Talk:Marquis Who's Who

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

Wrong information about payments?[edit]

While this page writes "Marquis Who's Who claims to require no publication or processing fees from the persons selected as biographees.[8]" {with ref. 8 is the FAQ}, on a related page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Nelson_Marquis#Controversies -- it states that "awardees are encouraged to obtain a 'distribution package' by paying $800 of their own money instead of receiving any money or honours".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.35.54 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Can anyone verify that this is not spam, or at least not "legitimate"? I get these all the time in the mail and it doesn't seem like any legitimate publications would have an opt-out nomination process.

I (as a Who's Who biographee) think that the opposite is true, that there isn't an "opt out" process. I've corresponded with others who've asked not to be included and were anyway, and there are also asterisked biographies, where it was compiled without the participation of the biographee. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not say that there are now a of publications. Article seems to be focussed on Who's Who in America but there is now Who's Who in the World &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (disclaimer: biographee in both).[reply]

Who's Who among Who's Whos[edit]

I come at this as a collector of Who's Who books, as a Who's Who in America biographee, and also as compiler of a political biography web site, Political Graveyard.

Note that "Who's Who" is not trademarked, and anyone can call title a book that way.

For some time now, Marquis has been the most important biographical compilation publisher, with people included based strictly on "reference value" (though they certainly try to sell the books to their biographees). Though Marquis publishes various specific books like "Who's Who in American Law" and "Who's Who in Education", etc., and regional books like "Who's Who in the Midwest", their flagship has been "Who's Who in America", published in regular issues for over a century. Despite the high price, practically every public library in America has a shelf full of Marquis volumes.

Marquis used to have an almost equally respectable competitor called Mayflower, which published books covering broad regions (Eastern States, Central States, etc.) in the 1920s and 1930s. I don't know what happened to Mayflower, but I think it's possible that Marquis absorbed them. I have never seen a nationwide biographical compilation by Mayflower, but there may be such a thing. Mayflower's format and style were strikingly similar to Marquis.

There are some perfectly good local or regional books in specific areas, usually states or larger cities, published locally in the 1920s through the 1960s or so. Those publishers probably don't have the ambition to go beyond those areas, especially given that Marquis is so dominant in the field.

At the other pole from Marquis are the fraudulent Who's Whos, which are obviously designed to sell books to biographees and are almost never found in libraries. For example, I have a Who's Who in California (1983) which doesn't include the Governor, any of the main political leaders of the state, or really any well-known celebrities.Kestenbaum 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is consistent with my research, there are plenty of scams related to "Who's who" fraudulent books. But this does not mean that we cannot include criticism made against the Who's Who as published in Forbes magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is "slanted" because of that statement, feel free to add more content about the subject itself. It will be welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Do you have any information about how Marquis does fact checking and what is the inclusion criteria? In browsing last year's edition, it inclusion criteria seems rather arbitraty and it confirms many of the issues raised in the Forbes article... Read a cite from that article, below:
Or say hello to Stephen Geiman, who teaches gym at Wilson Memorial High School in Fishersville, Virginia. From 1970 to 1972, Geiman, a graduate of the physical education program at Appalachian State University, was the school's driver's ed instructor. Or David Dolsen, an undertaker in Denver. Or Amy Fung, an accountant from Staten Island. And let's not forget Mary Morgan, a 55-year-old social worker in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. Or Lila Licens, an administrative assistant from Tacoma, Washington, who has been president of the Mt. Rainier chapter of Professional Secretaries International since 1994. Or Courtland Paul, a landscape architect in San Juan Capistrano, who implores Who's Who readers to "Be on time, produce more than is expected and always, ALWAYS be fair!!!" And of course there's Marguerite Gearhart, a school nurse in Jupiter, Florida, who lists among her myriad accomplishments a 1968-69 stint as "co-leader" of a Campfire Girls troupe. Never heard of these people? Then you haven't read Who's Who lately. [1] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking at the thing through the wrong end. It's easy to scorn Who's Who as old-fashioned and elitist, which it certainly is -- I roll my eyes when I see its references to "distinguished Americans" and the like. And obviously this Forbes columnist went through pages of Who's Who and found a few people who seem to belie the "distinguished" label. Aha, he seems to be saying, it's an empty honor after all.
But if you need to find out, say, where a former member of the Pepsico board of directors went to school, or the birthplace of one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there probably isn't anywhere else to find it. And it doesn't matter one whit whether there happens to be a school nurse or a landscape architect listed somewhere on a nearby page. Libraries don't shell out hundreds of dollars for this book in order to give honor to the chosen biographees -- they want it because it answers reference questions they get every day.
The great advantage Marquis owns is that its hoary reputation and seeming veneration of its biographees helps persuade an astonishingly high proportion of the country's business and political and entertainment elite to fill out those questionnaires year after year, hence providing everyone else with miles of useful biographical data.
I don't know what kind of fact checking they actually do, but it doesn't really matter that much. When a celebrity lies about his age or other basic facts, the inevitable disclosure is terribly embarrassing. Remember Gary Hart? At least all those people are on the record with a version of their life story, rather than exercising economic or political power from shadowy anonymity.
As I mentioned above, there are vanity Who's Whos out there. The books they publish are worthless except as curiosities, because they aren't trying to be works of reference. Marquis strokes the egos of its biographees, sure, most recently with the inclusion of those sappy messages you can pay to have appended to your entry (quoted to great effect by the Forbes columnist). And they sell them books and plaques and so forth. But all the vanity features and merchandise is just a little extra money on the side; I'm guessing only a small percentage ever buy anything. The goal of the enterprise is to profit by publishing a reference work that thousands of libraries all over America will consider worth the price. Kestenbaum 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I have now rewritten the piece according to my understanding of the subject, retaining the reference to Tucker Carlson and his criticisms. Kestenbaum 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have edited it further and NPOV'ed some of the text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an advert[edit]

