Jump to content

Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Merge proposal

I'm boldly archiving this as there is no consensus likely due to the recentism of his death. I suggest seeing where things are in a few weeks but realistically this has been top page news worldwide so a preponderance of news sources are avalable and the death - with the reactions to it - certainly meets notability threshold. -- Banjeboi 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Merge

  • Merge. This article is actually shorter than the section on Jackson's death in the main article. What purpose is served by this spinoff article that cannot be presented more holistically in the main article? WWGB (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree. The only purpose of this article's existence is if by chance foul play was involved in his death. In that case, there would be information on the investigation, the people involved, and so on. Otherwise, if his death was natural, all you'd really see in a death section is the date of the death, the cause, and maybe a blurb about the funeral and such. But, nothing that would require a separate article. groink 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: as of now I agree this should be merged. It is going to be weeks before any conclusions are made; and even then how do we know now there will be enough to merit a separate article? --Susan118 talk 01:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge; contains no notable information not present or able to be presented in the main article. TechOutsider (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree. I don't see how long news on a person's death can run. He either died of something or he died of something else. 218.186.11.226 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge -- the info as of late is enough to be in his article.--Truco 503 02:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just a subsection of the article about the subject. "Maybe it'll be needed someday" is a bad reason for an article; don't spin it off unless it needs to be spun off. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. If any substantial information, such as foul play, is discovered, or if the section is too large, then we should create a seperate article. Until then, Merge. 吳家明 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. There's no reason the information here can't be pared down to the actual notable details and included in the main article, if it's not in there already. Rnb (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge easily mergeable. not an assassination that would include many conspiracies and additional notable info.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 03:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge for all of the above reasons. I haven't ever seen a "Death of..." article on Wikipedia. Eugeniu Bmsg 03:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. Unless and until we find out that he's been murdered or something, his death does not merit its own article. There's no need for a one-week MJ death article (Wiki is not a news source) and the fact that it would "take away stress" is not reason to have one either. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Not terribly long and most of the information is in the main article already. Merging the remaining information will be clean and not excessive. Reywas92Talk 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But keeping it in the main article will encourage only noteworthy details to be included; much of what's in this article can easily be cut because it's just not very important. I would guess each of the current sections could be cut down to a single sentence in the main article. Rnb (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly! Also note that SV has yet to touch the main article since this death article was created. We can't be going back and forth between the two articles, checking to make sure important pieces are covered. Groink (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Given how few biographies have separate articles for death, I'm not sure how that's what's always done. This is a big deal only because Michael Jackson was a popular topic for the media. There was nothing particularly notable about his death in and of itself. Why it should have its own article, much less an article with head-scratching details like the text of a 911 phone call that doesn't impart any new information, or a section about his family that reads like an obituary, is beyond me. But now I've made my arguments and I'll take my leave. Good luck, everyone. Rnb (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - I changed my mind. Merge the information to the appropriate section on his page and then if the section grows enough, we can recreate it here. Just wait until we get real details on his death first, try waiting a week or two. VG Editor (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. Separate articles for the death of famous people would be opening a can of worms. A section pertaining to the death of such people can be accomodated into the main article. Any sentiment for a separate article is mainly due to the emotional impact of Jackon's loss. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect. There's no good reason, aside from recentism and celebrity idolization, to assume the need for a separate article. Far better to build the section here and if needed spin out later, but avoid any sort of trend-setting if possible. Such material as the 911 transcript are filler and not needed for responsible, well-written coverage. Once the autospy's done ,the lawsuits adjudicated, and the dust settles, we may have enough fro an article, but 30+hours of rabid media frenzy isn't the same as real facts to examine. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. All the information about his death should be in the main article. Whereas if you have information about his career over the years which might take up a lot of space, then a separate article is needed.Roman888 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge it. I vote because if he gets it, everyone will want one for their hero. Why have to click a link when you can just scroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtysmoke (talk • contribs)
  • Merge he died, people were sad, do we need a fork to list every single detail? Media frnazy is not the basis for an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: Absolutely ridiculous to have a separate article. A section in his main page is sufficient. Absolute fancruft. JWAD talk 11:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm still trying to figure out why this was speedy deleted, than and brought back again, with no discussion at AfD. Why was it not allowed to go through the AfD process? I am tempted to nominate it myself, I think this discussion needs to be brought out into the open.--Susan118 talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge

  • Don't merge. The main Michael Jackson Article is too long for this to possibly be incorporated into it.Because I say within Days if not Weeks there will be more news on this matter.This can be used to contain the ongoing details as they come to the table.Gross. Advertize (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. This is a major historic event affecting millions, possibly billions of people around the world. If there is a "death of princess diana" wiki page then surely there should be one for Michael. The ABC news story of him addicted to a drug could result in enormous controversy and stories.Arharris04 10:47 June 2009 (EST)
  • Don't merge. We clearly need a separate article, as this is going to run and run. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. It's too early. More information will most likely come to light. I suggest don't merge now, but review in another month or so. Karl2620 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). We don't go around creating articles in anticipation that more information will follow. Wikipedia is a REACTIVE system - we create articles based on information that already exists on the Internet. groink 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. I think that this is jumping to conclusions suggesting this article be merged. It was just created about an hour ago, and this is a big current event, that has generated a lot of reaction worldwide over the last 24 hours. I agree with Karl2620 to wait until later to decide.Neospaceblue2 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge. As stated in the News Management section of this article, a ton of people are looking online for information about Michael Jackson's death (Hell, Wikipedia crashed because of it). I realize that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but there's definitely going to be more information soon — an autopsy is scheduled, after all. I think we should keep this article indefinitely. Dkl1456 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

— Dkl1456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But see, that's the thing, it's a media event. That doesn't mean it merits an article in an encyclopedia. --Susan118 talk 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand The reason for MJ's death is highly uncertain and news outlets are offering different versions for the cause of his death. It's not like a 'simple' car accident was behind the incident, and the cause for his death itself has been a source for discussion online. More details will emerge in the coming days and moving all that info to the MK's page would be unwise. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand -- This is a major cultural event and I was honored to be the first one to break news of his incident on Wikipedia. This is significant just like the Death of John Lennon, Death of Princess Diana, and such. He was a cultural icon. Just see how numerous websites crashed upon news of his death, and all the memorials and rememberances of MJ in the past few days. Even some TV shows added in the death (EastEnders), and also his record sales boosted. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

— 125.63.158.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - His death, overtime will become quite something huge. It's only really been two days, give it time. There will be more info. Just keep and expand it. -- R32GTR (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep What's the rush, honestly? The "death" section was getting very long in the Michael Jackson article. Wait until the rush dies down and we can then decide whether to keep or merge. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Major event and expansion possible as more news is learnt. MJ's article is an FA and if it is cluttered with with the news of his death, it will become untidy and of a poor quality as well as unstable owing to edit warring, disputes etc. Also, this article, if expanded can be made a GA or even an FA. Regards, Pmlinediter  Talk 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
  • Wait, though leaning strongly toward merge. How many celebrities have separate articles regarding their deaths? My guess is that it's rare, and would be appropriate if the circumstances prove to be extraordinary. My question is whether this is necessary to cover the actual event, or is a response to the coverage and understandable grief. JNW (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article will eventually be created anyway, we might as well keep it and work on improving it right away. First off I would recommend a picture other than of Michael Jackson himself for the lead. Perhaps a picture of a memorial of Jackson, or of fans mourning — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The section will be too long if to be merged with the main article, Princess Diana death was made an article, why shouldn't Michael Jackson ? Jackson is even more popular than Diana & Elvis. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge / Keep as more and more news is raising uncertainty about his death, the Michael Jackson article itself is already quite long and getting longer by the hour, and a separate "death" article allows for an easier way to find the latest information. I'm sort of shocked this is even up for discussion this long. Utopianheaven (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. This is clearly an event that will be remembered throughout history. Michael Jackson was a centerpiece in millions of peoples lives and will never be forgotten. Also, this is an ongoing news article, billions of people are interested in this story, it is subject to enormous controversy. R.I.P Michael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93ol11 (talk • contribs)

