Talk:Barlas

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

spelling[edit]

The spelling is atrocious. Would the creator (or someone who can get into the creator's head) please clean it up!

Thank you! Odin of Trondheim 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced statements[edit]

I'm removing the following unsourced statements:

The Barlas were fierce warriors even among Mongols, and the famous American Historian, Harold Lamb wrote of them that "They laughed into battle" and that "They walked with a swagger and moved aside for no one." The Barlas Mongols originally rode out of Mongol lands with Chingis Khan, and subsequently settled as hereditary aristocratic warriors in the lands he bequeathed to his son, Chaghtai or Jagatai. That these warrior Mongols married, and intermingled to some degree with the local Turks, and settled in the lands bequeathed to Chagtai, does not make them Chagtai Turks, which they are often wrongly referred to as, because there is no such ethnic group, and it is just a loose frame of reference unrelated to actual lineage. The Barlas warrior who brought the clan to hegemonic imperial power was the fierce conqueror Timur or Tamerlane, (1334(?) - 1406) who conquered the Central Asian Steppes, Persia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, India, the Ottoman empire and much more. Old, blind and sick at the end of his days, and lame since his youth, he died in the saddle, on his way to conquer China, the only power left for him to conquer. Timur ibn Taraghay Barlas was widely considered the military equal of Chingis Khan, and was never defeated in battle, where, unlike Chingis Khan, he always led from the front. Timur's direct descendent, Babur, founded the Mughal Empire in India, the richest empire ever, anywhere, which ruled India from 1526-1857. Barlas was the imperial family of the Mughals of India, who are often misleadingly referred to as "Chagtai Turks" as discussed earlier. By way of Shakhrisabz in Uzbekistan, from whence Timur rose after the original Barlas Mongols had settled there, the Barlas became the imperial clan of Mongols that ruled the richest empire ever in India, and one of the richest and largest ones before that, across much of Asia, in the 14th century, under Timur. No other clan or family in the history of the world has ruled two such significant empires.

Please, provide cited references in order to check the verifiability of the information given. Thank you. E104421 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit[edit]

I have tried to clean up and reorganize the article.

I have separated the article into 3 sections: (1) origins (2) Timurids & Mughals (3) legacy

I also added 2 additional infos (+ sources) to the article: a) a short reference to Qarchar Barlas (the eponymous ancestor of the clan) and b) a short reference to the Uzbek language which is the direct descendant of the Chagatai language spoken by the early Barlas.

The creation of the sections also needed the reorganizing of 2-3 paragraphs, but no information has been deleted or changed. Tājik (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabs of Amb[edit]

The family of the Nawabs of Amb have long history of rule over the former Amb State also known as Mulk e Tanawul in pre-british rule documents, which is now a part of the NWFP, Pakistan. They are said to be descendants of Barlas tribe of the Mughals and this has been mentioned in many historical books, for example; The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841), in the following words; "There is one chief who, though not an Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan." (The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia Published by Parbury, Allen, and Co., 1841, Item notes: v. 39, Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized 1 Apr 2008, pg 220-224)

I believe this article must include these notable families which have Birlas descent, in what ever way it may look appropriate.Wikitanoli (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RV[edit]

I have reverted the edits of a user that were no improvements and seemed to be a violation of copy rights. Tajik (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Mughal Pathans:[edit]

Mughol-zai is a subtribe of GilZai or Tokhi tribe: Tokhi (Ghilzai) A Ghalji (Ghilzai) tribe found throughout southern and western Afghanistan, although most heavily concentrated in Zabul and Uruzgan. Two main sub-tribes are the Muhammadzai (the largest) and Shamulzai (Shimalzai); other divisions include the Jalazai, Babakrzai, Miranzai, Jaffri, Pirozai (Pir Khel), and Kishaini.

Ghilzai pathans have been originated from Turkey.

(It may be possible that the people who are claiming themselves as Mughal-Pathans are actually Mughol-Zai from Ghilzai tribe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.240.166 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have never heard of the "Mughalzai" tribe in my life. There is no doubt that they probably don't exist either and the Muhammadzai's are of the Abdali (Durrani) confederation, not Ghilzai's so your claim is incorrect. Not only that but Khilji Pashtuns are NOT Turkish but Iranic and Indo-European according to genetic tests done on them. Also, how can Turks be from Turkey if Turkey was not even ethnically Turkish until the 12th century? Akmal94 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RV[edit]

I've reverted good faith edits by an anon IP, because they were a) wrong, b) based on an unreliable source, and c) not needed. Tajik (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed un-needed and unencyclopedic info regarding alleged ancestors in India. The name "Barlas" is used all across Central- and South Asia. No need to put too much weight on South Asia. Tajik (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The motive for my addition was only to make the Barlas families scattered around Pakistan, aware the location of each other. I gattered this data from the Telephone directories of various cties and I would love if this data is added to this article or some other artice with the heading" Barlas - Pakistan".
Nonenone4000 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
----
I know that your edit was a good faith edit, but unfortunately, it is unencyclopedic and WP:OR. Modern "Barlas" people are not necessarily related to each other or to the old "Barlas" of the Timruid era. It's better to leave that out of the article. Tajik (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai vs. Uzbek[edit]

Chagatai and Uzbek are related, but Uzbek did not evolve out of Chagatai. For some time, the two languages even existed side-by-side. And the sources attached to that claim do not claim otherwise. --Lysozym (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and descendants[edit]

Origin of the Barlas was Mongol, not Turko-Mongol.What is wrong with it? : "Barlas was a Mongol tribe of Nirun origin", "Descendants of them are living in Mongolia, Central Asia and Afghanistan" (Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia, List of Uzbek clans).I'm Mongol, this article about is the Mongolia, i added my source (Mongolian book about Mongolian tribes).I also added these edits on Russian version. Ancientsteppe (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again revrteted the changes made by User:Ancientsteppe. Not only is he adding unsourced POV to the article (the two links above are not considered reliable sources), but he is also falsifying the academic sources already mentioned in this article.
No one denies that the Berlas were Mongols; in fact, that's universally accepted by schollars. But the claim that they were Nirun or that their descendants still live in Mongolia is unsourced POV. The Barlas in Central Asia were Mongol in origin, but they had nothing to do with the modern country Mongolia. Also, linking them to the Nirun (which is just the mongol name for the Rouran Khaganate) is more than speculative. As a matter of fact, by the time of Timur's ascent to power, the Barlas had become Turks in habits and language (and perhaps also in identity, as Timur himself identified himself as a Turk rather than Mongol).
User:Ancientsteppe should read WP:RS before putting more POV to this article. The most authoritative source on this subject is Prof. Beatrice Manz ... and nowhere does she claim that the Barlas were directly linked to the Rouran or to the modern Mongolian nation-state. --Lysozym (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that foreigners know about the Mongolia.Do you think that foreigners (Americans, Serbs, Vietnamese, Senegelase) know about your Iranians better than the Iranians?Mongol tribes divided into 2 parts after Ergenekon: Category:Mongolian tribes and clans, Category:Nirun Mongols. Ancientsteppe (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) It is irrelevant what you think. The only thing that matters are reliable academic sources.
B) I am not Iranian.
C) Not the nationality is important, but the qualification of a scholar. And yes: if an American, or Serbian, or Vietnamese or whatever has the qualifications and is regarded a reliable source by Wikipedia, then he/she is much better qualified than a Mongolian like you who - very obviously - has no knowledge of this subject at all. --Lysozym (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, ERGENEKON has nothing to do with mongols. It is part of Turkic history. Gunner555 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was useless, i didn't change whole article.My Mongolian source is reliable source, stop unnecessary edit! Ancientsteppe (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia! Use ENGLISH sources. Use ACADEMIC sources. Your websites are neither in English, nor are they considered reliable as per WP:RS. Your POV is irrelevant! --Lysozym (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, per WP:NOTENGLISH, non-English sources may be acceptable, although English ones are preferred. Steppe needs to use reliable sources, though, and needs to learn how to identify them. Not edit warring would be a start too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barlas Persianized discussion[edit]

Dear Sir:

Recently you have made misleading edits that constitute vandalism on the "Barlas" page on Wikipedia. To the ethnicity of the Barlas as being Turko-Mongol you added "Persianized" - this is a general and ambiguous term and there is no way to verify such an assertion - you then footnoted it with a book on the Persians but never really provided the exact quote you are relying upon - first, I would ask you do that, and second, even if you can provide the exact quote from the book on the Persians, I suggest you examine the validity of such an assertion.

Barlas is a world wide clan that was originally Mongol and then was Turkicized through intermarriage with Turks - Iran was one of many countries ruled by this clan and to use this simple fact to assert they were "Persianized" seems inappropriate and misleading and an attempt at trying to reduce the authenticity of the facts on this page.

Also, how can you change "Central Asia" to "Greater Persia" when Central Asia is what exists in fact and "Greater Persia" is just a concept or a term of reference and does not exist in fact?

I have seen your previous edits and it seems your efforts to change the ethnicity and culture of the Barlas clan are aimed at a personal agenda to contend, perhaps due to your religious inclinations, as has been unsuccessfully tried before, that the Barlas were associated with Persia. Sir, your words cannot change the truth and I would ask you refrain from playing with such things for personal motives. If you persist with trying to dilute the quality of this article with misleading assertions, I will notify Wikipedia and ask them to ban you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings, but I have no personal agenda. The fact of the matter is that the Barlas tribe is not just found in Central Asia but also in Iran, Afghanistan,Pakistan, and India. Their are more people who claim descent from the Barlas tribe in Pakistan, India, and Iran (individually) than in all of Central Asia. In Central Asia, Iran and South Asia cannot be included.

