correct. Rutgers is _so_ not UCal. Second, the Carnegie Classification article has nothing to do with Rutgers and doesn't mention Rutgers, and it doesn't edify anyone as to what a research university is or how it relates to Rutgers. So there's no use linking "research university" to it. Third, Rutgers-Newark by itself isn't a public research university, it is the one of three campuses of a public research university--a fact that is established at Rutgers University. This article is about the campus. If you can find a way to better and correctly establish it and its relationship, have at it--but I and any other editor reserves the right to correct the record if your contribution is not correct. Fourth, Newark is in Essex County...why are you dead set in eradicating a reference to Essex County. Fifth, your opinion on what is most clear to you by your subjective judgment does not make it "correct." This is an article about Rutgers-Newark, the Newark Campus of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. And for your information, yes people do refer to it as the Newark Campus of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey--and frequently. Such a claim that it isn't known as that is utterly ridiculous. Anything that does not point out Rutgers-Newark and Newark Campus etc. is incorrect and we should eschew any consideration of adding or maintaining incorrect information. So please, stop insisting upon changing the way it already is because that way is already correct whether you like it or not. Therefore, I disagree with your assessment and your proposed revision. Let me ask you, how much do you actually know about Rutgers and the Rutgers-Newark community? What is your motivation to persist in this course if as we've pointed out now and above ad nauseuam that your contribution is incorrect? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • First. Rutgers University, Newark isnt the name of the school, its common knowledge and im not debating that. Its simply referring the the University's presence in Newark. It has nothing to do with the UC system or any other system. Second. The Carnegie classification does list Rutgers and all of its campuses. (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=186399&start_page=index.php&clq={%22eng2005_ids%22%3A%223%22}) Third. Rutgers-Newark IS a research university and that deserves no debating. Each campus has their own research objectives and their own budgets. Here's a link to their page (http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/research-centers-institutes). Fourth. Essex county shouldnt be mentioned, really. Simply because there is no need in mentioning a county when the city is the most important part that should be stated. Its common knowledge that the county is defined in the cities page and doesnt need recognition. Fifth. Obviously its about the school. And there is no official recognition of the name "Newark Campus of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey". Its too long of a statement to make in the opening sentence especially as "Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey" is once again mentioned in the same sentence afterwards. Theres no need for repetition. So please, stop insisting that you are correct or know more than me or anyone else. You dont and you need to stop being so thick-skulled and allow others to voice their opinions. You have no basis that everything i added to the article is "incorrect" and you have no right in saying so especially when you cant provide something worthwhile or at least something that can be agreed upon. Lastly, why do you need to know? Perhaps you should also tell me the same. But because i never intended this to explode or continue on for so long, i'll tell you. Im a student at this school and am very active in the community for the students. I hope this will help and we can finally agree on something. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you never intended this to explode, you shouldn't have been insistent. And if you don't like that, it's so easy to just walk away. The Carnegie Article you linked to here on Wikipedia does not mention Rutgers, it's irrelevant to link to an article that doesn't have anything to edify the discussion of Rutgers-Newark. Why does that article tell you anything about how Rutgers is a research university--that analysis is better served elsewhere within the article, not the lede. But linking to it in the lede without explanation is as irrelevant as linking to something about paper production on the Jack Daniel's article without establishing why. But so many of yyour statements are so wrong it's a waste of time to convince you otherwise, and a waste of time to repeat what I've already said.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Rutgers-Newark is one of three campus components of ONE research university, a part of the whole, it's not separate, discrete, or otherwise independent of the University's complete research objective. The Carnegie Foundation has entries for each campus just like they do for other schools with multiple degree-granting campuses (i.e. other state universities). To think otherwise, is utterly wrong. I guess the student presumes he's more knowledgeable than the associate professor who taught at RU who applies for the research grants. Go figure. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've revised the article to include your Carnegie Foundation information that the Newark campus is ranked as having "high research activity" in the "Academics and Research" section where it is appropriate, and then revised the lede. If you do not think that is acceptable, well, propose something better that I might agree to.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Lastly, you really need to relearn WP:CIVIL, i.e. your comments now about me being "thick-skulled" and previous comments expressing your assertion that because I disagreed I must be mentally ill (up above). Such incivility will not serve your case--in fact, to paraphrase the recently late, beloved Baroness Margaret Thatcher, name-calling and insults are proof that the opponent is out of arguments. Please refrain from it and stick to the facts. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No one knows when you taught and if its even true, besides things change. Anyway, so now that we've gotten past the "name calling" and the in-proper insisting quarrels, we should focus on providing a proper introduction sentence to the page. I appreciate that you're finally willing to work on it and i have some suggestions.
