Talk:Belitung shipwreck

Note for editors on Copyvio
Hi all


 * Note for anyone looking at possible copyvio:

The Tilman Walterfang website has taken the Wiki article and cloned a large section of it onto their website (and without CC attribution). Please be aware that this was them copying it, not us copying it.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chaosdruid,

In actual fact, where do you suppose the material that you are referring to comes from? It doesn't come from wikipedia. The artifacts, the data, and all the information surrounding the artifacts comes as the direct result of who, exactly? Not wikipedia. Who is the SOURCE of the article itself? Who is the source of anything to do with this article? The specific material that you are referring to was written, not by you, nor by your "staff"... was it? Who wrote it? The actual fact of the matter is that wikipedia is using material that was originally written by others... and they have kindly added the facts to wikipedia... and allow wikipedia viewers, therefore to benefit from the knowledge.

You should seriously reconsider your assertions... none of the material that you refer to comes from wikipedia, as wikipedia is not the true and original source. Who is the SOURCE of the material... who WROTE it? So many inaccuracies have been corrected within wikipedia, inaccuracies concerning this article, and they have been corrected by those who know the truth about the events surrounding the find. So many inaccuracies have been corrected in related ..linked.. articles as well...

The material was not "cloned" FROM wikipedia... it was cloned TO wikipedia by the person who wrote it in its original state. This is to say that it has been "contributed", with compliments and best wishes to wikipedia by the original author.

Hopefully this will dispel any misunderstandings regarding the text under discussion. It has been freely contributed and should be freely redistributed.

PS... Chaosdruid... overall you have done an excellent job of fleshing-out the articles from all the preliminary info that was originally provided; and you are one of the more reasonable and sensible editors that one might encounter when attempting to "seed" a new article of significance. Kudos. You have earned the respect of a few of us who have the "bird's eye view"; it can't be easy, what you do there at wikipedia. Best regards to all the dedicated folks who work tirelessly at and with wikipedia. Keep the faith! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessedThistle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow!
 * First of all, thanks for the compliments. The note was only there because we have to ensure that no material is plagiarised onto Wikipedia and it is a simple reminder that this was the original to ensure that there are no ensuing problems.
 * As for your other points, no. The Tilman website has cloned the material from Wikipedia. The article uses a lot of text that I have written, as well as lots of other small parts from other editors, though freely given I am sure that all those who contributed would not like to see their hard work being claimed to have been done by someone else.
 * Wikipedia is copyrighted and its only requirement is that, when used, a CC credit is given. At present the Tilman Walterfang site says (at the bottom) "© 1998-2011 Copyright Tilman Walterfang - All rights reserved". This creates the impression that the material was written by the website, and they own the copyright. They do not, Wikipedia does. It is that simple.
 * Whether or not a credit is given to all the people at Wikipedia who helped create that material is secondary to the fact that someone is claiming it is "their work".
 * I am aware, though, that some of the sentences are your work, such as "Thanks to Tilman Walterfangs ethical ..." and that the other two articles have been gradually growing and are in need of another copy-edit, something we will probably be discussing soon. Have you declared your COI yet? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Chaosdruid,

My compliments are sincere, and you're welcome.

Regarding the material that appears on both wikipedia and on Tilman's site is quoted here for clarity...

BEGIN QUOTE Thanks to Tilman Walterfang’s ethical philosophy, the cargo was not sold off piece by piece to collectors. Walterfang kept the precious cargo intact as one complete collection so that it could be studied in its original context. It was housed in private storage for six years, where the items have been painstakingly conserved (including desalination), studied, and carefully preserved by Walterfang's company, Seabed Explorations Ltd. of New Zealand. The cargo was purchased for around 32 million USD by a private company, the Sentosa Leisure Group, and the Singaporean government in 1995, and loaned to the Singapore Tourism Board.