— 93ol11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comments

  • Comment: there's precedence for this article not to exist. Take a look at Elvis Presley's death section. Even HE does not have a separate article about his death. And believe me - Elvis' death was just as big as Michael's. groink 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think most people are "voting" under the assumption that the article is going to be kept permanently. I believe that the article should definitely be kept for at least a week or so, so that there is a place to keep track of the information as the event progresses. This also includes miscellanea, which are notable details (And would otherwise clutter the main article, which is big enough already). Once the event dies down, by all means, merge this article. --unsigned
  • Comment: Sure, I understand the policies. But why merge then unmerge an article in a matter of hours or a few days? Info is coming in thick and fast, there are suggestions of drug overdoses, drug addiction etc. Likely there will be contest over his will, maybe some other controversy. I know WP is not a crystal ball, but the page is here now. Just wait a few weeks and the right choice should be apparent. Karl2620 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you not know the history of Elvis' death? The guy overdosed on drugs, and was found sitting on the toilet at Graceland. And still, he does NOT have a separate article about his death. You entire POV is that something WILL be controversial. Once again, Wikipedia is not to be used on a pro-active basis, i.e. prepare for the worst, and then cut back if nothing happens. We don't operate like this here. groink 02:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and this is going to be just as big. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason for her article is that she DID die under unusual circumstances. The photographers... The driver being drunk... The fact that it wasn't natural... I'll repeat - we're not allowed to create articles under the guideline of speculation about the future. groink 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia wasn't around when Elvis died, and you are proposing an article be killed before it has a chance to be properly developed. researching and building an article takes time. Karl2620 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm fairly sure that if Wikipedia had been around during Elvis' death, an article would have been made (Temporarily, that is). I suggest that the same thing be done for Michael Jackson's death. Despite Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, it is undoubtedly a major information source. Many people flock to Wikipedia for information on current events (I'm one of those people, I can't remember the last time I opened a newspaper). I think we should keep this article temporarily, until the topic "dies down." Dkl1456 (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • ... and if he died today, the exact same Wikipedia policies would apply. groink 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I get the jist of things here now... You guys are just creating this article as a way to go around the semi-protection of the main article. groink 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Grow up - If it worries you so much, semi-protect this article too! Karl2620 (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I haven't made a single edit on this article, I just think that this page should be kept temporarily in order to supply everyone with information about Michael Jackson's death, and not have to clutter the main article (Which, in my opinion, is large enough already). Dkl1456 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:At least keep the article for now. If nothing else, it will serve as a draft for a large section about Michael's death in his own article when all details regarding his death, funeral procedures, will and estate affairs, etc. are gathered and reported. By having this here now, it means everybody who has new citated information can add it and it can be scrutinized by the Wikipedia community. However, as monumental as this event is (I'm as big a Michael Jackson fan as the next person) I do feel that once enough general information has been retrieved, a merge with Michael's own article would be the best way to go. Mc8755 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Children

  • Comment: 3rd para, 2nd to last sentence says Jackson "fathered" 3 children. They are not his biological kids, so I don't think that's an accurate description of how the children came to be.
We don't say whether he was the biological father or not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Record sales on Amazon.com

please on Amazon.com you can see that MJ records occupy 16 places in the top 16 please write it, thanks here is the link

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=pd_ts_zgc_m_music_display_on_website_more?pf_rd_p=482110191&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=5174&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1HR639DKARF616YQ0FEE

I had noticed that myself before you pointed it out. However, the information at that link is updated every hour, so I don't know if it's really a valid source. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If the stats are qualified as to time posted, it may be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But how do we post a link so readers can verify it for themselves? Even right now, positions 15 and 16 are no longer held by Jackson. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Make a note in the citation of the date and time of retrieval and that the content at the link is ever shifting. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly 12 years since a death received such huge attention from media and public

Shouldn't something in the article be added to to point out the fact that there hasn't been anywhere near as much attention given to a death since that of Diana, Princess of Wales? How about the fact that it virtually stopped coverage of Farrah Fawcett's death? Those points are relevant to understanding what a massive event Jackson's death was. Information yes (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Diana was a royal and the death of such an icon was not expected and the grief was a matter of course. Jackson on the other hand was a recluse.(redacted per WP:Talk) Her Imperial Highness (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We should let reliable sources lede in this regard, same as with album sales and other notable information. This helps us remain NPOV. When the New York Times, or similar news outlet, notes this as big as Diana's outpouring then we state "_____ noted this as ____". -- Banjeboi 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A "recluse" does not plan 50 concert performances as Jackson was planning. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

something to read

More goulishness for those who want to know. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It says, "... investigators conducting the autopsy were also surprised at how healthy Jackson was."
"Healthy"?
He's dead!
That's not "healthy."
Grundle2600 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, they were noting a healthy state of only a part of the body at time of death. Please hold back on the personal observations. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

iTunes Sales

I made this pic from screen shots of iTunes USA, I feel it better conveys the massive sales at present. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MJ_ITUNES_SALES.jpg Mc8755 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Public figures' statements

I really don't have a opinion, either way would be fine to me. Is the statements made by these artists—with respective reliable sources, obviously—necessary? Sparks Fly 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are. They, along with the family section that reads like an obituary, make the article seem more like a memorial than an enyclopedia article. That this article is essentially one big puff piece, though, doesn't bode well for them being trimmed. Rnb (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a few of the statements can be kept. The rest should go on WikiQuote. Pyrrhus16 16:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Set-up a wikiquote farm for these - there will be hundreds only a handful of which should be of any help here. -- Banjeboi 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these celebrity and other quotes have any encyclopedic worth at this time, other than perhaps Liza Minnelli saying, "When the autopsy comes, all hell's going to break loose..."AP.. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tributes

