Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3

message: #  Support Seems it is the more common English name and is derived from French so has no bias to either country. Philip Baird Shearer 23:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no sock puppet accounts. ,  coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, no sock puppet accounts. ,  coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Only contribution to this article (1 edit) and this vote. Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Place page name under Liancourt Rocks

message: 1. Support. If Dokdo should be Liancourt rocks, then, we should also call any disputed territories with neutral English names. --203.253.132.82 09:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: only 2 edits from this IP (see above) Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, no sock puppet accounts. ,  coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, no sock puppet accounts. ,  coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Place page name under Dokdo

message: # Oppose.  Aside from the Japanese imperialists, no one uses this name. --Everton 07:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Place page name under Takeshima

message: I am sorry if you cannot understand my english well, but I would like to openly apologize to the people of Chosen for Japans unforgivable acts. Being japanese, I understand my country's obsession with Dokdo. It is truly disgraceful. To any korean user her I ask for forgiveness. thank you 
Yurushimasu00 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A True Apology from Japanese 

message: Can someone tell me how long duration is expected for this kind of vote in en.wikipedia?  I also do not know about criteria of vote here.  Which proposal is chosen among the candidates?  Compare (supports)-(opposes)?  In this case, 15-3>4 so Liancourt Rocks is selected if it finishes now?  Some rule which should be applied here already exists somewhere, I guess, so please let me know. --Corruptresearcher 22:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Five days from the date of nomination is the usual time frame. If there is no clear consensus after 5 days, the vote can be extended. In this case I think it would be best to have a 3-way vote (between the three title choices), then if one has a majority vote over the other two, the page goes there. If no one choice has a majority, the two choices with a greater number of support votes go through another round of voting, just between those two. If you want/need someone to oversee the process, I will be happy to, just let me know. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your quick and clear answer.  I really apreciate if you or some administrator who is neutral on this issue oversee it.  It seems one week has passed from the date of Call for Vote, 25 April. --Corruptresearcher 23:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration and Criteria of Vote

message: I understand the process of this dispute was as follows.  Please correct if wrong.  Corruptresearcher 04:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of this edit war

message: A person who cause this disorder is in vote to be bureaucrat. We need to observe this carefully. Commonsenses 10:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BtW

message: Many paragraphs in the History section is concerning about whether Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleung-do. It is the fact that Ulleung-do residents can see Liancourt Rocks in a good weather, so I think this should be mentioned in the Geography section to help readers get it straight. --Puzzlet Chung 03:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleung-do" as a fact 

message: Seeing as there's been a lot of controversy over this issue (and not just at this article), I decided to start a strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names). Since many people here are likely to have an opinion on this, I'm advertising it here. Please notify people whom you think might be interested. --Xiaopo ℑ 02:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A naming convention 

message: What is the actual source of the French name (the history section doesn't say)?
A french whaler (Le Liancourt) discovered the rocks. Pixeltoo 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of name 

