# Talk:Belitung shipwreck

Hi all

Note for anyone looking at possible copyvio

The Tilman Walterfang website [1] 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. [2]
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 [3]. 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)

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, JackLee –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, JackLee –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 [4].
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, JackLee –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, JackLee –talk– 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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 <gallery> 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)

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, JackLee –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, JackLee –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 Regina Krahl, et al. (eds.) (2010), Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; National Heritage Board (Singapore); Singapore Tourism Board, ISBN 978-0-934686-18-1 {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)? You should probably make references to it in the article, or at the very least mention it in a "Further reading" section. — Cheers, JackLee –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 [5] and [6]. 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 [7] 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, JackLee –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, JackLee –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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belitung shipwreck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll read through and start on the review later today. Looks like an interesting article though! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more, and have got about a third through the copy-editing bit. I'm off now for a few days with work, but I'll aim to finish this off on Friday. Sorry for the slight hiatus; it is a really interesting topic though. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, remainder of the text points done below. Be interested in your thoughts.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through and tried to strike through the ones I think have been dealt with (NB: I may have missed some - feel free to strike through if I have!). The remaining ones really tie into the question of what to do about the latest Shipwreck volume on the site.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good - happy to pass at GA! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
*"The Belitung shipwreck[1][2] (also called the Tang shipwreck or Batu Hitam shipwreck) was an Arabian dhow which sailed from Africa to China around 830 AD." - The "was an Arabian dhow" sounded odd to me - how about "refers to an Arabian dhow which...". That way there's no possible confusion that the Belitung was the name of the ship.