The article lead reads like an advert, using not NPOV language and without attributing the many assertions made there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has changed from 1999[edit]

Today, Marquis remains as the most prestigious listing and has recently been reviewed by The New York Times, 2005 where they called them an "authoritative tool and valid portrait of [American] society".

No, that is absolutely not what the article says. Rather:
"With the information highway now an international Interstate, is a 5,919-page, $749 reference book an authoritative tool and valid portrait of society, or a dinosaur from the print age?"
In other words, it raises the question as to whether the book is totally useless. Please do not equivocate like this. Plclark (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes 2006 lists refers to Marquis as one source. While the earlier 1999 article by Forbes criticised Marquis, it has since been taken over and their current reference to Marquis obviously reflects their confidence.

Marquis, is used by the US Embassy librariesand also by respected universities such as Northwestern and Harvard's Biography Resource Center.

Most persons criticising Marquis are plain jealous because they never got listed themselves! Others can't understand the business model and take on a highly idealistic approach which seems to suggest that biographical firms can't make money (these chaps don't work for the government or foundations!). Fact is that Marquis offers a valuable service by reviewing people from different walks of life, in the US/outside it, and picking the leaders. These people deserve recognition and Marquis provides it.

Marquis don't insist on any purchases prior to listing and its optional not to make any purchases. It's probably not 100% perfect but remains the most accurate/ prestigious rating amongst the Who's Who publications with over 100 years behind them. It is a valuable source of reference and is used as such by important institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Factual Evidence in the Article![edit]

I note that I had edited the original article and put the Forbes 2006 link into the article. It was deleted and I have reverted it, as the correct position with regard to Forbes should be transparent. I believe that Wikipedia is a forum for everyone to objectively add factual material. I would request the other editor NOT to delete this edit as its an important clarification - a lot has changed from 1999 and the article must be objective/ upto date. Marquis was bought out in 2003 and the Forbes reference obviously reflects their current confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who as a Wikipedia reference[edit]

I'd like to see a position from Wikipedians on use of Who's Who citations in biographies of living people and questions of notability. I've come across a couple of pages where the only citation was from Marquis Who's Who and they seemed pretty sketchy. Thoughts? Toddstreat1 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I'm pretty sure that Marquis Who's Who falls into this category. Does anyone disagree? Toddstreat1 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do, as the selection process is not well understood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the notion that Marquis Who's Who is a "questionable" source.
  • Nearly every sizable library in America spends hundreds of dollars to buy each new edition as it comes out. Librarians have treated it as a valuable source from the beginning.
  • The information is provided by the biographee, but the people are chosen by Marquis, and the information is solicited and obtained and edited by Marquis. It's not like a blog posting.
Listing in Who's Who ought not be taken as proof of notability, since the inclusion threshold is lower than it is for Wikipedia. But for those who are notable, providing false information to Marquis is likely to generate bad publicity when found out. Kestenbaum 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A sweeping generalization is not needed. Just note that there is huge confusion about which who's who is who (not pun intended). My point is that if there is biographical info worth presenting in a Wikipedia article, there should be other more reliable sources that "Who's Who". If specific bio material is only available in "Who's Who", it sholud not be used in a Wikipedia article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that's what I wrote, but that's pretty much what I meant. Thanks for confirming. Toddstreat1 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selection process[edit]

