Talk:Yasuo Fukuda

Super Free?
The Super Free controversy was a news item at the time, but is no longer considered as important relative to other issues related to Fukuda's prime ministership. Such a high-profile placement in the article, even ahead of "election" is therefore incongruous and misrepresents the relative importance of the issue. Re-organized this section under "controversies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.11.53 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No picture!?
Next prime minister of Japan and there's no free picture? Flexxx 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is absolutely right. I've checked a few sites that are common sources for our free media, and there's nothing close.  So now you'll be faced with a ridiculous open request for someone to take a picture of him and release it into the public domain because fair-use for people has been prohibited. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it shouldn't be too long until he visits the U.S. on official business. We should get at least one PD-USGov image from that. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the 3 month time scale or so I'm sure we'll get something. I mean, up until this week I had only heard his name in passing before.  There are a number of past Japan PMs that don't have pictures though. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What about here? It's the Liberal Democratic Party's official website? I don't know a lot about free use, so yeah... Worldthoughts 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and tell you what everyone else will tell you. No.  That picture can not be used. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Theanphibian is right; it's copyrighted. I wonder, though, if Fukudo had visited US when he was in office as chief secretary. It seems this is the way we usually obtain free pics of Japanese politicians in wikipedia: PD-USGov. -- Taku 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked USA.gov, which indexes images on most US-gov websites, but there're no hits. Nothing on Flickr or Agencia Brasil or any of the other standard free-licence stops either, as Theanphibian pointed out above. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:Licensing#Japan, "announcements and notifications by the organizations of the national or local governments" are not eligible for copyright and (presumably) then become public domain. Doesn't this mean that the photo here is PD? Or perhaps it isn't an "announcement" or "notification".--Chaser - T 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no. (Japanese) says
 * 当ホームページに掲載されている個々の情報（文字、写真、イラスト等）は著作権の対象となっております.
 * which translates to
 * Every information posted in this homepage (text, pictures, illustrations, etc) are eligible for copyright.
 * -- Taku 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on. The above page also says:
 * 当ホームページの内容の全部又は一部については、私的使用又は引用等著作権法上認められた行為として、適宜の方法により出所を明示することにより、引用、転載複製を行うことができます.
 * which translates to
 * The whole or part of the contents of the homepage can be cited or copied for the private or other uses such as citation permitted in Japanese copyright law, provided that the attribution is explicitly made.
 * This awfully sounds like fair use. -- Taku 06:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the images on the Kantei website is in public domain unless they qualify Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto lisence, according to a Kantei staffer with whom I actually negotiated a use of some of the images they have. He was apologetic but insisted that they have to play by the book.

I'd say we'll just wait for a month or two until Mr. Fukuda pays his first visit to Washington to meet Mr. Bush, and his pictures will be posted on the White House website right away. We'll be then free to use such images under Template:PD-USGov lisence.

Insomniacpuppy 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you require public domain? What is wrong with the Attribution template? The official policy at Image use policy refers readers to Image copyright tags which explicitly allows the attribution template. This sounds like what the Japanese web site wants. What is the problem with this, and what is the reason to insist on public domain? Fg2 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the terms of the licence used by the Kantei website do not match those of attribution. They explicitly state that they are only freely-available for private use and citation. This means anyone who (for example) wanted to distribute brochures about Japan containing the image would be breaking the terms of its licence. And no, Kantei would probably not sue, but that isn't the point. The licence is non-free. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think some parts of the translation should be revisited. The Japanese says 引用、転載複製. The first is 引用 (in'yō) which means "quotation." Permitted. The second says two things: 転載 (tensai) and 複製 (fukusei). Tensai here means putting it on another web page. Permitted. This is the one we want to do: put the picture on a different web page (Wikipedia's).


