Talk:University of Sussex/Archive 1

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

Error

The World University Rankings, compiled by researchers for the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and published in November 2004, put Sussex ninth in the UK, 17th in Europe and 58th in the world. The latest Times ranking puts Sussex 37th in the UK, a move of 2 places from the year before.

There seems to be an error in calculation here. Either the move was 28 places or the previous "position in the UK" listed was not ninth. Won't correct it since I don't know for sure. --Impaciente 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The Times rankings are not the same as the world rankings, which specifically take into account academic history, number of Nobel winners etc. The Times rankings are basically only for current teaching and research excellence. Being 37th in the Times rankings and 9th in the world rankings is not therefore inconsistent, since they measure radically different criteria. 81.157.183.220 20:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)badger patrol

Alumni

This list is very misleading. Harry Kroto is NOT an alumnus of Sussex, since he took his degrees at Sheffield. He may have once worked at Sussex, but this is not the same thing and he shouldn't be in this category (unless he took an additional degree (e.g. DSc., MSc.) at Sussex?). I suspect this may be true of some of the other 'alumni'. If so, the list should be comprehensively revised.

It's also getting rather long. It could be moved to its own page, or (my preference) pruned somewhat. I intend no offence to anybody, but for example, there is a journalist with a small regional newspaper, and a musician who doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry (their link is to their own external site). It's even possible that some of those listed are "vanity" links. Rather than delete people arbitrarily, I wonder if we could come up with some criteria for justifying inclusion? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (Alumni, not listed, not jealous ;)

Stripping of main article

I find the stripping out of parts of the main article a bit odd. Especially Previous organisation of the University of Sussex which is a fundamental part of the unusual academic history of the institution, and also doesn't really merit a WP article of its own. It's a shame such major changes weren't discussed on this talk page. I propose to move the history of the structure back in, but thought it would be worth opening the discussion here first. I'd welcome hearing from the person making the changes so that my revert doesn't seem argumentative ;-) At the least, though, the work should be done with a little more care. The "previous organisation" article missed out the bibliographic reference which that section once had (but retained a broken link to it) and also didn't have clear context from its opening sentence, nor any link back to the main article, nor categories. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur that some of the stripping does not make sense. I was recently part of the movement that put the Sports and Clubs at the University of Sussex subarticle back into the main article. By and large, the stripped subarticles probalby belong in the main article as sections. —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ISSN->OCLC for undergraduate prospectus

This page was showing up in the Category:Articles with invalid ISSNs. Invalid just means that the check digit fails. Unfortunately it appears that University of Sussex really DID assign an invalid ISSN to its prospectus. You can see the same ISSN in the records of the Oxford University library for this publication. Because Wikipedia is an important information resource, it is important that we not perpetuate invalid identifiers, even in cases where their respective publishers might not have corrected them. Since OCLC is an alternate identifier that can be used by WP readers to look up library entries, and since OCLC DOES find this publication, I went ahead and did the replacement. Please discuss here if you disagree with this approach. Otherwise, I'm afraid this page will stay forever in the 'Invalid ISSN' category and annoy future maintainers. EdJohnston 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This is excellent (IMO), and I was working on trying to fix this at the very moment when I noticed your fix. Hope you and others don't mind, but I implemented the same ISSN->OCLC on the article Previous_organisation_of_the_University_of_Sussex that may be merged here. BTW, I think merging is a good idea, but defer to you on the topic as this article content is not something I usually pay attention to. I only found it because of the ISSN issue ... Regards, Keesiewonder 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructure

Just complete a large restructuring of the article to make adhere to the university Wikiproject. I will be coming back to check this article, and hopefully bring it up to scratch. History on the university is very slim, so if anyone can find anymore information it would be a bonus. ---Adasta- 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

dont sussex and brighton uni have a big gay community? why is there nothing about this Moved further up page.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AFAIK the University of Essex is also entirely located in an area of outstanding natural beauty, Wivenhoe Park. This will need to be checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.55.7 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

External links

I have ejected the links below from the main article as being in violation of WP:EL. If these are refences to contents in the main article, they should be included as such, in a format acceptable to WP:FOOT. Otherwise, they should remain deleted.

Ohconfucius 06:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New Residences

Speaking to my RA at Sussex it seems once the Bramber residences are completed, Lewes Court Phase Three ("North Village") will be constructed. After this there will be enough campus accommodation for East Slope to be demolished and replaced with new residences. Simultaneously or after this occurs, Park Village houses will be refurbished a few at a time, knocking two of the four bedrooms on the ground floor together, along with the kitchen and hall space to form a large communal area in each house.

