Talk:Scouts BSA/Archive 3

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

Featured Article Nomination

I was really blown away by the quality of this piece. I really don't see how it could be better, and in my opinion, is already better than some of the present featured articles. So I nominated it! Sue Rangell 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you. We thought it needed more work, but we'll see how it goes.Rlevse 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it looks like it's going to make it. I'm very proud to have nominated it, I know a lot of work went into it. I did not participate in the article, I simply know a good thing when I see it, so I hope you all take a little time and give each other barnstars for the things you all have done. You guys deserve them. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues

There are some things I had been mulling over:

  • The rank infobox was also in the Eagle Scout article and it got deleted for over use of fair-use images. With the rank articles now merged here, it doesn't really make much sense to have that box anymore. This is going to apply to the other membership articles.
    • rm'd.Rlevse 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Article name: Per the Language of Scouting, it probably should be Boy Scouting, not Boy Scouts. Again, a decision here would also apply to the other membership articles (except Venturing). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
      • renamed all.Rlevse 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Youth leadership still needs some work. I need to look at refs from home.
  • Surprisingly, we have not yet mentioned publications such as the Scout Handbook or the Scoutmaster's Handbook. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Right now, the infobox in the "Youth advancement" section is a glorified list and serves no purpose. I also don't really like the infoboxes for the Motto/Slogan and the Outdoor Code - the right edge of the article is rather busy.
    • well, others liked it, so there's disagreement on this one.Rlevse 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. I agree that the title should be changed. The repetition of the phrase "Boy Scouts" has always bothered me a little.
      • renamed all.Rlevse 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Youth leadership" does need work, and so does "Adult leadership".
  2. We definitely need to mention the main publications. I have a couple of them at home, but they're probably outdated by now. I think we should also mention "youth protection" measures, such as that sexual harassment video that they show every year, if we can get some sources. --Smack (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I created Youth Protection program so we can have a common reference. Still needs work, but it is a start. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

Challenge: This article should be as excellent as the aims of scouting deserve. But recently this article was shot down for FA nomination. How? One overall problem has been sensibly formulated by 66.55.193.240, from the February archive: 'Everybody with half decent knowledge of the BSA either is A). Part of the organization and is therefor biased or B). Been forcibly removed...' Bias is emotional not logical, and it isn't required. "Boy Scouting"-loving Editors however have clearly allied with single, either/or-thinking - and have written an article from such an isolated position - creating the inherent weakness of the current article.

Can we ask ourselves - should bias objectively characterize every argument? No, of course not. Can we answer ourselves: Does this same bias pickle Boy Scouts of America membership controversies? Perhaps as Americans we allow ourselves to become more familiar with politicized, corporate TV presentations than robust rhetoric. Our article's overall impression is as closely held as that of FOX - as surely as every impression merely reflects the same Boy Scout literature which it's built upon. In the context of Wiki a single POV operates like propaganda. We need to free "Boy Scouting (BSA)" from faulty context.

Besides objective grammatical and technical shortcomings, the article is milquetoast. It short-changes us. It absolutely favors every wound of the recent past, hiding and shying away from possible pains of further skeptics. Like a wounded prey, the signals is a fatal tolling: fear. Fear inspires and provokes every predators' drive towards his Coup de grâce. Despite famous words of conviction, phatically "Boy Scouting (BSA)" appears ashamed by itself - and less than vital.

But I'm not talking "the controversy" here. This is the internal challenge. Unfortunately this article will forever continue to lack much 'cred' as long as controversy itself is ignored and _nothing_ critical reported. The article fails to embrace and celebrate every distinction - such as our crucial membership restrictions. This forces "Boy Scouting" into a anemic strategy, ignoring the most compelling discussion. This sets an artificial, airless tone fatal to the Wiki audience.

The "Boy Scouts" and its' social impacts have consistently provided abundant material for post-modern critiques and "decontextualization"- including humor, and/or satirization- from every position and in primary sources from American courts to academia to 'Mad Magazine'. To provide a robust image of positive portrayals, these should be embraced! Citing only our own is analougous to 'believing ones own publicity'! - a fatal hubris. The article needs more of the bravado of, "All publicity is good publicity" and less "If I ignore you, will you go away?" whimpering.

The first such critiques of "Boy Scouting" likely originate within "Boy Scouting". Former criticism of the elemental limits of "Boy Scouting", resulting in the various expansions of "Boy Scouting" into the family of Scout programs, (or re-actions as Girl Scouting) can now be seen in universally positive light. Negatives must become positives- or they will metastasize. Honestly - Why do we as "Boy Scouts" defend our controversial positions? How? ? Or - is it some of us do not??

