Talk:Arches National Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Utah. |
 |
[edit] Automated suggestion
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arches_National_Park article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Arches_National_Park}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Swap Geology and History sections?
Anyone else think the geology information is more likely to be of interest here? Bunchofgrapes 03:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since there were no objections, I've done so. Bunchofgrapes 15:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism?
While visiting the park today I noticed that one of the documents handed out when entering the park included one titled Archies National Park, Utah - National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.
This document contains, under a section titled "The Geologic Story," the exact text of the Geology section of this article. I would assume that means this article was copied from the document. Is this a problem? Is this text automatically public-domain becuase it's published by the US Department of the Interior?
Also - i'd like to see some better explanations of current theories on how the region formed. "A see flowed into it" sounds a little odd to me. --Quasar 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was surfing for geological info about the fin structures, and I read this Arches article, then later ran across one with a lot of the same text at gorp.com, so I came to this Talk page looking for possible discussion of plagiarism--or at least attribution.
- And you're right! I dug out my Arches park handout map and the geology section of this article is almost word for word. Even if NPS text were public domain and could be used without seeking permission, surely the Wiki Watchdogs would agree that attribution is required.
- As for the request for better explanations, I wouldn't mind more either, but there are whole books on that. Ditto for history. And biology. The write-up is probably appropriate as is for the level of detail of the article. (Stay tuned for Wikiproject Colorado Plateau! ;-)
- Kkken 09:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that some of the text in this article may have possibly been transcluded from a federal website, which is within the public domain. Perhaps Gorp does this as well.--MONGO 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- While government sources are not copyrighted, it's still preferrable to have a different write-up. bob rulz 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mea Culpa. I added that text straight from the NPS back in OCT 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arches_National_Park&oldid=7148067 . FWIW, I did say that I pulled it from the NPS site, and Wikipedia was a lot more 'loose' back then when it came to citations-- basically anything in the public domain was considered fair game, it seemed. I intended to come back and rewrite/clean up, but I never did. Sorry. Davejenk1ns 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- While government sources are not copyrighted, it's still preferrable to have a different write-up. bob rulz 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that some of the text in this article may have possibly been transcluded from a federal website, which is within the public domain. Perhaps Gorp does this as well.--MONGO 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