We need to expand on the selection process for being included in these lists. We need both self-published assertions about how they do that selection, as well as third parties, for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added Marquis self-published assertions about the selection process. JGHowes talk - 01:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, HOW DID THEY GET MY HOME ADDRESS and other pertinent details? Kingpin (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Marquis Who's Who[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Marquis Who's Who's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt":

  • From H. O. West: "Death of H.O. West". The New York Times, August 22, 1981. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • From Mack Harrell: Ross Parmenter (February 7, 1960). "WORLD OF MUSIC: FRIEND LOST; Mack Harrell's Death Will Mean New Faces At Aspen Festival". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The criticism section of the article includes a quote from one Jan Margosian, described as a consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, which lumps together all Who's Who publications and suggests they are all more or less the same. This is - not to mince words - rubbish. There surely are some that have a business model based on including people just for buying the book, but Marquis Who's Who definitely does not do that. When they asked me for biographical information, they stated very clearly and prominently that inclusion did not depend on buying a copy. And I did not "self-nominate". I have no connection with the Marquis company (other than having been a biographee for several years) and I certainly never bought a copy in all the years they listed me. The main Marquis Who's Who in America is a valuable reference book, to be found in most libraries. It's more useful than Wikipedia because it lists more people.

Why is it appropriate to include uninformed nonsense in a Wikipedia article? In my opinion, the Jan Margosian quote should be removed.Sayitclearly (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that "the Jan Margosian quote should be removed" from the article, it may be possible to abstract or identify the larger issues, such as, "some would-be critics of Who's Who publications 'lump together all Who's Who publications and suggest they are all more or less the same', which is an inherently problematic and indefensible position. [Then offer criticisms of that viewpoint, without attacking Jan Margosian (though perhaps the article could CITE that criticism in a footnote).] MaynardClark (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism section actually misses a major point. These books are NOT biographies of notable people. They are biographies of anyone that they can persuade to pay for inclusion. I have just today received an entirely unsolicitied email from Marquis Who's Who, saying:

"Congratulations on your nomination! August 31st, 2017 RESPONSE NECESSARY BY Septemeber 5th, 2017 Dear John , You were recently nominated as a biographical candidate to be featured in the 2018 Who’s Who in America- the best-known, most trusted biographical resource on America’s most accomplished individuals since 1899". I have left the spelling and punctuation errors intact."

There is no reason why I - a New Zealander - would genuinely have been nominated for a Who's Who in America. This publisher is no better than a Nigerian scammer. The criticism section must be much harsher.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcomings[edit]

Shortcomings of 'Who's Who publications' - could be one way to look at putative criticisms of Who's Who publications:

A chart that would actually STUDY the claims of various Who's Who publications to BE comparable to Marquis's Who's Who could show what they do and what they don't do.

Elements we do not have on entries in Who's Who publications include:

  • When that entry FIRST appeared in that Who's Who publication.
  • WHY that entry was included in that Who's Who publication (e.g. notability - for what? Does 'notability' depend, as JP Sartre might have suggested, upon the outcomes of history; in one possible scenario, all of party A is significant because they were precursors to a historic change, but all of party B would be insignificant because their efforts did not prevail. However, counterfactually, with a different outcome, the historic 'winners' would be party B rather than party A, and that would involve a rewriting of history "by 'deletionists'" because notability is entirely, not partially, contingent upon their prevailing. What makes prevailing in history happen? Does prevailing in history imply being good, or even working for the optimal outcome? How about dynamics of democracy, the crowd, the mob, the clique, the guild, the professional association, the academy, etc.?)?
  • Should a discussion of 'criteria of notability' be included somewhere and linked in this article for those who want to research it further? Surely the criteria of inclusion for any specific Who's Who publication do not match the criteria of notability (which may be more of a 'floating point' set of criteria). MaynardClark (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the point made by MarynardClark regarding the WHY. It would great if there was some transparency in the same way that University rankings or Sports Rankings provide clear explanation on how they came to the results. What are the key data points being looked at in the selection process. FactFidelity (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate/Unsupported Information[edit]

Reverting changes related to Cambridge Who's Who because citations provided and publicly available reference material do not support this position. Given the nature of the industry, this seems like an attempt to provide inaccurate information about this information. Not sure if this is a competitor doing this. If there is information to contradict state records or public records then I'm open to the changes proposed. Until then, it's in the best interest of the community to have the most accurate information supported by reliable sources. I've transferred almost all the information from the citation into the article.