"The Belitung shipwreck[1][2] (also called the Tang shipwreck or Batu Hitam shipwreck) is the wreck of an Arabian dhow which sailed a route from China to Arabia around 830 AD." - would this be more acceptable?
Amended
"It is unclear why the ship was so far from its expected most probable route from China:[4] through the South China Sea, past the southern Vietnam coast and then turning north-west through the Singapore Strait into the Straits of Malacca (between Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra)." "expected most probable" sounded redundant at first glance, although thinking about it, I had second thoughts. To make it clearer, how about something like: "Most ships would have reached China by travelling through the South China Sea... Belitung is some distance from this route, and it is unclear how the vessel came to be in this area..." ?
"It is unclear why the ship was so far from its expected route, as most ships leaving China for Arabia would have sailed through the South China Sea—turning north-west after passing southern Vietnam, and continuing through the Singapore Strait into the Straits of Malacca (between Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra). Belitung is some distance from this route, and it is unclear how the vessel came to be in this area..." - would this be better?
Amended into a new subsection, lead cut down and also amended
The first bit says it was travelling to China, the next bit notes the "route from China" - is this deliberate, as it feels wrong.
Is this covered by the first amendment? (lol no pun intended!) The ship was Arabian, and so must have first left Arabia on the Africa-India-China routes, it had a Chinese cargo and so was returning from China.
I found this much version all much clearer - looked good to me.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
amended
This section on the probable route also needs to be in the main text.
Will move once modified text is agreeable
"The wreck has given us two major discoveries" - in terms of encyclopedic tone, I would avoid the first person ("us").
Amended.
"The site location was purchased from local fishermen" - purchased by who?
The "local Indonesian company"
"a local Indonesian company" - do we know who they were?
No, as yet I have been unable to ascertain the company name. The National Geographic, Sackler/Smithsonian and Walterfang sites do not name them, nor do the Flecker reports. I have carried out extensive searches through Google books and news but have still to discover their name. The briefing paper [8] had the most information to date "The license was issued to a limited liability salvage company organized under the laws of the Republic of Indonesia, for a period of five years. The licensee executed a contract of cooperation with Seabed Explorations GbR, a German excavation company led by Tilman Walterfang, to facilitate the salvage and recovery."
I'd suggest you might add a footnote, saying that the company was unnamed in the reporting - that way, it's clear that we're not being biased towards the Western partners in the deal. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, by footnote, I meant a nb type of footnote rather than a citation (e.g. "The local company has not been named in the media.")
Added nb
" financed and excavated in cooperation " - were both the financing and the excavation in cooperation, or was it just the excavation? (it could mean either as written)
Amended to: "The dig was subsequently financed and excavated by Tilman Walterfang and his team at Seabed Explorations, under a license of co-operation with the original salvage company,[6][7] and after a request from the Indonesian Government..."
" monsoon season" - worth linking.
Linked
"The dhow was " - "The sunken dhow was..." would avoid any risk that the reader thinks you are describing a typical dhow here. (This is the first time you've said it was a dhow in the main text, by the way)
Amended
"it is the only Arabian ship of its type discovered, and its planks were sewn together using a thin rope made of coconut fibres, rather than using the more traditional methods of pegs or nails" - on the first bit, I wasn't clear what this meant. Do you mean the only Arabian ship from the period discovered by archaeologists? That we've discovered other ones, but this not of this type? etc. I ask, because you then talk about the traditional methods for building such a ship, which sort of implies that we know about how this type of ship was typically made. Did you mean that "it is the only Arabian ship of its type discovered, as its planks were sewn together..."?
It was the only Arabian ship of this type from this period that is known of, and boats of this type were not known to be found in Arabia until much later. Though the treasure is Chinese, the boat is Arabian by all accounts-though some of its wood is Indian. It may have been over-hauled there, or had work carried out there, but it is thought to be Arabian, as evidenced by the chief excavating archaeologist in the conclusions of his reports where he considers both and concludes that it was Arabian. The method of building was thought to only occur on the north-western coast of India, and is how we know about this method of building.
My advice would be to build in some of this text into the article paragraph, as you've explained it really clearly here. As it it stands, the paragraph in the article says it "could be said to be of Arabian or Indian origin", whereas Flecker's 2010 chapter, like your phrasing here, concludes that archaeological work has "removed all doubt" that it comes from the Western Indian ocean, and is Arabian in origin. (BTW: The website link in the reference, by the way, doesn't seem to say anything about the traditional peg and nail building methods; Flecker's 2010 chapter has something on this on page 115, which would be citable.)
I have tried to address this fully, in both the beginning of the section and at the end. It appears that the Seabed Explorations site has changed, so I have used the Sackler Exhibition Catalogue as the ref.
"worms" - worth linking
Linked
"This has given us an insight into how ships of this kind were constructed, something which has not been seen before in Asia. " - again, this seems to count against the "traditional methods" discussed earlier in the paragraph. If we haven't seen how ships of this kind were constructed, how do we know what the traditional methods for building them were?
Amended to "This has given us an insight into how ships of this period were constructed—something which has not been seen before as no Arabian ship of this type had previously been found, nor any with their cargo intact" - should not have been Asia, rather Arabia.
"The ship has been said to be of Arabian or Indian origin" - earlier in the rest of the section you term it just "an Arabian ship" though - this statement about its origins being uncertain doesn't feel consistent with calling it "Arabian" in the rest of the article.
The previously used term "Arabian" is of ownership and probable origin, rather than simply origin. The ship has African wood in it's major timbers (frame), something which casts doubt on an "Indian" origin. I will consider how to clarify.
For now I have amended to "The ship could be said to be of Arabian or Indian origin, as there is little to differentiate between ships of that period from the two areas, though its frame uses a species of tree that is only found in a small part of Africa."
As per the above - Flecker seems to have become more definite in his views since his 2000 article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten some of the section, as well as moving things around to get the original conclusions and 2010 ones into the last paragraph of the "Wood types" section from the start of the "Ship and construction" section. (also as per the other fix three up on this page↑  "I have tried to address this fully")
Construction techniques - I think you could safely combine the first two paragraphs - they're very short paragraphs otherwise.
Combined
"Flecker" - I'd advise giving his first name as well, and explaining who he is, e.g. "Michael Flecker, the chief excavating archaeologist at the site, compared..."
Added
"forestry and products division" - I could be wrong, but is the capitalisation correct? (I'd usually expect a division name to be in capitals).
Capilatised and corrected as per [9].
"Many of the samples were too badly deteriorated to be positively identified due to the lack of cellulose remaining in the wood cells" - is the lack of cellulose the cause of the deterioration, or the result? As written, it means the former, but I think you mean the latter (the resulting lack of cellulose then being the reason why it can't be analysed).
Amended to "Many of the samples were too badly deteriorated to be positively identified, as the lack of cellulose remaining in the wood cells prevented successful analysis."
"There are many types of wood which have been positively identified" - I very often get this wrong, but I think it is "that" rather "which" in this sentence.
Amended - I am not sure that it matters in this case, but have amended it to your suggestion just in case. "That" is used with a restrictive clause, something that cannot be removed, "which" in the rest. I use these to remind myself when I am not sure Grammar Girl or Chicago Manual of Style Q&A (though the CMS appears to be down at the moment)
"There are many types of wood which have been positively identified: teak (Tectona grandis) was used for the through-beams and is resilient to the teredo worm (the Teredinidae family), the ceiling was made from a Cupressus genus which was possibly Cupressus torulosa, the stem-post is made of rosewood from the Leguminosae family (now called the Fabaceae) and either the Dalbergia or Pterocarpus genus. The wooden box found in the stern area of the shipwreck was made from an Artocarpus genus of the Moraceae family, more commonly known as the Mulberry family." Could you simplify any of the Latin phrasing here? If you linked teak, you wouldn't need to say tectona grandis, as that's the common name for teak; the teredo worm link contains the teredinidae info; if you said either "Dalbergia or Pterocarpus rosewood", you wouldn't need to give additional info, etc.? I was trying to think of ways to make it easier to read!
"Ilic" - as per Flecker above, worth explaining who he/she is. Also worth checking, if we can, if Ilic's views are still current, or if more recent research has made them redundant).
He stopped working there some years ago, all I can really add is "Jugo Ilic of CSIRO, a wood                                               identification specialist" as he now works as R & D Projects Officer at Forest                                               and Wood Products Australia and has his own business "Knowyourwood".
"The Jewel of Muscat reconstruction" - this is the first time the article mentions this reconstruction or the name the Jewel, so it would be worth explaining what they are. (You do this later in the section in fact)
I am a little confused here, I may have already addressed this issue, as I cannot find that phrase. I have made the first mention into "The Jewel of Muscat reconstruction, a replica made as an exact copy of the wreck, has shown"
"gets its other names, "Tang shipwreck" or "Tang treasure ship"" - a missing "the" in front of the Tang
Added
"The ships timbers and artifacts" - "ship's" and "artefacts"
Ship's amended
My OED (two volume edition) uses "Artifact Also arte- An artificial product" while the entry for Artefact says "see Artifact". The online EB uses both variants in different archaeology subjects. To be honest I originally preferred artefact, though after looking in more depth at arte, artificial and artifice etc. it seemed as though it was more sensible to use arti-. There is also the problem of an artefact being a residual interference signal in data.
Arti- is more common in the USA and others, while arte- is (scholarly) more common amongst UK and commonwealth archaeologists. Indeed Google gives around 8 to 1 in favour of arti-. I honestly do not mind either, they both mean the same thing, as there is obviously no connection to data signals here :¬) One problem is that there are a couple of quotes, and both spellings are used in them.
Amended non-quotes to artefacts
Cheers!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
*"influences, or markets," why "or"? wouldn't "influences and markets" be more accurate?