message: First of all, there are guys who try to make it sound as if it was historically Japanese.
Rather than "claimed by both Japan and Korea, and administered by Korea" -which is unnecessary-, let's please say "claimed by Japan and administered by Korea".
That still does not change the meaning & does not sound repetitive.
And then, it says something like this: "Korea has a small police force, but still it is claimed by Japan".
People!!! We do not need to be repetitive. I just can't believe how many Japan fans there are! If there are historical documents proving that it's Korean, it's Korean!!! Remember, when Japan surrendered, one of its documents clearly stated that the islets of Dokdo is Korean.
:I agree 100% that the island belong to Korea BUT as far as i understand it, there is no official agreement between Korea and Japan about the ownership. Until there is officially an agreement then it must say that both countries claim the islands (which is true). Masterhatch 15 August 2005
:It's a lie. Before US and Japan conclude the peace treaty, Korean government required US to include Tsushima and the rocks as korean territory and US rejected because They didn't see no historical fact to justify such a request. If you insists, show us link to the source. --Ypacaraí 00:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
Here's a historical fact to justify such a request.
"The first historical references to the island were cited in Korean documents, which make reference to them as a part of an independent island state known as "Usankuk" (Ullung Island) which was incorporated into the Korean Shilla Dynasty in 512 AD."
:"The Japanese assert that they had incorporated Dokdo, an island that they considered to be a terra nullius, into the Japanese Empire on February 22, 1905 when the Govenor of Shimane prefecture proclaimed the islets to be under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office of the Shimane prefectural government under the name "Takeshima", cited in Shimane prefectural proclamation number 40 of that year."
:http://www.clickkorea.org/Dokdo/03_1.htm
:"To this effect, on January 29, 1946, the SCAP (the U.S. military government in Korea at the time) had Dokdo permanently excluded from Japanese territory and returned to Korea under international law (SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677)."
:You guys see how the Dokdo became known as Takeshima when Japan annexed Korea? And that was since 1905. Before then, it was Korean. 
::The webpage linked above can not be source for persuading people.  And you must read archived discussions. Don't us repeat same explanation. --Ypacaraí 05:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:What do you mean that the webpage linked above cannot be source to persuading people? You mean, just because it's supporting Korea's claim, it's fake? Where is your sources? Fake and Japanese protests...
::Because it's only a propaganda. Bring here link to NARA page that support your claim. --Ypacaraí 22:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I searched both Dokdo & Takeshima, but they didn't come up on the search. There's nothing about it on the NARA page. And those two links are not propagandas. Hey, I searched this "SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677" on google, and something like 10 sites mentioned it. And on Wikipedia, "SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677" came up on this Japanese site.
::No reply? I'll take that as yes?
Please, the fact the Japanese government annexed Korea along with Dokdo does not give Dokdo to Japan. Please forgive my country's disgraceful actions towards Kankoku
Yurushimasu00 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimachine's Comment 

message: I went to "What links here" for Liancourt Rocks to see what names were being used at all the links (excluding talk pages and the like). I noticed something very interesting. All the Japanese related articles used "Liancourt Rocks" first, only sometimes mentioning Takeshima (and in some cases Dokdo) after. I only saw one article (Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform) that used Takeshima first. But it is a totally different story for the Korean articles. It appears that most Korean articles use Dokdo first with Liancourt Rocks second and in many cases, not at all. The way I see it is all the Japanese articles (except one) are all NPOV while most of the Korean articles are POV. I am suggesting that Liancourt Rocks comes first on Korean articles (like it is on Japanese articles). Any thoughts? Masterhatch 24 August 2005
::If we were to follow the logic of the Senkaku Islands article (that whoever is in possession has the right to name it), then this article should be named "Dokdo", not "Liancourt Rocks". In fact, all of the Wikipedia articles on islands in dispute near Japan are already heavily biased in favor of Japan.  
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is titled Senkaku Islands.
Dokdo/Takeshima is titled Liancourt Rocks.
Sea of Japan/East Sea is titled Sea of Japan.
Kuril Islands has a lot of Japanese content and naming convention.
Sakhalin has a lot of Japanese content and naming convention.
::So wherever the Japanese case has the advantage, the Japanese version wins. Wherever the Japanese case is at a disadvantage, the neutral terminology is used, but lots of Japanese content and naming convention is added. I think this is wrong. Change the title of the Senkaku Islands article to the "Pinnacle Islands" first and then we can talk.--Sir Edgar 05:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dokdo vs. Liancourt Rocks 

message: as masterhatch said, the dispute should have an article of its own. any objections? i'd move it myself, but i'm not sure i know how Appleby 09:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not nesessary. Liancourt Rocks are merely a tiny group of insignificant rocks on their own. Without the political dispute they dont merit an independent space on Wikipedia like thousands of other small islets in the area. Hermeneus (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right, nevermind. i shouldn't make suggestions at 2:30 a.m.Appleby 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: separate article for dispute