I'm new to this, but I'm a stickler for facts. There is no value in people making up information to support an agenda. FactFidelity (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided has been verified with current and former employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.185.181 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it too convenient to just say that information has been verified with current and former employees. If these employees do exist then the entries should be added as attributed quotes. Wikipedia should not used as a vehicle for personal agenda with unsubstantiated information. Additionally, you mark my changes as vandalism even though every piece of information I have entered is validated with credible sources. You have yet to supply one single source that can be verified to support the information you are providing. Additionally, much of the information I entered came directly from the sources you provided. FactFidelity (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the primary purpose of all your edits is simply to connect this organization with a politically motivated article about a company that on the surface does not seem to have any relationship. This is evidenced by your reference to the NYT article (New York Times, "‘We’re an Easy Target’: Taken In by the Trump Brand", June 2016) in the external links sections. 20:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfidelity (talk • contribs)
Can a third party provide some input? From mine perspective, this is starting to appear like someone who is purposefully trying to connect this organization with unsupported facts in order to impact the organization's reputation. Without reliable references of this relationship, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow this information to continue to stay on the page. I would like to remove this information. I'd held off so far in order to be respectful of the community rules after observing the back and forth. FactFidelity (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is about another company, so it fails verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, retracted, it is a subsidiary of that very company, so technically that isn't another company. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where it says it's a subsidiary. Only mention of the subsidiary is by the anonymous updates. The public records seem to indicate that each of the mentioned companies are standalone. My understanding of the records are the Marquis Who's Who's Ventures LLC is doing business as Marquis Who's Who, which is a trademark of Marquis Who's Who Ventures LLC. FactFidelity (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, according to Investopedia, a subsidiary is a company whose voting stock is more than 50% controlled by another company, usually referred to as the parent company or holding company.[1]104.247.45.30 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See https://www.google.com/search?q=Marquis+Registry+and+Professional+Biographies,+a+Div.+of+Worldwide+Branding Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this page, https://worldwidebrandingfactportal.com/frequently-asked-questions/, and it seems to indicate the opposite. Most of the links in the search you provide seem to be broken. This page seems to be directly associated with Worldwide Branding. Looks like it's an attempt to address some of the issues that can be found online. There just doesn't seem to be any credible sources to contradict the information provided by the State of Delaware. Look forward to your thoughts. FactFidelity (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most links were still cached by Google, anyway when I posted the link. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my Google search at http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/temp/Marquis%20Registry%20and%20Professional%20Biographies,%20a%20Div.pdf Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Subsidiary Definition". Investopedia. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marquis Who's Who. 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) 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marquis Who's Who. 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) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Removal of criticism does not comply with WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requires criticism and praise comport with WP:DUE. It does not state nor imply that criticism must be added. And Tucker Carlson is not it. petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

Marquis Who's Who LLC is not affiliated with Worldwide Branding. (https://worldwidebrandingfactportal.com/2014/04/16/q-what-is-the-difference-between-worldwide-whos-who-and-worldwide-branding/) Lindenfall (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory posing as encyclopedia-worthy critique[edit]

Hopefully others will weigh in on whether this meets WP:DUE.

In 2007, referring to the International Biographical Centre, the American Biographical Institute, and Marquis Who's Who, Jan Margosian, consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, lumped all biographical reference volumes together in a "warning to consumers" to be wary, labeled all such companies "pretty tacky", and added that "I don't know why they would put you in there if they weren't hoping to get you to buy the book. You truly have to look at how they are marketing and what the spin is. It's something you might want to watch out for".[2]

Marquis has said they do not require payment of any sort.[3] petrarchan47คุก 00:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47 The informed opinion of "Jan Margosian, consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice" is not considered a "conspiracy theory". and the information is WP:DUE in that it named Marquis and, therefore, will be restored. Lindenfall (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Usenet[edit]

@Dustfreeworld: In the article about Usenet, mentions that it were infested with child porn are to a high degree obsolete. But multiple editors decided to keep them inside the article. I guess same applies to this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tgeorgescu. I don’t think what we’re talking about is comparable to “infested with child porn”. Please also see [4]. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marquis_Who%27s_Who&oldid=1211354876"