Any references or other information on this? PseudoNym (Contact me) 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT and other socs

The list of Student Union Societies seems very short. I've added the LGBT; perhaps a list should be obtained from the union website [1] and the article recompiled to match it. - Michael Howarth, Acting CoChair / Male Welfare Officer, Sussex LGBT --81.96.182.163 14:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or if the list exists on the union website, it could be removed from here altogether. It's likely to change each year anyway and I'm not at all sure it needs to be in this article. Compare with other Universities. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well some of the main ones should be listed, as they won't change from year-to-year. (For example, the LGBT is always here; we don't just suddenly vanish, unsurprisingly for a city such as Brighton!) However, I may be biased due to my role in this regard, so I shan't edit. And nice to bump into you Mike, nearly a year later than when you posted! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Communications Officer, Sussex LGBT
I agree that the list is quite small. I'm sort of against including a list of student societies at all, on the basis that most are non-notable, some are non-verifiable, and all are targets for vanity-enlargement by students (who must surely be overrepresented as a demographic among Wikipedia editors). Would anyone object to this list's replacement by a well-formed paragraph about notable societies/teams and a link to a list elsewhere? See University of Cambridge#Sports and other extracurricular activities for the sort of thing I mean. — mholland 06:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

dont sussex and brighton uni have a big gay community? why is there nothing about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.152.122 (talk • contribs)

For Sussex at least (haven't looked at Brighton), the LGBT society is listed under Societies at the University of Sussex. Also, see discssion above.--A bit iffy 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah but shouldnt something be mentioned in the main article

Many Universities have a LGBT society of a decent size. Like most universities, Sussex is about teaching and research, (and Sussex refers to itself as research-led). So it could be argued that while they might make up a large part of a given student's time at Sussex, societies (including this and sport societies) are not core parts of teaching/research, and should not be a core part of the Universities entry on Wikipedia. (Additionally, societies at Sussex are fairly standard and nothing unusual for a university). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Surely if the article mentions all those other societies, they should mention the LGBT society. Why would sports hold more sway here?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a bit odd.. The heading reads "Societies", and is followed by the sentence "The University competes in the following sports:" Shouldn't a "Societies" section actually contain information about societies? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Call my cynical, but it seems to me like a bad case of heteronormativity. Anyway, I was wondering if we could find a reference for the fact that the society has existed for several decades - recently Ben Bradshaw recalled being a member of that society back in Thatcher Britain...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well apparently from this diff on October 12, 2007, there used to be a seperate article called University of Sussex Students' Union. As an admin, Satyr can go there and see what the content was and maybe glean some info from it? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Making it more NPOV

i have requested a reference for saying that the university has a radical reputation as although i have heard this before i think this is a value judgement soshould also really be attributed to someone

and significantly changed the paragraph on the new logo to both update it and make it sound less like an advert

i have changed some of the student media wording

i have deleted the sentence the university "will respect the needs and requirements of people who adhere to a range of cultural and religious beliefs" as it reads like an advertisement. i think the university has a good accepting attitude towards people of different religious and cultural beleifs and would like to add that instead but i think it would need a reference before that could be added.

and i've deleted the more information link at the end of the courses for international students section as i dont think it should be there.

i have also added to the research section the news about the university research funding being cut.

i think more work needs to be done but i need to go to bed now! --Allie cabab (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable Faculty list

I just reverted the adding of a member of faculty, Colin Eaborn to the notable faculty section. I did it becuase i dont see why he is especially notable to be an example in that section.

It made me think though that maybe there should be a list of notable faculty at the university. i propose that it would be a list of current and ex-faculty as it would be difficult to keep a list of simply current faculty up to date.

what do people think? --Allie Cabab (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is common to include everyone who is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Some articles have a list of people associated with the university, in whatever capacity. Wikiproject Universities might be able to help ensure consistency. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IDS

I miss a paragraph about the Institute of Development Studies. Hans Singer should also be mentioned among the notable current and former staff.

IDS have nothing to do with the University of Sussex other than being on the same campus, and working on a few joint research and teaching projects. IDS also outsources some backroom jobs (admin / IT) to the University.

In fact, as well as being on the same campus, engaging in collaborative research, the postgraduate degrees offered by the IDS are accredited by Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/about-us (Stew1986 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Removal of information from Sussex page.

1/It is a fact that Sussex has 5 Nobel winners not 2. The names cited are easily checked on Wikipedia. How long would it take to check the names I gave?