The debut exhibit of the treasure is scheduled from 19 February 2011 to 31 July 2011 at the ArtScience Museum in Singapore. The display is being put on with the collaboration of the Smithsonian Institution, The Freer Gallery of Art, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the Singapore Tourism Board and the National Heritage Board of Singapore. The Sackler Gallery will host the US premiere in the spring of 2012, a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration. The exhibition is then scheduled to travel the world for approximately five years to venues which include museums of major importance throughout Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. END QUOTE

The above quote are my words incorporated into facts which are the subject matter of press releases, which are distributed for the very purpose that they are to be quoted and propagated as news material. Therefore in this regard, wikipedia enjoys the use of my words combined with excerpts from press releases. All of which come from Tilman Walterfang's discoveries, recoveries and conservation work. All IPRs were/are his to use as he sees fit within the limitations of his legal agreements with the new owners in Singapore. The words that I have written have been released to wikipedia with my compliments. I never signed over any of my rights to wikipedia, but wikipedia is free to use the words. All of these articles have, as their root, the very existence of the recovery itself. It's as if you're telling the OAK tree that an acorn fell in your garden, and that the new tree therefore belongs to you. All these silly little arguments that are born of the egos of men are but dust in the eyes of eternity. Why not focus on the majesty and the eternal nature of the DNA that gives life to all of us? Rather than argue over who owns what? One hundred years from now... who will remember us with kind thoughts? Will we be remembered as compassionate members of a community; as leaves on the limbs and twigs of the mighty OAK? or as petty legalists, who care little for the greater good? We only live for a few seasons... so should we not consume ourselves with nurturing the forest and our children, rather than arguing over who owns this or that land-mass. After all, haven't the American Indians wisely made ever effort to teach the world that this notion of "ownership" is but a flight of fancy? We are all stewards of the land, the forests and the mountain streams. The mighty rivers and the Ocean Herself... we don't own these things anymore than we "own" words. Our very breath is a gift. Our ability to even speak or write a sentence is a gift from One who is so much wiser than we are. In truth we own nothing... but we can share Her gifts with one another, lovingly and in reverence of the Scared.

"There is nothing new under the sun.." "all else is vanity" and as a -CHaos-Druid, perhaps these notions ring true in your heart of hearts, yes?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessedThistle (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this note was to prevent the material being removed from Wikipedia. I have yet to see you declare any COI, and I am still not convinced that you understand why you should have sent in notice regarding the release of any material.


 * I would appreciate you giving us a link to the press release that had those words in it.


 * Once again, Wikipedia is copyrighted. I cannot change that, I am just happy to be able to write in a constructive way, and within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. We cannot escape the fact that, once that Oak has dropped the acorn, there are another 100 acorns competing for that growing room, squirrels trying to eat them etc.


 * I cannot accept that those words were not copyrighted. They are too close to the speech given here . If Walterfang did in fact release them as a press release they are copyright to him, unless he writes in and says we can use them. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - are you saying you are the Ark-Royal who posted there?

Per your request: "I would appreciate you giving us a link to the press release that had those words in it." http://www.asia.si.edu/press/prShipwreck.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessedThistle (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW Hello again CHaosDruid,

Most importantly, I don't perceive that there is, nor has there ever been, any malice intended by either (any) party involved in this discussion. If you or the wikipedia organization feel that any impropriety has occurred, no doubt, any or all of us, who are working together to illuminate the readers by providing quality educational materials (including your good self), will be happy to collaborate to resolve such matters in an amicable and civil manner. Kind regards to all concerned.


 * Hi. Unfortunately that does not seem to contain the text, more importantly it is not dated either. I think that adding a simple "some material from Wikipedia" would be enough to resolve any problems that might arise though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case I am not quite sure which text you are talking about. Kindly quote (here immediately below) the text that you are referring to :¬) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.171.129 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

-has taken the Wiki article and cloned a large section of it onto their website-  please quote the text you are referring to, thanks.