In the article talk pages we hear a reference to a theory of 'bad apples'. Engaging theoretical and statistical analyses ptoduces good-faith solutions. Relegating problems to any oubliette serves to remove us from more complex analysis or subtle understandings - difficult understandings which others might engage and appear to control before us. However we see it, prominent criticisms of "Boy Scouting" cannot remain unnamed! Far more importantly, only a well-founded, full-blooded analysis prepares the heart to accept complete and coming challenges for the future of "Boy Scouting" via BSA.

When our Editors begin to familiarize themselves with a complete range of diverse experiences of "Boy Scouting" - not just the circumscribed, "wrong end of the telescope" effect seen in the article - competing analyses will forge stronger appreciations of the organization in civilian society. Otherwise we appear weak of character, content with and tolerant of only our own - precisely as narrow and foolish as every controversy would present us. Wisdom would suggest we face the Devil in the open, when we can watch him - rather than wait while he returns with a better flattering guise.Hilarleo 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be better applied to the parent Boy Scouts of America article; this article is about just one of the BSA membership programs. None of the membership articles nor the parent article are ready for FA for a variety of reasons. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ri-i-ight - "you think"- you believe. But would you think to propose any references at all to _any_ popular perceptions that have grown around 'Boy Scouting (BSA)'? Apparently you have no background in anything so Communist. Colleagues note the conceptual limits of the article; but you patrol it like a retired shark, enforcing personal imprimatur: Gadget has spoken, and he ses no argument here. You are even so defensive that standard dictionary definitions of the term "Boy Scout" - usages entirely derived from 'Boy Scouting (BSA)'- are desperately ignored here: Hell-lo-oh! You are clearly happiest reproducing the purposes of Boy Scout literature, while the reality of 'Boy Scouting' in USA apparently disturbs you deeply. One day our micromanaging mother's corpse must be swept out with the tide; Consensus and his nets will still be lurking in the shadows to snatch your baby. Youth is terrible! Au revoir, Boy Scout. Hilarleo 09:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you feel that this applies only to Boy Scouts? It does not apply to Cub Scouts, Varsity Scouts, Venturers or Sea Scouts? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Emblems

I just reorganized the "Emblems" section. It just lists the rank badges, with only a cursory discussion of each, and fails to mention any other emblems. --Smack (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It still only show rank badges, and now it is in list format. In a good article, lists are normally only used in See also, References and External links or in List of articles. What other emblems should we cover? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style does not deprecate bulleted lists quite as decisively as you do. As far as which emblems we should include, I'm really not sure how far this topic extends before it ends up in "Uniform and insignia" territory. At first, I thought that it includes all badges, but I may be wrong about that. --Smack (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just cover the universal emblem and move the ranks to insignia? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Since we're working in a subsection of "Ideals", everything we say should relate to the ideals of the organization as a whole. It makes sense to discuss how the organization's logo symbolizes these ideals, but the rank badges are too specific. However, they do happen to resemble the logo, so we'll have some overlap of content. --Smack (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ranks

This has been bothering me while I've been looking over all of the scouting articles and the thing that is bothering me is that none of them really go in-depth about the ranks besides the eagle badge. I think it might be of some merit for us to start marking up the badges and making a list that tells the requirements of the badge and the history behind it.--Joshic Shin 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We had separate rank articles for over two years that never went beyond stubs, so we recently merged these here. Eagle Scout is much more notable (not to be confused with important) as compared to the other ranks. As far as history, while the requirements have changed, the badges have remained relatively stable- the knot was dropped from Life and Life/Star was swapped. Some of this is in History of the Boy Scouts of America, and anything significant should certainly be added. As far as requirements, where do you want to go? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think the best way to go would be simple having a main article listing all the badges and having all the requirments under each one of them. That would be the simplest way.--Joshic Shin 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll work out the article names for the Boy Scout and Cub Scout ranks we merged and you can recreate them. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We've merged these into this article twice in the last year or so as they have never grown beyond short articles:

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just created an article that, rather then putting each rank on a seperate page, combines them into one. Ranks in Boys Scouts of America has no been created and would appreciate work being done to make it at least a good article. The Placebo Effect 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This should also be announced on the project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Membership requirements

Please explain why

"Girls, atheists, agnostics, and known or avowed homosexuals are all prohibited from membership. The membership policies have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. "

was removed (AND identified as 'vandalism'!!!) from the paragraph describing membership?

