Talk:Crabeater Seal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Crabeater seal - possible copyright infringement. BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 Kingturtle 05:20 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- Uwe Kils, an experienced user, makes attributed use of info from Bonner, which looks like fair use to me, and what you would expect from an academic giving his references. Unless it can be shown that the article itself is a copyright infringement, I say leave it. Uwe's other articles are certainly original (see Krill). There is also the point that I suspect nobody else has a copy of this book to check! jimfbleak 06:44 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- Dr. Kils is a university professor. I don't believe he would plagiarize. As Jim said, that's just a standard bibliographic method used in academic papers. --Menchi 07:41 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- I imagine I just don't understand the wikipedia syntax for citing a reference. Is there a standard syntax? Kingturtle 07:47 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a standard. In practice, either written the out style Uwe used in that article, or the linked method he used in krill seem to be equally common, as is no reference (I'm particularly poor at referencing my paper sources). Incidently, I've now footnoted the reference in the crabeater article using the famous †: jimfbleak 12:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- I know Bonner in person, we met in Antarctica - he told me many facts about the amazing crabeater, I just wanted to give him well deserved credit for his excellent book - my input for the article is just a copy of the webpage we put up for free education within a philanthropist's project (the first one on the web ever) on antarctic sciences http://www.ecoscope.com/crabeatr/index.htm - in our profession it is well accepted practice to allow citations by others as long as they list the source - if we all continue to contribute to wikipedia and also succeed in a fair amount of editing it into a reviewed source there is a fair chance that it might get soon some substantial support from philanthropists, and many staff might become hired to backup, mirror and make it independant also from money sorrows - as we helped [fishbase] to hatch from beginnings in our Kiel lab, by endorsing it, giving good references and expertizes and hooking it up with the right people with interest in free / clean education and the monitary liberty - many good people found good jobs in this free education project - Uwe Kils 21:08 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a standard. In practice, either written the out style Uwe used in that article, or the linked method he used in krill seem to be equally common, as is no reference (I'm particularly poor at referencing my paper sources). Incidently, I've now footnoted the reference in the crabeater article using the famous †: jimfbleak 12:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Just curious, do these animals actually eat crabs?
It sounds like they don't, so why the moniker. This would be something interesting to add to the article, I bet.
Krill is in the biological world no crab, but the name is traditional Uwe Kils 
19:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Commonness as a 'large creature'
How large is "large"?
There are several billion humans, and tens of millions of dogs in the United States alone. Depending on where one draws the line between dogs that one considers large creatures and those that one doesn't, the number of 'large dogs' must be well over 15 million.
Aren't there lots of horses and cattle, too? Wildebeest?
A safe qualification would be to describe them as the most common wild, predatory animal larger than humans. Nobody in his right mind would breed dogs larger than an adult human because a dog that size would be too dangerous to have nearby.
