Talk:Australian feral camel

Changed: "The Australian camels, roving in the only feral herds of their kind in the world and reckoned to number between 43,000 and 60,000..." to:"The Australian camels, roving in the only feral herds of their kind in the world and reckoned to number between 500,000 and 700,000..."

Based on current estimates: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1344199.htm http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/camel/index.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/scitech/2002/01/item20020116124339_1.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4485105.stm -as well as the number listed at the base of the article.

The suggested maximum of 60.000 for all Australia seems a little odd considering the estimated population just for the state of South Australia alone is 60,000.OzoneO 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Parts of this article are taken word for word from other sources without quotes or attribution.

Possible Copyright vio

The first 3-4 paragraphs appear to be lifted word for word without attribution from http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/camel/index.html - Please note that Australian Government materials are not subject to the copyright exemptions relating to the materials of the U.S.A. Government. Staphylococcus 08:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Copyright vio?

The paragraph that starts the "History" section ("The Australian camels, roving in the only feral herds of their kind in the world and reckoned to number between 500,000 and 700,000") seems to be a near word-for-word rip-off from the linked article http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198801/camels.down.under.htm. As a matter of fact, the original Wiki article seems to have been an exact rip-off in this section - updates have changed the numbers and some of the wording, but it's still nearly identical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.169.79.134 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Definite Copyright Violation

Yet another of Wikipedia's many cut-and-pasted articles is flagrantly displayed here.

Wikipedia's reliability and factualness has improved, but the plagiarism is extensive and deplorable.

As noted a month ago, this is directly lifted from http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198801/camels.down.under.htm Someone even had the gall to list that url as an external link! Maybe they're waiting to see if they'll get in trouble. I think I might just delete most of it to call an administrator's attention.Yopienso 19:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as it had corrupted the page. I also checked the plagiarism and found this on the site it came from:
"Texts of articles copyrighted by Saudi Aramco World or Aramco World may be reprinted, either in print or electronically, without specific prior permission from the publisher."
This means the text can stay for now and can then be edited at lesiure to make it more encyclopedic by anyone interested enough to put in the work. Cheers. Wayne 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

see the next statement on said page:

"1. The text must not be edited. Abridgement is permissible only if the abridged text has been previously approved by the editors and the credit states "Abridged from..."

This is not an acceptable license for wikipedia content.

69.203.83.137 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism or attempt at humor

Also, the number of camels given is wildly inflated from 43,000-60,000 to 500,000-700,000. Yopienso 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed the dates. There were 60,000 camels in 1988. There were 700,000 camels in 2005. If you check the current 2007 population it is now 1 million. The population doubles every 5 years. Wayne 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wayne, you sound polite and rational--thanks. I'll take your word for it on the camel population. I had missed the first comment on this page.

Double-check that copyright violation question, though. http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/about.us/copyright.and.permission.htm It says the article can't be abridged and that full credit must be given. Yopienso 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The material included is complete in terms of the section headings and copied as an encyclopedia article for reference so can possibly claim fair use for omitting non encyclopedic content. I believe updating the (1988) copyright material in the artical with current 2007 data is probably acceptable and not classed as abridgement (I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong). The only violation left is there is no credit given on the page itself but it is still linked to the source as required and credit is given in this talk page so would probably be acceptable to Saudi Ramco as the talk page is part of the article (and there is no commercial benifit). The material in question appears to have been here for years with no problem. The copy/paste part should be completely rewritten so that copyright will no longer apply but until then the text should be kept available not only as a base to work from but as it also provides substance relevant to the article. The finished product will still link to Saudi Ramco as a reference so it's a win win situation. Wayne 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Maybe someone savvier than I can add the reference. Notice the article has been tagged for no references. Over and out. Yopienso 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio history section. If the first paragraphs are also copyvio, those should be removed as well. 69.203.83.137 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. The source gives permission. If you still have concerns, then rewrite the material instead of deleting. You also deleted a lot of material from other sources that is definately not copyrighted. Wayne (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) the source does not 'give permission'; it specifically states that:

"The text must not be edited. Abridgement is permissible only if the abridged text has been previously approved by the editors and the credit states "Abridged from..."

This is not an acceptable license for wikipedia content, which must be freely editable. See Wikipedia:Copyvio :

"One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is that its text (not media; see below) may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means it is essential that all text added to Wikipedia is compatible with this license."

(2) by 'alot' you must mean this one clause at the beginning and 3 sentences at the end of the section:

...estimated to number between 500,000 and 700,000...

The Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission estimated a population up to 700,000 in 2005, expected to double in eight years, jeopardising cattle pastures.[1]

Australia boasts the largest population of feral camels and the only herd of dromedary (one-humped) camels exhibiting wild behaviour in the world. Live camels are exported to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei and Malaysia, where disease-free wild camels are prized as a delicacy. Australia's camels are also exported as breeding stock for Arab camel racing stables and for use in tourist venues in places such as the United States.[2]

[Everything else is directly from the Saudio Aramco article]

Cheers, 69.203.83.137 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

A lot of this article sounds more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia... --Wolf530 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)