These requirements are clearly important to the BSA as they went to the Supreme Court to maintain the policies. Being that these restrictions are so important to the organization, they deserve to be specifically identified in a description of membership requirements. Lasalle202 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because is is added at the wrong level. The Boy Scouting division does not set that policy; neither do the Cub Scouting or Venturing divisions; this is a BSA national policy. It is the same reason that barring of homosexuals in the military does not belong in the U.S. Army or U.S. Nay articles, as it is a DOD policy. The BSA went to court because the policies were challenged. The issue is clearly summed up in the main BSA article with a link to a main article. I'm not sure why the vandalism, but go look at the recent history on the Boy Scouts of America article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph mentions the fact that scouts must follow the Scout Oath and Law and if it mentions those particular requirments - the prohibitions on girls, atheists, agnostics and homosexuals are aparently equally important and deserve mention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.38 (talk • contribs)
Gadget is correct, this is not the right article for that.Rlevse 13:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was inaccurate, then it should be eliminated, if it was unverifyable, it could be eliminated. Just because it is unflattering that the group follows discriminatory policies is not sufficient reason for it not to be included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.27 (talk • contribs)
Just because you want it in an inappropriate article does not mean it should be there.Rlevse 14:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The issues you are referring to are clearly outlined in Boy Scouts of America with a link to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Detailing these issues in the Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing division articles is inappropriate, as these divisions have no direct control over the policies set down by the National Council; this is clearly outside the scope of these articles. The Scout Oath and Law are unique to the Boy Scouting division; Cub Scouting and Venturing have the own codes; otherwise, I do not understand that line of discussion.
On another issue: Please sign your posts per Signatures; not doing so makes it hard to follow discussions and it is good etiquette. I also suggest Wikipedia:Why create an account?; 207.69.137.27 is an Earthlink IP and has been used for quite a bit of recent Vandalism, it is subject to being blocked.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

if boy scouting follows the membership policies of BSA it is a facile argument to state the the membership controvercies of the BSA do not affect the membership requirements of Boy scouting.207.69.137.41 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So, Earthlink anon, you are stating that the issue should be placed into the seven different articles so it can be edited differently by each editor, as opposed to the current implementation where iy is summarized in one parent article and detailed in another? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that if any of the BSA membership requirements are listed in this article, such as abiding by the Scout Law, than any other important BSA requirments for membership (which would include membership requirements that they are willing to take to the Supreme Court to keep) can (and and possibly should) be listed as well.207.69.137.40 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sweet revolving Earthlink anonymous IP, I see that you want to be the guardian of the robust rhetoric of controversy. Unlike extremist behavior, extremist rhetoric is not, in and of itself, morally bad. Some extremist rhetoric is entertaining, especially from true believers. This reminds me of the philosophical discussions between Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin. Mobilizing one’s base is a natural part of discussion, but one must take care not to thrust oneself upon their vopral sword. There are important implications regarding the desirability and feasibility of adopting a policy of duplication of this material amongst the various articles. We must consider the effectiveness of various treatment outcomes. The initial incarnation of this material is controversial and future reorderings and additions must be taken into account. Such diffusion may be increasingly reduced to the point of inadequacy. We must also consider the explicit ranking of services and the maintenance overhead that might be incurred; simply put, there is a scientific vessel of rationing. The process does not guarantee, and in fact may inhibit, the success of explicit editing effort. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
From your statement, I am to understand that you will agree to remove all BSA membership requirements from this article to 'save resources'?207.69.137.36 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeking concensus on inclusion of BSA membership requirements in this article

Someone re-added references to BSA membership requirements, without noting why in their edit or referencing the the discussion above. Before re-re-reverting, I would like to see the concensus of the group on whether references to specific membership reqirements of the BSA should be noted in this article.

Support - a short reference to important BSA membership policies helps give context to the membership of this organization. 207.69.137.22 11:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Earthlink Anon...your removal didn't say why either. I've been watching this. What you really mean by "short reference" is your idea of what the requirements are and not anyone else. You should be explicit about what you want added, otherwise this edit war will continue. You should also get an account for many reasons if you wish to be a regular contributor, for many reasons.Sumoeagle179 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment Either the group believes that the article 'should save resources' and not mention any membership requirements that are covered in the BSA article (which appears to be Gadgets reasoning for supporting the removal of verifiable membship facts that I had included in the article). Or the group wants to follow more closely wikipedia's 'this is not a paper encyclopedia' and allow mention of importatant membership reqirements in both articles. There are editors who seem to be applying both processes to keep some information that they select from the BSA article and refuse to allow other verified information from that same article. I am trying to figure out what the concensus of editors of this article would like to follow so that guidelines can be applied in a consistant and NPOV way.207.69.137.25 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that.Rlevse 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Rlevese & Sumoeagle, I dont see why it is so upsetting to you that I am asking for consistant application of 'the focus of the article' principle to edits. Either it is within the focus of the article to allow concise, verified, NPOV descriptions of BSA membership requirements or it is out of the focus of the article to repeat membership information that is available in the BSA article. I have not been the hypocrite who has been editing out someone elses references while leaving mine. Only after my (verified and NPOV) information about BSA membership requirements was removed did I apply the same principle and remove other BSA membership references. Those editing the article should allow the statements that membership "is generally available to boys between the ages of eleven and seventeen who are willing to abide by the requirements of BSA membership, including agreeing to live by the ideals expressed in the Scout Oath and Law. BSA membership rules prohibit girls and atheists, agnostitcs and homosexuals" reflecting 2 verified, NPOV membership facts from the BSA article, or it should simply state membership: "is generally available to boys between the ages of eleven and seventeen who are willing to abide by the requirements of BSA." not mentioning any BSA membership requirements.207.69.137.41 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You seem to be confusing BSA with Boy Scouts. BSA is the organization that includes Boy Scouts, Venturing, Varsity Scouts and Cub Scouts. Boy Scouts (which is what this article is about) is the BSA program designed for boys who are age 11 through 17. What had been listed in this article was the requirements for joining Boy Scouting that are not applicable to BSA as a whole. The requirements about the boy scout oath and law were appropriate in this article as cub scouts and venturing each have their own equivalent to the oath. It is my understanding that the consensus of editors here is to include requirements for joining that are specific to Boy Scouting as opposed to those that apply to BSA as a whole. I hope this makes sense, and thanks for your willingness to discuss these issues. meamemg 04:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then following that logic, the Scout Oath and Law which do not apply to all BSA members should be removed from the BSA article and placed here instead.207.69.137.26 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi there! If you think a ce is still in order for this article, I'd be happy to help out. Please leave a note, either here or on my talk page, indicating that you have time/are available to help out during the ce. Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I gave the article a good shake-up, notably providing a more logic structure, and easier layout. The lead is now about the subject of the article. It does need some further copy-editing, in the re-ordered section to make the text come out logically. I may come back to do that to. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
    • What happened to the Scout Oath and Scout Law? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Put it back in. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Scoutmaster