Lets list all the tribute shows/specials in all countries we can find as well as all newspaper articles(photos especially). --Cooly123 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Just curious, I know the wiki project has rules. Why is there articles about artists who basically released an album, had no success, got some small publicity in a local paper, and yet that qualifies them to have an article? Yet I am no fanatic MJ fan (I did like his old stuff) and yet this article about his death is considered controversial even when it is all over international media for the past 24 hours? There seems to be something really lacking in the rules of Wiki when somebody nobody heard of gets an article and yet a person who was known all over the world and who's death gets non stop coverage is denied?76.118.224.35 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's people not looking ahead. We're bound to end up with separate articles on the death, the funeral, the investigation, and on and on. I suspect it's the editors of Michael Jackson who want to see the traffic directed there instead, though I can't think why, because it's making a dog's breakfast of a featured article. Far better to direct it to a new page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
What a strange confluence of edits, allegedly by two different accounts [1] [2]. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
*slaps WWGB for not noticing that one of those isn't an actual account* Honestly, if you're going to go after Slim, please do better than pointing out a failure to log in. Orethrius (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: spelling "Demerol" not "Demorol" (first paragraph), pls revise.

Thank you! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Any question? When will Michael Jackson's remains be cremated? What date and time?

After his death, Michael Jackson's remains will be cremated on unknown date and time.

Don't we know about his cremation on date and time?

Jackson wanted to have his body preserved in plastic [3]. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew it would be something crazy...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no business like showbusiness, like no business I know. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a far from reliable source.... and it says "considering". Besides, any source that speculates that "Jackson's nose, which has famously received a series of surgical interventions, was already plastinated enough to not require any further work." should not be taken too seriously in my opinion. Yintaɳ  23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying I'm taking any sides in this whole plastination thing, but there are plenty of other websites that reported on this. The source above is a little dated, but here's one that a decent site published the day after Jackson's death. Digitelle (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's still a claim by the plastinator alone, not confirmed by anybody else. I don't believe a word of it. And if he was in as bad a physical shape as reports claim he was, a plastinated Jackson will not be a pretty sight. Not to mention the two autopsies on top of that. Anyway, time will tell. But I suggest you don't hold your breath ;-) Another thing, your "decent site" claims that "Bubbles, his late pet monkey was plastinated a number of years ago". That's interesting because Bubbles is still alive[4]... Yintaɳ  00:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that; I wasn't sure about the status of Bubbles since he left Neverland. From what I've seen of the site it wasn't a bad source, but I guess that was a pretty sloppy mistake. Still, I'm not taking a side in this, and if you ask me, it seems a little creepy that they'd exhibit MJ, I just thought I'd present a more recent update on that topic. But I'm sure it won't be much longer before we know the verdict on his last wishes. Digitelle (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not taking sides either but since the media are now so eager to publish any scrap of information about MJ, no matter how irrelevant or far-fetched, I think WP should be very careful with quotes and sources. Mind you, I'm not blaming you for pointing to them, I'm just doubting the sources. (I'd like to see a better source for the "leaked autopsy report" too, for example. That Sun tabloid is not exactly a monument of reliability.) Yintaɳ  09:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I was pretty skeptical of the autopsy report myself. TMZ.com released a quote from the Los Angeles Coroner dispelling the leak as a fake though, so I removed it from the article. Digitelle (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing

Guys, just a note about the writing (not that anyone's going to pay attention, but here it is anyway). Five things mainly:

  • 1) There is no need to put everything in quotes. X said that she is "devastated," while Y said she, "couldn't stop crying," and Z said she "couldn't believe it." Totally unnecessary and hard to read.
  • 2) There is no need to quote every single celebrity who has said something meaningless, because that will shortly be half the planet.
  • 3) There is no need to state the obvious e.g. if X asked for a moment of silence in Congress, there's no need to write, "X spoke about Jackson and asked for a moment of silence." Of course they spoke about him first. They wouldn't jump up and simply announce a moment of silence.
  • 4) There is no need for "allegedly," or "reportedly" all the time, when it doesn't matter. If Taylor herself said she was packing her bags when she heard, that's what she was doing, so far as anyone will ever know, and who cares anyway. If Madonna said she wanted to dance with him in London, that's what she wanted.
I'm sorry, but this article reads like a gossip column instead of a work of encyclopedic importance. There is no need to talk about every bit of juicy detail. The thoughts of a nanny and her allegations are written as a tabloid column -- and that's just one example. This article should be much shorter and stick to the facts that have become of permanent importance to the subject matter. Wikipedia may be instantaneously updatable, but it is not your source of the latest news (and certainly not a place to aggregate the latest speculation). It should be a record of the facts that are lasting and that err on the side of academic. If you want entertainment news and gossip, look to the many other sources for that. Am I the only person who feels this way?69.229.111.161 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No. But, this sort of thing is what happens every time someone notable dies (in proportion to notability). Steveozone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Michael_Jackson/Archive_1&oldid=1142758013"