This text has been lowercased. Expand to view original.

All THE REFERENCES CURENTLY USED IN THE ARTICLE INDICATE THE BARLAS AS PART OF THE FABRIC OF GREATER PERSIA.

All THE REFERENCES CURENTLY USED IN THE ARTICLE INDICATE THE BARLAS AS PART OF THE FABRIC OF GREATER PERSIA.

Now Greater Persia is not a concept, its a reality. Greater Persia is not based of ethnic homogeneity but instead of a cultural and linguistic identity built through various empires Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians,Abbasids(1000-1300)/Buyyids, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Samanids, Timurids Safavids,Mughal Empire and Afsharids and the Qajar Empire who all ruled Greater Persia.(bolded means ethnically turco-mongol dynasty- notice that all had Persian as their official language and used it in their elite circles)

Most of the Barlas tribe did adopt Persian customs, language, religion(Islam), titles and married within the local Persians and later South Asians by mid-14th century. The adoption of native vernaculars by elites in place of Persian started in parts of Central Asia in the 18th century although Persian was used for administrative purposes.

Now I know this article means alot to you, but I hope you put your personal opinion aside.

I have not made any changes to allow you to respond if you dont I will revert your edits, and if you persist on doing deconstructive edits you will get a warning first.. so on and so on... Thank you for voicing your concerns --Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of emphasis is being place on Timur, and the wrong assertion is being made that because he was affected by Persian culture, all the Barlas are "Persianized." Explaining a persian cultural influence on some factions of the clan at different times does not change the ethnic makeup of the clan. A lot of the sources are also biased in that a google search was done to support that the Barlas were "persianized" and no effort was made to ascertain their true ethnic heritage, which is what we are talking about. I have provided a dozen credible references describing the Barlas as exclusively Turco_Mongol so the burden of proof has not been met by Nawabmalhi. A cultural influence does not change ethnicity such that the cultural influence is used to describe ethnicity. And instead of Central Asia we can say Central and South Asia - Greater Persia is like calling the British Empire the "Greater Mughal Empire." @Mdann52 Thank you for your consideration. Jebenoyon (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs)

All of this is irrelevant for this article. The points that are being disucussed are about the Timurids and Mughals, and should be discussed in the respective articles. What do the Barlas - as a tribe - have to do with the Urdu language?! Guess what: nothing! This article is about the Barlas - and about them only. Timurids and Mughals have a whole different history. It just happens that they ahd Barlas origins. It's like discussing the whatever-ization of the European royal houses in the article about Charlemagne. --Lysozym (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lysozym First, I agree with you that this discussion is irrelevant on the Barlas page.So we agree that the wording should remain the same.

Second, even if it were relevant to discuss this type of information on this page, which it is not, but even if it were, we have been through dispute resolution that I asked for in the matter with nawabmalhi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_97#Barlas

and at the end of this the conclusion arrived at is pasted below: Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Then three weeks later nawabmalhi went back and changed the next few sentences, essentially again making the same assertions about the Barlas being "Persianized". All this is on the page history. I then asked for Administrator assistance because he had gone back on what was agreed to and kept on reverting back to his version. This request can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Persisting_disruptive_editing_despite_dispute_resolution.

One administrator initially made a comment because I had pasted the whole discussion there and when I clarified matters I never heard back from him. So this request is still sitting there in the archives where I asked for help in stopping nawabmalhi.

Then I asked another editor on the page, you lysozym, to provide your views and you agreed with my position also. I posted your response on nawabmalhis page thinking maybe nawabmalhi would recognize that both a closing editor and another neutral editor were agreeing with me, and with what is the truth.