message: i tried to do some relevant, accurate google searches for this topic, but it's harder than it appears at first.
a major problem is that the korean word has be romanized so many ways: dokdo, dokto, tokdo, tokto, plus each of these words can also be written as two words or hyphenated. & i can't string all of them together because of google's limitations. i haven't tried all possible combinations, if you try different variations, the sums are not what you'd expect logically, seems a little "fuzzy" but this is the best i could come up with. also not clear on the effect of hyphens inside quotes, doesn't seem to affect total number, but does (sometimes) change the first page results.
searches for takeshima brings up some unrelated results because it is also a not-too-rare japanese family name. & "tok to" or "dok to" by itself also brings up some unrelated results. so i added "islands OR island OR islets" to try to filter these out, at the small risk of being too exclusionary. i didn't include "islet" or "rocks" again, because of google limit of, i think, 9 words total. in the end, however, the proportions remain similar, with or without the "islands": transliteration from korean is a little over twice as common as from japanese.
excluding "wikipedia" results in 6000 to 10,000 fewer hits, a reminder of how influential wikipedia itself is in relatively obscure topics. & obviously, it's the english pages that matter, but i'm not sure how accurate the google language filter is, & the filter doesn't really make much of a difference, proportionally. any suggestions to make the google searches more accurate?
*dokdo OR dokto OR tokdo OR tokto OR "tok to" island OR islands OR islets -wikipedia
:84,000 English pages (96,400 for all languages)
*takeshima island OR islands OR islets -wikipedia
:44,800 English pages (50,300 for all languages)
*"liancourt rocks" -wikipedia
:10,500 English pages (13,800 for all languages)
clearly, "liancourt rocks" is not the most recognizable english name. it is called dokdo or takeshima over 10 times more often than it is called liancourt rocks. the question is the significance of the difference between dokdo and takeshima. Appleby 17:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That only means that the Koreans are the most vocal party in this territorial issue. Takeshima/Dokdo has never been as big an issue in Japan. The rest of the world couldnt care less about the tiny island. Thus fewer webpages exist for the latter two. You dont become a majority just because you are loud. Hermeneus (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well i did what i could about that, which is not much, by searching for english only, & your criticism, which is absolutely valid, would apply to any reference to google results in wikipedia discussions, & like it or not, happens so often it would be silly to not even consider it just in this instance. just trying to add some info for consideration, & i'm all ears for better evidence. it just seems to me liancourt rocks has a weak basis as an english name, considering the absolute & the relative frequency of use. Appleby 23:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a refined google search

message: i'm surprised nobody's got any input on the pretty drastic changes i've been working on. this controversial topic must be carefully watched by a few people.
i've tried to clean up the language & organization, i think i pretty much kept the content from the previous version, although i did do a lot of googling while editing & added some tidbits & deleted many minor details.
the article still seems too long, but i'm not sure where to cut the fat anymore. the placements of the north korea & french liancourt paragraphs are still a bit awkward. can someone find a map showing jukdo? Appleby 20:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching (sort of) but been busy. I was just going to wait until you were finished and then have a deeper look into the changes. But on the surface, most of your changes seem pretty good. I was going to suggest that you re-write the article in a temp file, but you started the re-write before i could suggest that. In a couple of days, when I have time, I will thoroughly look over the article. But I doubt I will find too much to complain about. Masterhatch 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The only way I can think of to cut material would be to replace most of the pre-1900 history with a summary.  If it's important, it could be put into a separate article.  That's not a request, though; I think the current article is relatively good, and a lot cleaner now.  Thanks.  --Reuben 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think the parties consider the pre-1900 history pretty important. it's interesting how westerners typically focus on the latest institutional decision, actual possession, who has legal control, preserving the current status quo. asians tend to argue from who was first, somewhat moral appeals, deriving legitimacy from history. maybe a lack of historical roots in the u.s., or undeveloped legal institutions in the east? difference between colonial haves/have nots? of course this is broad-brush, but generally asian nationalists will say they were there first, & westerners will ask what's the current u.n. position.Appleby 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's kind of my point; the pre-1900 history is for the most part not very notable in its own right, but only as it relates to the debate over control.  We don't have to give a list of the maps, records, and incidents that Korea and Japan refer to in debating their claims; a summary would be enough.  As I said, though, I'm happy with the current article.  Your work has already made it more like an article and less like an enumeration of competing claims. -- Reuben 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent changes