Amended
"According to National Geographic: "One bowl was inscribed with five loose vertical lines, interpreted by some scholars as a symbol whose meaning resonates powerfully in today's world: Allah." - the second half of the quote jarred a bit with me as unencyclopedic. Could you just perhaps say that "One bowl was inscribed with five loose vertical lines, interpreted by some scholars as the word "Allah"."?
Yes, but that is a quote and, as it is not mentioned anywhere else that I have seen so far, is possibly only the personal opinion of the writer. I did consider paraphrasing it earlier, but thought that if I turned it into a statement it would surely be poorly ref'd as the article does not quote their source for the "some" part.
Is the writer for Nat Geo a good source in your view (e.g. an academic of some sort)? The reason I ask is that if he is, we could just name him "....interpreted by X as..." If not, and its not a wider view, perhaps we should just remove it.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The writer in question, Simon Worrall, appears to be a feature writer and not academically trained in archaeology. I have searched for a couple of hours now, and cannot find a close match. As a last resort I have emailed Worrall to see if he can point me in the right direction. For now I will remove it and put in a quote about the Arabic script decoration. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find anything else that talks about the Arabic scripts, and in particular nothing about Muslim/Mohammedan/Allah. The problem is that only other mention is Liu p. 154, who talks about the kilns and production area finds interpreted by Chinese scholars originally thought to be Arabic scripts were probably a misinterpretation. This is, of course, not talking about specific artefacts from the Belitung shipwreck, nor other scholars (esp. not Arabic) and so we cannot either prove or disprove the Nat Geo Mag mentions as yet. For now I have removed the Nat Geo Mag quote. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"The cargo was described as "the richest and largest consignment of early ninth-century southern Chinese gold and ceramics ever discovered in a single hoard." by John Guy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York" - there's an excess full-stop after hoard.
Not sure about that one, as I thought quotes were punctuated as they are. TO get around any complication I have moved the sentence part after the quote to before it, leaving the quoted period as the last in the whole sentence.
You wouldn't normally add or delete punctuation within a quote (without flagging it up), but you can always finish a quote before a full-stop to allow the text to flow smoothly for the reader. But the new version works fine.
"The cargo also includes" - you'll want to be consistent in the tense - in the rest of the section, you describe the cargo in the past tense.
Amended
I'd be inclined to combine the last three paragraphs of this "Tang treasure" section into one - they're very short otherwise.
Made into 2 paras for the whole section
"something which has given an "unparalleled into China's industrial capacity and global trade". You'll need to attribute the quote in the text, and there's a word missing after "unparalleled".
Added both
"The Sackler Gallery was due to host the US premiere in early 2012," - as the beginning of a new section, I'd recommend saying the "US premier of the shipwreck exhibition", or something like that, here.
Amended to "was due to host the US premiere exhibition of the Belitung cargo in early 2012—a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration."
"a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration" - this doesn't make sense unless you know that the Sackler Gallery is one of the Smithsonians - if you say "The Smithsonian Sackler Gallery" at the beginning, this would then make this clear.
Added ", part of the Smithsonian Institution," in the opening sentence.
"The Sackler Gallery has received condemnation" - it will be important to say who's condemned it.
Expanded first para with details
Reads much better, thanks.
" Proponents of the arguments" -ditto.
As per previous
"to have caused loss of information" - "a loss of information"?
added the "a"
"the overall situation would without doubt be described as 'less than ideal'." - excess full stop at the end
Removed
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