 * The text is at the bottom of this page and is the last two paragraphs Chaosdruid (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of archive URLs
All the best for getting the article to GA status! Can I suggest that you add archive URLs to the existing URLs to avoid link rot? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You certainly can, if I knew how to do that I probably would :¬) I am assuming it is some method of using Wayback. I have read the link and it seems it suggests putting in archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters. I have not done that before.
 * Should the date be today, or the match the retrieved date? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are instructions at the article linked to the words link rot in my earlier message. Essentially, see if the web page has already been automatically archived at http://www.archive.org. If not, archive it yourself using http://www.webcitation.org. Yes, refer to the archived page using the archiveurl and archivedate parameters in a citation template. The archive date should be the date that the web page was archived on. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, "I have read the link ...". Unfortunately it seems the majority have not been crawled and archived. I am really not in the position to have enough time to fill out all 30 or so of those forms, as I have stuff to get on with, nor pay for membership as it seems one has to be the originating author to get the free service? (As I would also have to do the Jewel of Muscat article) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It also seems that Checklinks cannot correctly locate ref [3], perhaps because it has a space in it. It says it is dead when it most definitely is not.
 * Well, I'll leave it up to you, though I strongly encourage it. You may be surprised to find that in as little as a few months some of the links will be dead and the footnotes will be filled with "dead link" notices. It's generally a good idea to archive URLs as you insert them into references when working on the article as that's the most painless way. WebCite is a free service – anyone can archive web pages, provided that the website owner has not specifically blocked bots from archiving them. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that non-crawling may be one problem, asia.si.edu. seems to have no cache and none of the archives have copies of them. There does not seem to be anything in the HTML code, apart from no-cache, though any crawling parameters could well be in their robot.txt file. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested self-archiving using WebCite. :-) — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Images
I am awaiting a reply to the alt text discussion on the main page talk page. It will affect the main gallery of artefacts images, as the alt text would be very similar to the captions. If the speech readers read both the alt text and the caption it would be unneccesary repetition. The images are not purely decorative but are, however, in a where alt text is not supported.

The image of a dhow, similar to the shipwreck, is probably only temporary as I am awaiting a second email from the Jewel of Muscat project who tell me that there are copy-free images available, though a second person will have to contact me with the necessary information. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Current controversy
There should probably be some mention in the article about the controversy over the salvaging of the shipwreck that has now led to the Smithsonian postponing the opening of the Shipwrecked exhibition in Washington, D.C. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially as I have offered it up for GAR! Do you have any links please? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some:
 * http://www.artmediaagency.com/en/21719/shipwrecked-tang-treasures-and-monsoon-winds-at-smithsonian-cancelled/.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/sackler-gallery-postpones-controversial-shipwreck-show/2011/06/28/AGbb9fpH_blog.html
 * (Don't forget to archive the links using WebCite if they are not available at Archive.org!) The news was also reported in The Straits Times but I don't have the reference right now. Let me know if you feel you need it. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be something a bit more substantive than that to be honest. I will try searching later on. While those are fairly specific, the sentence structure is a little off and contradictory, for example:
 * "not all the pieces have been returned to the Chinese authorities"
 * And why should they have been returned to the Chinese? That alone is suspect.
 * "The Indonesian government has engaged Seabed Explorations, a German recuperation firm to find the stolen works, which were subsequently bought by the Singaporean government for $32 million."
 * Obviously if the Indonesian Gov. thought Seabed Explorations (a recuperation firm?) had stolen them, the Singaporean Gov. (I am a little confused here as to which particular government they seem to think has jurisdiction, I thought it was the Indonesians?) would not be asking them to recover them. The next part of the sentence say that the Singaporean government bought the stolen works for $32 million.
 * I have already added material to the article to cover the loss between excavations. Seabed were the third on the scene after the fishermen and the Indonesian local recovery firm that initially were awarded the salvage certificate. After reading the PDFs and the INJA report by Flecker, the only way that this could be considered to have been excavated incorrectly would have been if he had lied about it. Have you read them? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS This was initially reported in March. As the Sackler Gallery did not post anything on their website in the following three months I did not put it into the article. The reports said in the NYT, though I did not find anything in my daily NYT emails. I will search later for any follow up I may have missed though, as promised. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like the first web page (which I did not read) contains many errors and should not be used. The reference to "Chinese authorities" is clearly wrong, and was probably supposed to have read "Indonesian authorities". The second sentence you quoted also contains factual errors. I attended a conference on marine archaeology at the Asian Civilisations Museum recently, and understand that the Indonesian government, which has jurisdiction over the wreck as it is located in Indonesian waters, hired Seabed Explorations to carry out a salvage operation and recover artefacts (and not "stolen works", as presumably these were no longer at the wreck site) from the wreck. After this was done, the Singapore government purchased the salvaged artefacts as an entire collection. No, I haven't read the reports you referred to, but my understanding based on what was mentioned at the conference is that Seabed Excavations feels that it carried out the salvage operation over two seasons to the best of its abilities under the circumstances. They hired marine archaeologists to advise on the matter, and also made detailed notes and took photographs. On the other hand, critics say that the wreck should have been studied over a much longer period, and some take the view that items from the vessel should not have been salvaged at all but left in situ. Seabed Excavations and its supporters say that this was not feasible in the circumstances since the wreck site is highly vulnerable to looting (and looting continues to occur there), and an extended period of excavation would have been too expensive to carry out. Thus, the salvage of artefacts from the wreck and their subsequent sale, which defrayed the costs of the archaeological investigation and salvage operation, was a reasonable compromise.
 * By the way, I trust you are aware of the book ? You should probably make references to it in the article, or at the very least mention it in a "Further reading" section. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the NYT articles, as well as a Freer-Scakler press release NYT 10 March NYT 24 April NYT 28 June FS 25 April.