I think Scoutmaster is supposed to be about the role of the Scoutmaster in the BSA. As such, it looses a lot without the context of the Scouting program. Recommend merge. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss:  Done

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

  • 1 "Troops prepare for camporees, and the highest awards usually go to troops that make camporee their first priority."
Removed
  • 2 "...and draws more than 30,000 Scouts from across the country and the world."
Done
  • 3 "Studies have shown that if a Scout achieves First Class within a year of joining, he typically stays in Scouting for at least three years. Scouts who do so are more likely to retain Scout values as an adult and achieve the BSA primary mission of "producing useful citizens"."
  • 4 "A troop may have a chaplain who helps to provide a spiritual element in the unit program, provides spiritual counseling as needed and encourage Scouts to participate in the religious emblems program."
Done

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Working on #3. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Since progress is being made on the article, I will leave the article on hold for another week until the final issue is addressed. If you finish before then, please contact me on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll return in a week to re-review the article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Have added ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Court of Honor (Scouting)

First, let me note that a merge tag was added to this article but there was no notice put on the target article here. I have changed the merge tag on the article to a mergeto article and tagged this target article with a mergefrom tag. Second, I am not clear about the reasons for proposing this merge, but I hope they will now be explained. Please add comments below. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. While not knowing the reasons proposed for the merge, I do not support it. I think the article needs to be rewritten to reflect the different uses of the term as discussed on Talk:Court of Honor (Scouting) and the specific BSA material diminished on the article but expanded here on the BSA article. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I started a discussion, but the servers were acting up and it must not have saved.
    • The article currently covers only the BSA; there has been some discussion about expanding it to cover other NSOs, but nothing has come of it.
    • In the BSA, the court of honor is simply an awards ceremony; it has no context outside of the Boy Scouting advancement ceremony. Venturing and Sea Scouting use different terms, but is still just an awards ceremony. There is no standard court of honor and there are a myriad of potential ceremonies. **The BSA has a National Court of Honor that presents certain awards— this should be noted in Boy Scouts of America if we can ever find a source.
    • I know nothing of the court of honor in the context of other organizations; if they are notable, then we can turn the article into a disambiguation page with links to the NSO articles. I do not see this as another "universal" article that tries to stuff content from multiple NSOs together.
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not strongly supporting the creation of an article on all uses of the term or an article on its use in countries like the UK. However, I am opposing having the term "Court of Honor (Scouting)" redirect to a BSA article when the term is used all around the world. It use for the meeting of Patrol Leaders is at least as notable as the use for an awards ceremony, although I suspect neither use is really notable in wikipedia terms. Why do we not just propose it for deletion and add a comment on the term on the BSA article and if necessary on other articles? The sources do nor establish notability and they are not third party sources. I say we get rid of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, if nobody objects here by tomorrow, I will see whether a prod will fly. Before doing that, could you ensure that anything that has to be said about it here on the BSA article is said? I can then argue that anything notable is already merged in here. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added relevant content to Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) and started the prod. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Newer Boy Scouts helped

Here is new remark dates 16-September-2012 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boy-scouts-files-20120916,0,6937684.story? Can other one update based on new information? 88.146.161.215 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scouts_BSA/Archive_3&oldid=1053003277"