Talk:Chichijima

Copyrighted Material

Links to copyrighted Bulletin material should originate from the bulletin.org, thebulletin.metapress.com or Google Books. References to blogs, independent websites or unauthorized archive pages should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicgurl00 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay. Is that in reference to anything on this page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A link to an archive page containing Bulletin Collection material was listed under Ref #7 for the The Acronym Institute. It may have been done in error; however, I have removed it in the past and the edits were reversed. Just wanted to explain why they were made again. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicgurl00 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Which reference on the current article? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It was included in this reference but has since been removed: "Allegations of Clandestine US Nuclear Weapons in Japan". Disarmament Diplomacy (The Acronym Institute) (42). December 1999. http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd42/42base.htm. Retrieved on 2007-09-13. Atomicgurl00 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The link was good at one point; just because it's dead now doesn't really mean much. The main reference is still okay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the main reference is fine and the link to the Acronym Institute is fine. However, the use of this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20050622081837/www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf00norris as an archive reference is not alright to use. This article is copyrighted material and it is part of the Bulletin's subscription-based content available online. A link to the summary page for this particular article would be a suitable replacement if needed. The link is: http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/r111482630153263/?p=ca59ff8762344962bb40bb0a8e252287&pi=0. Atomicgurl00 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, okay, I see what you did there. On Wikipedia, it is acceptable to use the Wayback Machine archive to state a point. See, everything here needs to be verifiable, and if a paper is locked behind a registration/purchase, we can't really always check to see if the statement is true. If you have a problem with the archive itself having the paper, I suggest you go take it up with them. But until such time that that link dies, the archive link is fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that "Unacceptable use of non-free content includes: 1. Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source; 2. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts...If a work is not free, Wikipedia requires that it comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

The use of the Wayback Machine is appropriate in cases where there are no other links available. In this case, there is a link available, albeit to a summary page.

The bulletin has a plethora of free content available – approximately 53 years’ worth. I will, however, take your advice and contact the source of this archive, in addition to removing this link. Atomicgurl00 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

English version needs work

The English version needs some attention from a native English speaker. 66.9.234.201 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

There's much more in Eldridge and some of the other new cites. I was mostly just cleaning up some of the false/overstated repetition of the Spanish discovery claims for the Bonins though. — LlywelynII 11:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)