 * I agree that these photos are copyrighted. Copyright does not make these un-free. These are copyrighted, free images. The only requirement is attribution. As far as I know, Wikipedia does not require that images not be copyrighted; Wikipedia permits copyrighted images. Wikipedia does not require that images be in the public domain. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to the policy so I can see it and stop harping on this point. Fg2 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a typical INAL situation (at least for me). On the one hand, I can see Fg2's point: I am thinking of the language like "Photo courtesy of kantei.go.jp."; isn't that all kantei.go.jp wants? On the other, GeeJo is right in that the { {attribution} } template probably is not applicable here because the language in kantei has use restrictions. In addition, this is not fair use case since we are not quoting or citing Fukuda's picture to illustrate some point; e.g., Megatokyo. In other words, I believe Fg2 is right but I don't think we are confident enough, at least yet. -- Taku 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The following image is on the ja: version of the page: Here, though I suspect it wouldn't pass muster on this side. -- Exitmoose 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's probably not in the public domain. Besides, under Japanese law, you can't release anything into the public domain in the first place. (See public domain) -- Taku 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures do not have to be public domain to be used in wikipedia. It is ideal but not a requirement. Pictures that are copyrighted may be used under fair use and/or attribution liscences.--ZayZayEM 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what we've been discussing like 4 paragraphs above. -- Taku 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the note above: "Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead." -- Exitmoose 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "almost" is not "always", and if I understand correctly Non-free_content_criteria are met in our case, like "No free equivalent" or "significance". Of course, the question if there is a non-free content we can use still stands. Like I said above, to me, images in kantei.go.jp can be used, not with the {attribution} template, obviously, but some language specific to this case. No one is saying that we shouldn't seek free images. Are you suggesting that some of the criteria are not met, if so, which one? -- Taku 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable enough to me. You've convinced me.  It would seem that as long as we don't have access to a suitable free equivalent, we can put either one of these images up on the page.  I'm not sure how best to attribute the images, however, so I'll leave posting it up to one of you. -- Exitmoose 04:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead to put the photo from kantei.go.jp. This may be a little too bold but this should (and I'm half-expecting) provoke others to point out problems, if any. Like I said, I'm not sure about how best this kind of attribution can be done or determining the rationales of the use. -- Taku 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Taku, If you are not sure, please don't go ahead. I really wish you hadn't done that. Insomniacpuppy 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Japanese can't be Japanese PM
Hi TakuyaMurata,

Sorry, but non-Japanese cannot vote for or get elected to the National Diet as per Constitution of Japan Articles 10 and 15. I think you are confused by the recent Supreme Court precedents allowing municipal governments to adapt necessary means to include tax-paying non-Japanese residents to participate in electing local officials. But this does not apply to national level.

Insomniacpuppy 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Big oops. What was I thinking. I was thinking of Foreign-born Japanese, but they are Japanese. My apology. I'm apparently too tired. -- Taku 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, I'm sure Alberto Fujimori had his eye on that loophole. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Relax
Hi all, in case you haven't noticed, virtually every single image used on Wikipedia's articles on Japanese Prime Ministers is:
 * 1) taken before 31 December 1956 (under    license),
 * 2) work of a US government or military employee (under     or   ), or
 * 3) work of the uploader him/herself with clear and detailed info on when, where and how it was taken (under    license).

I know it's frustrating, but it has always been like this, and trust me, it will always be, unless the Japanese copyright laws will be revised. I actually negotiated this with the Kantei staff under both Koizumi and Abe administrations for quite sometime, and the answer was always the same: No. They have to play by the book.

So once again, all we need to do is to wait for a month or two untill Mr. Fukuda makes his first visit to the US and meet Mr. Bush, and there will be a whole bunch of free images on the White House website for us to use.

Let's not waste our time on this rather silly edit war. Thanks.

Insomniacpuppy 09:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. I also sent out messages to a few bloggers who took Mr. Fukuda's pictures with their own camera during the LDP presidential campaign and uploaded them on their blogs, asking if they would consider contributing those images to Wikipedia. Let's see what they'll say.


 * Insomniacpuppy 10:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. That image should be deleted. Mushroom (Talk) 10:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't know about what you knew. I wish you had shared your knowledge/experience first. Anyway, for the future reference, would you tell us what stuff in kantei told you? For example, did you ask for the pictures to be released to the public domain? or just permision to use in wikipedia. This way, the next time we don't have to waste our time. -- Taku 22:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about this as well. -- Exitmoose 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a second note, I don't think the reasons why the image is deleted (or hadn't been uploaded in the first place) are clearly presented. You put the tag which says:
 * "... may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criteria in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information."
 * As I understand, our consensus is that there is no free alternatives. Theanphibian did the search, I and some other did the search too. If you (Insomniacpuppy) reasonably believe that there is a free alternative, that will change everything. I also believe that I (and the others) may be unsure about how best the pics in kantei can be put, but I don't think we know (yet) why it cannot be done.


 * (PS. This is really personal bussiness but I am having this very nasty cold and so if I couldn't respond promptly please don't take it the wrong way; it just means I'm probably down :)


 * -- Taku 22:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Taku. This whole issue seems to turn on two issues.  One: Is the image allowed under Wikipedia rules?  It would appear that as long as a free equivalent is not available, the answer to this question is "yes".  Of course, once we find a free image, the current one should be removed.  Two: Is the image allowed under Kantei rules?  This would appear to be "yes" as well, given the caveat that attribution is required.  If Insomniacpuppy could provide a specific reason why one or both of these rules is violated (e.g. specifically what part of the copyright is violated?), then I could get behind removing the image.  As it stands, I don't see why the image can't remain until we find a suitable free replacement. -- Exitmoose 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We understand your frustration. Wikipedia's policies phrase too many things in terms of should do, instead of what is allowed, which is seriously the only thing the content creators are going to care about.  The fact that you're trying to add something in the first place indicates that it was thought to improve the content.  The official policy on this, however, mostly comes from Non-free content:

"Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career."