  • This is the edit you made: "Rutgers-Newark or the Newark Campus of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey is one of three campuses of New Jersey's public research university located in the City of Newark, in Essex County, New Jersey in the United States." I tried to incorporate the things that you wanted to add in my previous suggestion and i still believe that it would be the best intro. The current one doesnt sound properly in English and isnt worded professionally or correctly at all. The "Newark Campus" shouldnt be bolded as its not relevant to the theme. Only Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey should be bolded to emphasize the topic. Also as i've said, essex county doesnt need to be included or mentioned in this sentence as its implied when you mention Newark, NJ.
  • All in all i think this would be best: "Rutgers University, Newark or Rutgers-Newark is a public research university and one of three satellite campuses of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey located in the city of Newark, New Jersey, in the United States." Or: "Rutgers-Newark is a public research university and one of three satellite campuses of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey located in the city of Newark, New Jersey, in the United States." Also we could bold "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" in the second suggestion. Hopefully this is better. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree on emboldening Newark Campus because I think it is essentially relevant. That's like saying an alternative title to a book should not be emboldened. (like Moby-Dick). And I disagree, Essex County is not implied...you assume too much for people who aren't knowledgeable about New Jersey. As for research university...there is no such article. There used to be, now it's a redirect to the classification section of the University article and while that section mentions research institutions, this article isn't apposite to the content of our purpose requires. I still don't know why you continue to argue for the non-name Rutgers University, Newark--we established it in comments in the previous iteration of this discussion that it is a name not used, while Rutgers-Newark and Newark Campus are, and that Rutgers-Newark is the article name per WP:COMMONNAME. It's settled. I pointed out why it was wrong and every third opinion and administrator who came into the edit war you started in March agreed. Stop bringing it up. The answer is NO and will always be NO, unless Rutgers-Newark for unknowable reason decided to change their name on a whim. Quite frankly, I prefer my version of the first line to yours--and it's not me being territorial, it's just simply better objectively than yours. As for it sounding wrong in English, well, I'd have to question what objectively is wrong...because grammatically and structurally, this undersigned native speaker of English doesn't see any plausible problem. If it doesn't sound proper or professional, I fail how that's anything other than a subjective judgment on your part. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Essex county doesnt need to be mentioned, its not relevant and it doesnt need to be mentioned in the opening when the name of the state and city is the most important. "Newark Campus" doesnt need to be bolded either. The "research university" part should be linked to the Carnegie classification article as it was before. For the last time, im not debating the Rutgers University, Newark name and the article isnt named like that nor should it be used. Again, your sentence is improperly worded and doesnt sound appealing nor grammatically correct. I stand by this introduction: ""Rutgers-Newark is a public research university and one of three satellite campuses of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey located in the city of Newark, New Jersey, in the United States." This embodies everything you want and everything i want. I would also like more opinions on this. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see how yours is better, sorry. I disagree. There is no article for research university, it redirects to an irrelevant passage at University, so you're linking to something not germane or edifying. Because there are people in this world who do not know Newark is in Essex County, your argument is baseless. And complaining about an innocuous few words is ludicrous. And Rutgers-Newark isn't a discrete public research university, it is a campus of one. Seriously, stop repeating yourself because I hate having to repeat how you are wrong over and over again. Lastly, assertions that the first sentence is "improperly worded" and that it is not "grammatically correct" are meaningless calumny if you can't point to how they violate your subjective sensibilities in an objective manner. So, if you keep repeating, please don't mind if I continue to ignore it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, you're wrong in everything youre saying. It seems like i know better English than you and if you truly taught at this school then thank you for quitting because i cant see how anyone would want to take a class with you nor waste their time arguing with you. You still havent contributed anything positive to this debate and we're going nowhere with your consistent backlashes. I want more opinions on this and the intro will definitely be changed. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Mocking doesnt help and it hurts you more, especially since you showed many times you cant handle anything on your own so you seek help on an internet site. There wouldnt be any of this if you could add anything beneficial and positive. Definitely not a way for someone who "taught" (which is complete nonsense) at the school should act or represent. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Way to go again, more WP:CIVIL, a light reference to your previous assertions that I'm mentally ill because I disagree with you, saying I contribute nothing. Very very appropriate. Are you just going to continue insulting me?--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, that's enough from both of you. Take a few days off and come back to this if you'd like but you're not making any progress right now as you ramp up emotions and trade barbs. The world won't end even if this article isn't at the exact name you think is most correct so please give it a rest. ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I remain in favor of Rutgers-Newark and opposed to calling it "Rutgers University, Newark" or any variant. Can we also switch back to the en-dash yet? -Kai445 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I wish to fix the issue of not getting to this page when you search "Rutgers newark" in the search box. If you search that, it gives you a list of articles and you have to manually get to this page by clicking on it instead of automatically coming here. So whatever option fixes this, im in favor also. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed it. Try again. -Kai445 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @Kai445, regarding the en-dash, we broached that issue in the previous discussion above, and I asked a question you did not reply to. I asked: which should win out (1) Rutgers' desire for an en-dash, vs. (2) the guidelines at WP:ENDASH on "combining forms" stating "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities"? We have Rutgers style guide (en-dash) vs. MOS guidelines (hyphen). I would lean towards the hyphen, based on MOS. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah. Well, I think there is a little of everything to consider. Rutgers' style guide is certainly an important consideration, as it is a prescriptive source. The MoS states "Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered". As far as Rutgers is concerned, the en-dash is the official name, per their style guide. The MoS further states "When naming an article, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title". Also "The en dash (–) has other roles ... It is often analogous to the hyphen (see the section above), which joins components more strongly than the en dash; ..." And I feel that for Rutgers–Newark, the city is strongly associated with the name for this campus, so much so that it deserves the en-dash for emphasis. And lastly, as part of the BRD cycle, the article was moved during a conflict of opinion, I raised my objection of the moving to the current location, and it should be reverted without consensus to move to the current (hyphen) location. -Kai445 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with getting to the page on one search has been fixed and it now works. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems to be one of those situations where the MOS tells you to do it five ways but expects you to choose the right one. LOL. You make a valid argument, and if no one has any objection to the en-dash, I certainly don't. Just as long as the hyphen version redirects to it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the variants need to redirect to the main article. I think Biala's issue was mainly that when searching for "Rutgers newark", you ended up at a search page instead of the article, so I created a non-dash non-hyphen one and redirected it, which solved the issue. That has no bearing on the lede of the article, though. -Kai445 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it still needs to be tightened up some. Is the county that important? -Kai445 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

While it's only a few innocuous words, I believe it is important. Is there anything to be gained by adding it? -Sure, it's a little bit more precise knowledge--especially for those who know nothing about New Jersey, Newark, Rutgers or Essex County. Is there anything to be lost in removing it? -Yes, a little less information. Does it matter? -No. Does it detract from the article? -No. Does it make it better? -Not drastically, but more information is always better even if by small increments. Why did you add it? Why not? Maybe someone gets curious about Essex County. Maybe someone would like to know. Considering Rutgers does have a big economic and social impact on Essex County as a whole (not just Newark) that should/could be mentioned in the article (but is now lacking), it's relevant. In that case, I assert it is always better to leave it in. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not at all common to have county in the lead of articles about U.S. colleges and universities and I'm not sure why this article should be an exception. I agree that it's minor but since the lead is the literally the first thing someone reads in an article it's very important to get it right. I just don't think this information is critical to helping readers understand this topic. If they want or need to know the county in which Newark is located, they can easily visit the Newark article.
We must strive to ensure the lead sentence has only critical information and this doesn't rise to that level. ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers–Newark (Page name with en dash)

Looking at the discussion above, it seems that the consensus is that it should be with the en dash. I agree, because it's the proper name of the school, as the university has officially decreed it, and because its sister pages Rutgers–Camden and Rutgers–New Brunswick are similarly en dashed. I'm going to make a page move request for this to be swapped with Rutgers–Newark (so that page history can be preserved. erc talk/contribs 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the move. -Kai445 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. Kai445 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers-Newark → Rutgers–Newark – This page name currently uses a hyphen. The official name of this school, as promulgated by the university, is that it be with a closed en dash, i.e., no spaces surrounding the en dash. Normally, I would just do this myself, but there's a few reasons why I'm here. 1) Rutgers–Newark already exists as a redirect, and I want to keep the page history intact. Since I don't have admin rights, I can't properly do a page swap. 2) I also can't do a request for a page move for technical reasons because there's some argument in the past about the proper naming of the page. The consensus after a lengthy discussion is that it should be Rutgers–Newark. Also, sister pages Rutgers–Camden and Rutgers–New Brunswick use en dashes, so there's no real merit-worthy argument, however, wiki rules state that anything that even whiffs of controversy needs to go into this section. erc talk/contribs 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support For the reasons I have expanded upon in previous discussions. Official name. Previously was there and stable until recently. Same as the other school articles. -Kai445 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per the reasons discussed above. Still a little apprehensive how MOS issues with hyphens vs. n-dashes are applied (typically inconsistent Wikipedia yet again), but if this how Rutgers style guide renders it, that's good enough a reason for me. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
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 17 April 2015

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. Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rutgers–Newark → Rutgers University–Newark – To match the same title style as the Rutgers University–New Brunswick and Rutgers University–Camden pages. Kai445 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rutgers_University–Newark/Archive_1&oldid=1177256380"