However it does not seem that nawabmalhi is prepared to listen to anything and seems prepared to continue bull dozing ahead no matter who says what and what information is provided. This has gone on over a month, maybe 20,000 words or more have been exchanged, a dispute resolution editor said the wording should stay the same, nawabmalhi agreed to that, then he tried to change the next few sentences, essentially to achieve the same objective. Now a neutral editor has disagreed with him also, yet he keeps going forward "Again this" and "Again that" he repeats and repeats. I am not sure what more is left there to discuss when someone just refuses to listen to 3 people in a row and has a pattern of such behavior as evidenced on his page. Jebenoyon (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[First off Jebenoyon continuously copy pastes debunked arguements( end result is people tell him to stop whining) so I have made a page to answer them in an effort to save time and space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nawabmalhi/sandbox/Nawabmalhi:_Answers_to_Jebenoyon]
So now to the disagreement between me and Lysozym:
The disagreement is whether this verifiable material should be on the page or not due to its relevence to the page. I believe it should be because although the Barlas were an ethnically Turco-Mongol trible the two great clans of the Barlas(all references on Barlas article based off Timurids and Mughals) were ethnically Turco-Mongol but were persianized and an important part of the Persian Cultural fabric and were not culturally Turco-Mongol(as this article would have a reader believe) which is classified as a generalization and Selective quoting because we would ignore almost every book on them were they are mentioned, explicitly, as persianized, persianate, part of persian cultural fabric, and/or patrons of Persian culture.Therefore skewing and misrepresenting not only the Mughal and Timurid identity but also Barlas identity as a whole which has been continuously influenced by and has influenced Persian culture. This is atleast relevant as long as you include the Timurids and Mughals on the page as removing it would make the page look 2D instead of the 3D with cultural identification.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For latinisation see: Legacy of the Roman Empire, Romanization (cultural), Romance-speaking Europe Charlemange and the Franks we known as civilized or Romanized Barbarians--Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained my point and I do ot agree. First of all, "Turco-Mongol" is ot an ethnicity. The Barlas were Mongols. The "Turco-" prefix simply means that they had been assimilated in to the Turkic-dominated nomadic confederations of Central Asia. The same way members of the clan later became assimilated in to the Perso-Islamic and Indian cultural environments. But all of this has no relevance in this article. --Lysozym (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

Lysozym and Nawabmalhi: I have protected this page owing to your slow edit warring. Please reach a consensus here, so that any further disruption to the encyclopedia can be avoided. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barlas. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barlas Mongolian? are you sure?[edit]

If Barlas is indeed of Mongolian origin, what does Barlas mean in Mongolian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner555 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian spelling of "Barulas"[edit]

If anyone cares enough to insert the Mongolian spelling rather than just having a Romanized version, this is it: Барулас. 67.83.99.134 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)corpho[reply]

Origin[edit]

According WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere". "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". No need to change Mongolian origin to Turkic. According to the prominent turkologist Balkis Karmysheva "there are no special studies, reasonable statements, giving grounds to dispute the Mongolian origin of the Barlas" (in original: "нет ни специальных исследований, ни более обоснованного высказывания, дающих основание оспаривать монгольское происхождение барласов")[1]. According to the orientalist Ilya Petrushevsky, the term Turks in Persian sources has not so much ethnic as social and everyday character. The Turks in Persian sources can mean both Mongol-speaking and even Tibetan cattle-breeding tribes. According to him: "It can be argued, with a high degree of probability, that the barlas were Mongol-speaking, and not Türkic-speaking" (in original: "Можно утверждать, с большой долей вероятности, относительно ряда племен — татар, кераитов, найманов, джалаиров, сулдузов, барласов, меркитов, ойратов, — что в XIII в. они были монголоязычны, а не тюркоязычны")[2].--KoizumiBS (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Кармышева Б. Х (1976). Очерки этнической истории южных районов Таджикистана и Узбекистана. Москва: Восточная литература РАН. p. 179—180. ISBN 978-5-02-018328-5.
  2. ^ Рашид ад-Дин. "Сборник летописей. Том I. Предисловие". www.vostlit.info. Retrieved 2019-08-31.

103.127.85.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[edit]

This ip seems to linked to the previous ips. I don't want to point to certain user, but those IPs are located in Bangladesh. Beshogur (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPs starting with 103[edit]

Those IPs are located in Bangladesh, and always doing similar edits. I won't give a name but there's a certain user I suspect to use them. Similarly claiming he's "Borjigid-Moghul" descent and located in Bangladesh. Any thouhgts? @Kansas Bear: @LouisAragon: @HistoryofIran: @Alivardi:, since you created Qarachar Noyan. Beshogur (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not have a source for their addition, then it is speculation. As for who the IP might be, I have no clue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources may be faked as well. Full of misleading + OR information. Similar to the Suqu Sechen Barlas article, and others. Funnily, Qarachar is claimed to be founder of Barulas, while his grandfather is still named Erumduli Barlas. Most of them have not even page numbers. IP users claims Barlas was founded in 1227, and its founder is Qarachar, however the Secret History mentions the name Barulas comes from Barulatai, which is mentioned in chapter one (lot of myth stuff etc) and Qarachar is mentioned in Chapter three. So lot of these stuff put by IPs seems suspicious. Actually to be honest, I don't know much about these stuff, and didn't research. The reasons I revert are, as I told, lot of suspicious stuff going on, and various IPs by the same country, and perhaps used by a wiki user, to avoid getting blocked. Beshogur (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: hey can you patrol these pages? Beshogur (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can keep an eye open, but it's not an area in which I have much background understanding either. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barlas&oldid=1195310120"