In short, no fair-use for living people. It's not allowed, that's all there is too it - I hate people bombarding the issue with rhetoric. And when it gets deleted, it was probably done by an semi-automated tool with a generic message for a whole host of deletions. Not helpful at all.

Everyone's work here is truly appreciated though. Emailing can be a more powerful tool than you think. It could very well be possible to have a usable image with some brief searching and a little work at one's computer. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I have found, there are photos of his wife, but not of Prime Minister Fukuda. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So, there is nothing to discuss about on this issue, I guess, even if I don't necessarily agree with the "no fair-use for living people" policy. Of course, in time, the issue should become moot; Fukuda visits the US, for instance. -- Taku 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for understanding. Update: Mr. Fukuda may visit Washington as early as in November. See here for the details. Insomniacpuppy 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We can still try to email the Prime Minister's website and I can still try the local consulate in Los Angeles. Also, from what I gathered from the ja.wikipedia folks, they are putting a high priority to get his photograph under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: One of the bloggers I contacted was kind enough to release his picture to public domain. Thank you Mr. Kōno! Insomniacpuppy 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In recent discussions, I was told (1) Japanese law does not acknowledge releasing to the public domain, and (2) even if someone says on their own web site that they release a photo, that doesn't matter. So we should expect the same people who have deleted all the previous photos to delete this one. However, I hope it will not be deleted, and I'm grateful for the addition. It is a valuable illustration of the article. Fg2 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so that there is no more confusion:

What was disscussed here before was more like the "personality rights" or 肖像権, which is basically to protect the individual's privacy and image rights. But personality rights do not apply to public figures, namely prominent politicians like Prime Minister, for obvious reasons.

And that is different from "copyright" or 著作権, which is basically to protect commercial rights of someone who took his picture. If such image is released to public domain by the copyright holder with clear release statement and the details on when, where and how the image was taken, it is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia under   license.

Note that none of the Mr. Fukuda's images previously uploaded and subsequently removed qualified this. They were either copied from the Internet by the third person without copyright holder's permission, or falsely claimed to be uploader's own work which is really a crime.

By the way Mr. Kōno is also emailing me a high-res version of the image to replace what we have now. I'll update the picture as soon as I get it.

Insomniacpuppy 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hooray for Mr. Kōno! -- Exitmoose 12:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Three cheers for Mr. Kōno! -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough, but nice work! -- Taku 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Kono has done a great service for us. We should still look for more images to build up our Commons collection, but that is something we can move at our own pace. Thanks everyone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Need transition
Like previous prime ministers, his "political career" section needs to be divided in to "Member of House of Representatives" and "Prime Minister"

so...who wants to do it :)?

--Merumerume 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Head of state in infobox
There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous Japanese prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper. --G2bambino 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't contribute much to Japanese PM articles, but I don't recall any discussion on this topic. It is actually fascinating to hear that the inclusion is disputed. Since you're not quite getting response here, you might want to ask in the talkpage of WikiProject Japan. -- Taku (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Background flag
Hello friends,

Sorry to interrupt this discussion about property rights but hasn't anyone noticed that the flag in the background of this photo of the PM is the US flag. Seems rather odd to me, almost as if he were American, which he is not. It also seems rather to imply that Japan is the lacky of the US. Or is that the intention here? Better no photo at all than this one. Also, this photo must be old. Mr. Fukuda is in his seventies as I recall. Since he is the current PM, wouldn't it be better to get a more recent photo -- if the squabble over property rights can be worked out.

However, it is the flag in the background that strikes me as most odd...

Incidentally, I would guess that a good photo could easily be obtained from any Japanese government web site, such as that of the Prime Minister's Office or the Cabnet Office. I seriously doubt the Japanese government would object:

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html

http://www.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

Regards, Gunnermanz --Gunnermanz (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
The following was moved from the main page.


 * When Fukuda was Chief Cabinet Secretary to former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, he was reported to have made highly controversial comments regarding victims of rape during an off-the-record discussion with reporters during June 2003, according to an article in the weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun. The magazine quoted Fukuda as saying: "There are women who look like they are saying 'Do it to me'. Those who have that kind of appearance are at fault, because men are black panthers." In response, Fukuda claimed that the Shukan Bunshun had distorted his comments, stating that he had never intended to defend rape, and told a parliamentary panel afterwards that rape was "a criminal act and an atrocious crime".