2/Ditto for the well known faculty. Most of them are easy to check on Wiki.

3/Obviously the person deleting this stuff feels seriously enough about this page to put in some effort with regard to it. How long would it take for them to check the Wikipedia entries for Sir Paul Nurse, Sir Anthony Leggett, and Archer John Martin? Instead they are happy to just wipe things so that Wikipedia proudly boasts an inaccurate entry about this university.

4/The same goes for the list of faculty names I provided. It would be an easy matter to check the names with the university itself, via an email to their press office. People should only delete things if they have made a serious effort to understand what posters are trying to do in providing additional information.

Just not very impressive, any of this: a higher standard is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason you are adding unsourced information to University of Sussex and original research to London School of Economics, while deleting unsourced/poorly sourced material from University of Essex and Durham University. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has good advice about this sort of situation. A charitable interpretation is that you would like to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia but have got off to an unfortunate start. If so, I suggest that you learn the ropes by contributing in areas that don't have any emotional significance for you. In respect of your numbered points above, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, in particular the Primary, secondary and tertiary sources section. - Pointillist (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by your comments if they were not couched in this personal idiom. It is the facts that matter. Please avoid patronising comments such as 'emotional significance for you'. Insinuations of this kind are a distraction.

1/Are you saying that the information I have provided about Sussex is factually incorrect?

2/Do you actually research the material which you delete?

3/I would have hoped that people contributing to these pages have taken the trouble to research the history of the institutions concerned.

4/ Again: are you claiming that the names I gave, which are easily checked on Wikipedia, are incorrect? Please provide references in your response, if this is what you claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.230.222 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not just about whether things are factually correct, they need to be referenced so that anybody that reads the article can see they are correct. And Wikipedia cannot be one of those references. An e-mail to university press office is not a good reference because it is original research which cannot be referenced. No body is against you personally, they just have different ideas about how things should be done. Allie Cabab (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


This is frankly pathetic: the main concern of an encyclopaedia should be accuracy, not an obsession with internal procedures. I would expect those contributing to the Sussex page to have taken the trouble to research Sussex University and to have some knowledge of it. And here we have people saying that they are content to let an incomplete and inaccurate entry stand, just to make a point about procedures. The Nobel winners are easily checked and referenced. Feeble, second rate activity here by people who have no knowledge of Sussex University (if they did they would not have removed the entry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.113.55 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Financial Cuts

Surely the financial cuts that are going on at the moment at the university should be mentioned here and also the history of financial mismanagement in the past?!?

At the moment i think this article reads a bit like an extract from the propectus.

If no one objects im happy to try and add a section on it. --Allie cabab (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted most of the information on the Stop the Cuts campaign without any explanation. I have undone it but if there are any reasons it should be deleted i think it should be discussed here first. I think that section could be improved but i don't think it should all be deleted. --Allie Cabab (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They have done this again, but i now realise they are doing this as they think it is biased. I would welcome a rewrite of the section but think that the information is relevent, so shouldn't be deleted. However i have removed the quote from the Sussex Six as i don't see how that is relevent.--Allie Cabab (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Having been involved in all of the occupations I have made a few changes so that the article now no longer suggests that the staff went on strike in order to reinstate the Sussex Six, but rather went on strike to protect their jobs. The occupation of Arts A2for the Sussex Six was a different thing entirely, and the reinstatement should not detract from the fact that the job cuts still stand. Also, the occupiers left before the announcement was made, to support the strikers and join the picket line - the reinstatement was announced later in the day. I have also removed the quote from Simon Englert, as to call the day 'victorious' is only from the students' perspective, and not from the staff's. It goes against the wide, embracing ethos of the campaign to put a link to a particular political faction, when there were many people involved, from all sorts of political backgrounds, and that is what makes the movement strong and united. - LW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.235.23 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also updated the information with the results of the hearnings of 18th May 2010 - LW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.235.23 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not responsible for the deletion of the Stop the Cuts campaign section several months earlier (and have only come across it in recent days), I don't believe it is appropriate in its current form. Most of the material is clearly politically biased towards the cuts campaign, with most of the "facts" originating and cited from the campaign's own blog, which has also been added as an external link. In the interest of the page being politically neutral I shall consider making extensive edits unless anyone here cares to offer a counter-point. The Big F (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, made some edits ... haven't added in anything yet about the A2 lecture theatre occupation, as it requires more sourcing and I don't have the time right now.