The Flecker reports are here and. Flecker clearly states:

"The bulk of the ceramic cargo was recovered during the first season of excavation. The site was gridded and records were kept of the ceramics recovered from each grid square...The original skewed grid had been damaged during the monsoon, although it remained sufficiently intact to be correlated with the new grid."

"The Indonesian Government specifies that shipwrecks must be excavated in accordance with international standards. However, due to lack of any qualified staff within the administration and its current turmoil, this requirement is rarely enforced. It is left to the salvor to be self-regulating. In the present instance Seabed Explorations, after its first season of explorations to recover the cargo, funded the author to direct the excavation and survey the hull remains... Had a license not been granted, the site would have been totally destroyed by local fishermen." He also says, "A remarkable portion of the ship's hull survived in anaerobic conditions beneath the ceramics cargo"

There was also a report that between the two excavations local fishermen had broken open jars to get at the ceramics inside. There is some more reading, though far too many links for here I suspect.

I am adding something now, but need to do more research - including the reported Der Spiegel 30 January 2006 article where they claim the Indonesian government was only paid 2.5 million and that bribes were paid to stop Walterfang from paying the rest. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are going to add material that is potentially libellous, please ensure that you have highly reliable third-party sources and that WP:NPOV has been complied with (i.e., you must give both sides of the story). Otherwise, in accordance with WP:BLP, do not include such information. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting here? (and please do not even suggest that I suffer from POV)
 * Kindly paste here what you think is problematic. If you cannot accept that any information in the article is NPOV then I am sure there will be a good reason for it? Chaosdruid (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your comment above about you doing more research on bribes allegedly being paid. It's not clear to me who the bribes were allegedly paid to, but I strongly advise that you are sure you comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP if you add something about this to the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The allegations of bribes were mentioned in The Jakarta Post, though in 2006. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits 12/12/2011
Hi Hchc2009 recent edits were definitely done in good faith. Could you specify your concerns. Happy to do adjustments. Cheers Slwik123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slwik123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob's. " Lu Caixa, researcher in the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore states in the newsletter of the International Institute for Asian Studies, Leiden, Netherland, that “the excavation of the Belitung has been acknowledged as an admirable example of what can be achieved under difficult conditions in Southeast Asia. What distinguished the company that carried out the Belitung project from some other commercial operators is that the ship structure itself was properly recorded, the cargo was kept together rather than dispersed, and the finds were well conserved, studied, catalogued, and published" is attributed to fn 32, Andreas Rett's "The Concept of the Conservation of Seawater Finds", which has nothing much on Lu Caixa that I can find.
 * Agree, that was confusing, it was part of the following ref, have removed ref to Rettel. --Slwik123 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * " A global exhibition was created and a reconstructed dhow based on information gleaned from the excavation sailed across the Indian Ocean. Few non-commercial excavations have achieved comparable results with a project of this scale and complexity. It is difficult to imagine how this particular project could have been financed or organized without commercial involvement." is attributed to fn 33, but lacks a page number; this does seem to have the bit previously attributed to Rett though. It is also a very long quote that really needs to be paraphrased.
 * Paraphrased. --Slwik123 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally found "Prof. Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States defends the Smithsonian exhibition, claiming that the “educational and historical value of the collection is simply enormous, and those who have called for the cancellation of the exhibition are, in effect and in fact, denying access to the wealth of information embodied in the Belitung shipwreck, both to the lay public and to qualified researchers."[33] in the info box on the right hand side of the article; again, a page number would be good.
 * Added Page number. --Slwik123 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wrecks like these should be ‘feel good’ factors at times when the world has very serious and painful natural, economic and civil disasters to contend with. " is linked to a 28 page .pdf file; I'm uncertain which paper or author it is out of the chapters in the .pdf.
 * "It hardly needs stating that no European and American museum collection is whiter than white." is a straight copyvio from the linked blog.
 * But it is referenced to the blog. How should it be referenced properly? --Slwik123 (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're using exactly the same words, they should be in quotes, e.g. Doctor Smith has states "this, that, etc.", otherwise you're (unintentionally!) reproducing copyrighted words without ascribing them to the author. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done --Slwik123 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the quote from Wayne Clough in the linked reference:
 * You've quoted him as saying: " “So I don't think there's anything negative here. I think the Smithsonian tried to do it right. When we heard the concerns, we asked the community to come together and talk about it, and we listened, and some people in that audience had their minds changed, as a matter of fact, but not everybody. So, I think it's time in a situation like this to pause, and for the profession itself to say, "Okay, there's a problem, what are you going to do about it? And, you remember, the United States never signed the UNESCO treaty."
 * That was the wrong link - exchanged links --Slwik123 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The closest the webpage seems to say is: "So I think the people in these professions need to sit down together and say, ‘What can we do about this?’ Because, as this shipwreck was discovered, it was in shallow waters, and, I was told, it could have been looted any day. So the Indonesians contracted with a company who did, at some point, get serious about curating the objects from it, and, therefore, there was some science base to the curation. … It explained a great deal about the trade between the Chinese and the Arab nations, which was very little understood. As it stands now, that exhibition will not come to the United States, and people who otherwise would have learned a great deal about this trade will not. … I think the curator, Julian Raby, and his staff felt, when they were working with the Singaporean government, which had, in fact, bought these artifacts for the express purpose of helping educate people, that they were doing something that was useful and productive. Now, certainly not everybody agreed with that, but that's the way these things are. … I think the Smithsonian tried to do it right." 22:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking much better. Final bit is to check the format. If you have a look at the other references, you'll see that they tend to say something like " "Future Exhibitions". Freer Sackler gallery. Retrieved 15 February 2011." This is because they're using a citation format to make each reference look the same - in this case "cite web" - open up a paragraph and you'll see some examples. If you cut and paste the url you've given into one of these and change the contents, the format will be the same as the other citations. You'll also need the title of the website (which goes under "title"), and access date (which is when you looked at the website). These are important as they give a user friendly heading, and also gives an indication of which version of the website you might have looked at (sometimes they change). Give us a shout if you get stuck or have any problems.
 * For example, this would then become Hchc2009 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hit-and-run addition in support of Walterfang. I am a little undecided on neutrality, but will re-read them all again and fix the refs in the next few days. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Query construction location
The article says: "Afzelia is interesting in that the three main species A. africana, A. bipindensis and A. pachyloba are mostly found in a small part of Africa, stretching from the mid-western coast in a thin band towards the west coast and stopping short of it by a couple of hundred miles." This doesn't quite make sense, the "Jewel of Muscat" article has "...west to east, falling short of the east coast by a couple of hundred miles" which suggests that the correct phrasing should be "...thin band towards the east coast...". However since I'm not a specialist in this area I've not attempted an edit. MarkMLl (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -GroveGuy (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Belitung shipwreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/tang-shipwreck/worrall-text/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange, it seems the tool to fix it does not work ... Chaosdruid (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What? And now you want me to go to an external site, join up and give my REAL NAME (!?!?!?!?) to report you aren't working or to fix your mistake? Fuck off !!!


 * Broken everything: broken bot; broken "report my mistake please as Im a dumb bot"; broken "fix my mistake for me please as I'm a dumb bot".


 * This is silly - stop messing with the links Mr Robot! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belitung shipwreck. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212155557/http://maritime-explorations.com/belitung.htm to http://www.maritime-explorations.com/belitung.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belitung shipwreck. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317120443/http://www.jewelofmuscat.tv/files/images/_DSC5379Red_0.preview.jpg to http://www.jewelofmuscat.tv/files/images/_DSC5379Red_0.preview.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Srivijaya
Isn't it an extremely egregious oversight that the term Srivijaya is mentioned nowhere in the current version of the text of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)