message: I had changed multilingual name infobox to be sorted by language, which was reverted by Appleby.  In my opinion, sorting by language is better than sorting by romanized name because if I don't know the Korean name, I can't know Dokdo comes before Takeshima (which comes before Tokto, the Korean name romanized by McCune-Reischauer).  Wikipedia:Infobox does not talk about multilingual name infobox but it seems sorting by language is common practice (see Baitou Mountain or Sea of Japan naming dispute).  As there are only two languages, sorting order is not so much important but making it consistent with other articles is a good thing, IMO. --Kusunose 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you give me an example of infobox of disuted territory being sorted other than language name other than this article?  As you say, the article text follows your rule and I'm not opposing to it.  These infoboxen are list of local names, not commonly used names in English.  To be usable, consistent sorting order is important.  --Kusunose 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting order of multilingual name infobox  

message: I have removed the added information (again). The sources I have checked do not support the material, but I'll be very happy to have it in — just provide your sources (and ideally reference them, too).
I have also reverted the removal of a link to restore balance (2 each). Kokiri 10:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 11 January 2006 

message: I read this book and description about Takeshima but it is also written that this island is one nortical mile from Ulleung island.  Therefore, the island never indicates the Liancourt Rocks.  --Corruptresearcher 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is it 1923 or 1933? there are conflicting cites on the web. is "nortical mile"(?) defined? is it described in text, not a map? Appleby 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: other people also saw the publication, so i don't know if we take a wikipedia editor's word over cited sources. granted, they're not exactly the bbc, but it's not my personal opinion either. "The Japanese Navy had also cited Dokdo as an appended island to Ullungdo, and Korean territory, in its 1923 publication, "Chosen Engan Suiroshi" (Korean Coastal Straits)."  (mark s. lovmo, a published researcher, although i can't find more details on this website), &  (korean ministry of defense). Appleby 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I show the page written in Korean.  It was published in January 1933.  It describes in the text that "竹島（竹嶼）ハ島ノ東岸ヲ距ル１浬餘ノ處ニ在リ", it means "Takeshima is about 1 nautical mile from the eastern coast of the (Ulleung) island..."  As you described, it is not your personal opinion so I cannot stop you to include it.  However, I recommend you not to do this because of its inaccuracy so I will revert once more.  If you still want to include description about this, I must add the above description also in the next edit. --Corruptresearcher 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: １浬 means 1 nautical mile. １浬餘 means '1 nautical mile and more' or 'more than 1 nautical mile'. see wiktionary:浬 and wiktionary:餘.  See also :ja:海里 and :zh:海里; both mentions 浬 as an alternative Chinese character and linked to nautical mile. --Kusunose 05:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Kusunose for explanation instead of me.  Appleby, １浬餘 means "1 nautical mile and a bit more" and not "more than 1 nautical mile".  So, if it is 5 nautical miles far, for example, we never call this １浬餘.  Actually, there is an island called 竹島 or 竹嶼 very near to the Ulleung island.  It is called as 竹島, or Chuk-do, also in Korean.  Please see ko:죽도 (울릉군).  This is the island which "Chosen Engan Suiroshi" indicated.  --Corruptresearcher 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chosen Engan Suiroshi (Korean Coastal Straits, 1923)