All okay. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Enthused by the article, I was having a look at Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds book by the Smithsonian on this shipwreck; most of the chapters seem to be available on line, and it gives additional details going beyond (and sometimes correcting) some of the earlier news reports used in the article. What do you think of it? It looks like it could be quite useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I have downloaded most of them :¬) The problem was the controversy and the cancelling of the exhibition. It meant that there probably would be a great deal of change on their sites and docs - I figured I would give it some time to settle down (and as I had the GOCE July backlog drive). I also have been in an email discussions over images from the Jewel of Muscat Project; they have kindly provided two pictures, one image of the stitching and one of the ship itself, unfortunately we have not resolved the licence they would like to use as of yet. They are fairly important as the Jewel is an exact replica of the wrecked ship and would be perfect to illustrate it. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "There are also claim that exhibiting the artefacts would be against international agreements on underwater excavations." is uncited, unless it's covered by fn27, which at first glance would be odd. Either way, I'd be keen to know who were making the claims. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Added an example, Faulk, and some other material. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

Clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Broadly yes, although the Shipwrecked book may have additional themes to pull out (as per our discussion above). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Generally yes. I think there's an issue with the way that "Conventions by international organisations" is placed though. The previous paragraph notes that that some people say that the excavation was quite legal, and others say that it wasn't. We then have this section, which basically lays out the law and says (I summarise!) that it was legal because the law wasn't retrospective, giving the very strong implied impression to me that that one group is right and another wrong. I'm not sure this is the best way to do this. If I can suggest two options:
If the "excavation was illegal" grouping is substantial, I'd advise that you summarise the conventions section, and place it immediately after the "Proponents of the arguments to display the works claim..." sentence. It's then very clear that you're summarising their argument, not putting forward your own. You can also add a similar sentence or two to support the opposing view. The article doesn't take a side, it's just noting the positions.
If the "excavation was illegal" grouping is effectively just a fringe theory, then I'd advise you still summarise the conventions section, but present it as "the majority of lawyers believe... ...but a minority argue that...", recognising that we're not comparing theories holding equal weight amongst the international legal community. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The end statement is just illustrating that the UNESCO one is not relevant as it came into being two years after the event, it is certainly not saying anything about legality as that is down to Indonesian law. Would that end comment be better as an nb to earlier text pre-quote, or perhaps amalgamated there, or should I put a similar sentence that summarises the CAMM position? If not then I would find it difficult to include them with the arguments as the UNESCO one is not valid as support for either argument, though it would counter one part of the "against" arguments, whereas the CAMM supports the "against" proponents.
I was trying to simply state the facts of the conventions and let the reader understand why the Smithsonian would remove the exhibition. As far as I am aware neither of these agreements or conventions make it illegal, that being covered by the Indonesians own laws, but the CAMM (ICMM) convention makes it "against principle" and against conventional agreement due to the commercial aspect only, whereas the UNESCO convention would say it should not have been excavated and rather left in situ and something that is generally adopted since that date. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think your suggestion of an nb footnote would be a good one under the circumstances. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Changed to nb
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:

A couple of queries on the images. Firstly, would it be possible to put in a map showing where the shipwreck occurred? It would make it easier to quickly visualise the location.
Yes, I should have thought of this earlier really. I will try and organise that later today.
Location map and route-map added (route-map will be moved to the route section as yet to be created) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I should also add some labels to them both, especially the route-map, the seas and straits and I wanted to include a satellite image of the Belitung coast so that I can put a larger "X" on to show exactly where it was found. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, and this is not a GAR requirement, would the images of the treasures work better if broken up amongst the text? It might just be me, but at the moment they're really nice, but are all clustered in the middle of the article, leaving the rest of the article a bit sparse. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not want them encroaching into other sections, ever hopeful that I would be able to put in pictures of the underwater site and the replica ship and its construction techniques. I was also wary of the article becoming more about the "treasure" than the archaeological aspects of the wreck and the artefacts. It may be that I have been a little over-cautious, but the editor who took those "treasure" pictures has also been involved in placement and choice. I did experiment with two Wikitable methods of hide/show, but this caused errors with the alt= and the alt text, something which I thought I had got around until the other editor changed them two days ago. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Done -GroveGuy (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Belitung shipwreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—cyberbot IITalk 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)

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.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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)