This looks problematic. (1) it's not a major scandal or anything, but the structure of the article gives some undue weight on this, which is problematic since he is a living person, even if the factuality of the Bunshun article is probably not in question. (2) Even though a BBC article is cited, the article basically reiterates the allegation raised by Shunkan Bunshun. In genera, we don't want to mention every single allegation ever raised in the article. Therefore, it seems to me, we should keep this controversy section here until we find more sources other than Bunshun reporting the issue. -- Taku (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the above contributor sees this as problematic. This was a serious allegation made against Fukuda that was widely reported in the press, including the BBC, Japan Times, and Kyodo. He was questioned about it in parliament. It is certainly newsworthy, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Therefore, I'm putting it back in the article. --sgsilver (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
took out a line, uncited, completely out of context, grammatically incorrect, with the phrase, "and has a dog named sparky!"Devon.underwood (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone replaced "Fukuda" with "Fuckudad". Changed all back. 66.117.244.77 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to mention the likes of that on a talk page: just revert. J IM ptalk·cont 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Censure motion
First in Japan history censure: Yasuo Fukuda was humiliated on June 11, 2008, by a censure motion passed by parliament's opposition-controlled upper house (the first in history against a prime minister under Japan's post-war constitution). Ahead of the G8 summit, it attacked his handling of domestic issues like the unpopular medical plan and called for snap polls or his resignation. The lower house’s ruling coalition, however, would pass a motion of confidence by Thursday, as counter action.news.bbc.co.uk, Censure passed against Japan PMafp.google.com, Japan PM humiliated by parliament--Florentino floro (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Resignation as Prime Minister
Just as a heads up, Fukuda has announced his resignation from office. Musashi1600 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, he announced his intention to step down an hour ago, but his term in office has not ended yet, hasn't it? He's still the prime minister until the next prime minister is elected by the members of the Diet and appointed by the Emperor. Abe also abruptly announced his resignation as prime minister, but he officially remained his position for two weeks after his announcement if I remember correctly. So may I or someone else revert this edit? --Umebo (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with that, since he's still in office (albeit not for much longer.) Musashi1600 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response. It has been corrected by 68.190.224.129. --Umebo (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking
I propose to delink dates on this article. Linking to utterly useless articles with no connexion to this one is without any worth. See WP:MOSNUM. J IM ptalk·cont 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. J IM ptalk·cont 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

... and undone with the comments: "these dates really need more formatting"
 * —Ryulong

"Reinstate date formatting removed without consensus"
 * —DAJF (undo)

No, they were already formatted, Ryulong. Autoformatting is what you meant and that's something that no dates on WP need. I object, DAJF, to the call of "without consensus". According to Consensus:

"Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it."

There're nothing wrong with being bold and editing WP. No one is under any obligation to gain consensus before an edit. Note, however, that I did mention it nine hour before removing the unhelpful links. No mention was made anywhere that they'd be shoved back in. J IM ptalk·cont 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone has made this page extremely crass. It should be fixed soon due to it being on the front page of current events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.23.171 (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hieno mies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeeeemu (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect place of birth
According to the ja-Wikipedia and other Japanese online resources (e.g. http://db.kosonippon.org/statesman/statesman_info.php?id=1557 or http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/fe5600/fe_070918_pr_fukuda.htm), Fukuda was only registered in Takasaki, but born in Tōkyō. (Even English-language Japanese government sites get this wrong because they translate 出身地 as "place of birth"/"born in ...") I don’t know if Koseki registration or actual birthplace are usually given in the en-WP, so I decided to post here instead of editing the article. --Asakura Akira (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Yasuo Fukuda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080819195144/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPdlrPqflHTM3BzECO19WFkVYgswD929IDH80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPdlrPqflHTM3BzECO19WFkVYgswD929IDH80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yasuo Fukuda. 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/20080820033055/http://voanews.com/english/2007-09-23-voa5.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2007-09-23-voa5.cfm
 * Added tag to http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070925p2a00m0na029000c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614025834/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqbkGkgfBJBibIwxI80NR3qopwOw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqbkGkgfBJBibIwxI80NR3qopwOw
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?ru=2&gl=200803060000003&sid=&jezik=2

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) 03:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yasuo Fukuda. 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/20110520165144/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5htuAUeVI6W0hUPZZH8gUvFh-3cLg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5htuAUeVI6W0hUPZZH8gUvFh-3cLg

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) 12:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)