I've seen no option but to "start again" as it were with the section. I'm sorry to those that put in the effort to the section before, but it read like a comprehensive history of the Stop The Cuts campaign, and not a very neutral one at that. The huge section on the Stop The Cuts campaign was unjustifiable considering there wasn't even a mention of much of the UCU strike action ... and surely that's the most important protest action of the lot. I've now written a more neutral account of the major factual events which have been occuring thus far in the spending cuts row. Again, I'm very sorry if the previous writer (if that was you Allie, this is to you) feels I've disregarded their work. I sincerely tried to keep it, which is why I've spent far longer than I thought I would on this, but in the grand context I couldn't justify the sheer quantity of STC material. The Big F (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated most of the original material from the paragraph relating to the Union's response to the November 10th protest. The edits that were made to it seemed targeted to remove any mention of violence on the part of the students, which is odd in a paragraph which details the Union's response specifically to aforementioned violence. The edit said that including this information was "leading" regarding the Union's statement, but as you can see by the quotation, the statement is in part meant to specifically address the Union's position towards the events of that day.

I agree though, looking back, that there were gaps in referencing of the figures, so in reinstating the paragraph I have amended the figures and included proper references for them. The Big F (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed this section entirely, as it's looking rather out of place considering the age of the events described in it, and that the Stop The Cuts movement which the section was basically describing the actions of has died. Would like all the info in this section to be reinstated as part of a wider section which details the history of student activism at Sussex Uni (we have a long and proud history of it, and it never seemed right that it wasn't mentioned while people involved in the current movement added stuff purely related to their cause), but I wouldn't know where to start looking for good sources of info about that, not without spending time I don't have. If someone else picks up that baton I'd be glad. The Big F (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Use more (or better) commons images

It would seem like this article could be improved or expanded by better use of the over 100 Commmons photographs available:

72.244.200.94 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:University of Sussex/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article appears to be well cited, although they will need to be verified. The article does have a number of lists and bullet points scattered throughout. Ideally, some of these should be converted into prose. MortimerCat (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

21st Century

"The university has undergone significant budget cuts, and has fired many important staff members. Several departments have been facing closure." This statement feels loaded, and 'many important staff' feels subjective. Perhaps "The university has undergone significant budget cuts which have led to a number of staff redundancies".

I'm also not comfortable with: " Important student resources which enable a diverse student body have been threatened with closure, such as the university creche. [13] Although there have been several significant protests on campus, these have also been met with police arrests and university condemnation. [14]"

The first only cites the creche, which was reviewed several years a go, and one (and the last resort) of several options during the review was to close it. It remained open and a new building now has planning permission. Secondly, during one year (09/10 or 10/11) there were four occupations, police were called to one of them, and a handful of people were arrested for specific reasons (I'm not saying if this is fair). The last sentence does not really reflect this. Foxdown1 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic profile - law paragraph not needed

I quote the second of two paragraphs in the Academic Profile section:

"Law at Sussex has a very strong reputation not only for the unique and radical perspectives offered, but also for the enthusiasm shown by the student body and faculty alike; great emphasis is placed on legal activities and development all year round. The Law school ranks within the top 10 in the country, and in the top 5 according to NSS results,[29] and so every year the School of Law receives a significantly larger amount of applicants than available places. Admission onto one of the Law programs is very competitive and highly sought after, both nationally and internationally. A new state-of-the-art academic building is set to open mid-2012.[30]"

This reads like a prospectus.

If you were to ask those who know the University well what subjects it was particularly noted for they are unlikely to say Law. (it's a good department but one of many!) To dedicate a whole paragraph on this is wholly out of proportion. Further more, most subject areas are over subscribed, which this paragraph claims is proof of Law's high standing. Further more it is no longer moving in to a new building. I suggest this paragraph is removed. Foxdown1 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Advertisment

This article is starting to look like advert material for the university. All unreferenced additions can be removed at any time until a citation is given Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/about/facts/facts-figures. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Paul Nurse

There's nothing on Sir Paul's page to say he has any links to U of Sussex, except to say he was rejected from the university. So why on this page, after he found fame and fortune, should he be linked to UoS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.52.111 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately its buried in his Nobel biography that he did postdoc work here. Though I have checked the other names and have doubts about Archer Martin. Can anyone confirm he was associated with Sussex? Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Library

The Library section doesn't really provide much information and I suggest its removal. The article states it is in the centre of campus (it's on the edge), it has books, journals and online databases, and lists general support services and a cafe. I'm not sure this warrants its own sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdown (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Sussex/Archive_1&oldid=1174380680"