message: Can someone please clear up those "citation needed" tags by clarifying references, or whatever? It's really an eyesore to read like this, honestly. Mr Tan 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V, any statement which is not verified upon request can be removed. If those tags have been there for a while, the statements should probably be pulled from the article.  -- Visviva 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: There seems to be inequality in the titling of these two articles. 
If South Korea controls the Liancourt Rocks, it should be able to name the islets whatever it wants (i.e. "Dokdo"). The conservative Japanese government and a minority of right-wing Japanese citizens only challenge South Korean authority with a weak claim that primarily focuses on 1905 documents (the same year that Japan assumed sovereignty over Korea).
The Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands are under Japanese control. The article is entitled "Senkaku Islands". This is despite the fact that the Chinese have an older history with the islets (since the Ming Dynasty). According to the Wikipedia article, Japan "waited until 14 January 1895, during the middle of the First Sino-Japanese War" to make a claim on the islands. 
So, it seems to me that Japanese claims to both the Liancourt Rocks and the Senkaku Islands are post-1895 (the beginning of Japan's expansion abroad phase). 
Is it just me who sees the disparity in treatment of titles? I suggest the articles be entitled, respectively:
:1. "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands"; or
:2. "Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands" 
Any thoughts?--Sir Edgar 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an unfair and simplified characterization of the Lliancourt rocks problem. In Japan, it is referred to Takeshima by EVERYONE (and the naming dispute "the Takeshima dispute"). Many newspapers will put out the Korean name as well though, both pronounciation and the actual kanji (独島 as opposed to the Japanese 竹島). I follow the debate in Japanese media and I think the media coverage is fairly balanced. I have little knowledge of what is going on in Korea but considering the Sea of Japan naming dispute and how Korea insisted on "Korea Japan FIFA World Cup" (instead of the by FIFA proposed Japan Korea (alphabetic order)) because in French Korea (Corea) comes in front of Japan, I am more doubtful of the Korean motives. Mackan 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, if you read the FIFA 2006 Korea/Japan World Cup, it was the Japanese Gov't which was warned for issuing the tickets as FIFA 2006 Japan/Korea World Cup (later warned not to do so by FIFA). Also, this draws interests to the Senkaku Islands situation as well. In China, the Senkaku Islands are refered as Diaoyutai Islands by everyone, even though Japan maintains de facto control of the islands. Regardless whether you think Korean or Japanese media is more balanced, I'm not sure how the NPOV policy works in Wikipedia if one article refers to the name used by the controlling party, and the other article uses the name that is supposedly more neutral. If we were not to maintain such double standards, the Senkaku Islands should be changed to Pinnacle Islands, or Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. Whichever one is more fair is I guess upto the editors here. Deiaemeth 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you re-read the article, you will find that FIFA originally suggested Japan-Korea but Korea insisted on the French spelling order, i.e. Corea-Japon, which FIFA for whatever reason agreed to. But yes, Japan also tried and sell the tickets as "Japan Korea" for domestic games. Both acted rather childishly but I think Korea has a tendency to go too far too often.Mackan 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About Korea/Japan World Cup. That was a compromise among two countries and FIFA. Hold the final game in Japan and title Korea/Japan instead of Japan/Korea. If I'm wrong, please correct me. janviermichelle 16 May 2006
i agree that this is a consistency problem. above, i tried to do a google search that shows that dokdo (or variant spellings) are more common than takeshima, in english pages. i bet the numbers have changed, especially given the growing influence of wikipedia, but the point i was making was that "dokdo" is both more common & the actual-control name. "liancourt" seems to be a case of wikipedia promoting an obscure name, something that should be avoided if possible.Appleby 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm almost afraid to start reading what excuses certain people are going to make to distinguish Dokdo from the Senkaku Islands.  Right now it's a win-win for the pro-Japanese nationalistic point of view because we are using Japanese name for Senkaku presumably because Japan administers/controls the island but we don't allow that same principle for the islands administered/controlled by Korea. This is hardly neutral.  So, to throw my two cents in, I would also prefer consistency; either Dokdo and Senkaku or Liancourt and Pinnacle.  And if someone is going to say something about islet versus island as a reason than don't make me point out the Japanese government's position on Okinotorishima.  (I hope no one even tries to divine a consistent position out all those contradicting arguments because they will seriously sprain their brain (and credibility)).  .  Tortfeasor 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe RfC would be good solution to gauge some outside opinion on this matter.   Maintaining a double standard in naming matters that are controversial to many editors can certainly leave lots of problems. Deiaemeth 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the more neutral approach would be better. John Smith's 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liancourt Rocks" and "Senkaku Islands"? 

message: I think the image use in this article is WAY out of hand. I can see using 3-4 of the maps, but there are at least 10-12 maps right now. A bit on the overkill side, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd have to agree. don't remember whether it's in talk here and/or sea of japan dispute, but map wars inevitably end badly, because there's no end to the number of maps that could be added by either side. if significant, the information is better integrated into the text content, imho. perhaps, if someone really wants, a separate gallery page could be linked from here. Appleby 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image use in article

message: Just an FYI on a related matter, but  just created a cut-and-paste copy of Sea of Japan naming dispute at East Sea (Sea of Japan) naming dispute. I changed it to a redirect to Sea of Japan naming dispute, but someone more knowledgable about POV forking and proper naming of redirects may want to look into it. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article forking

message: Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo – per talk:Liancourt Rocks and talk:Senkaku Islands--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage.--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage.--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey