This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think there wild dromedaries in Australia. They have been introduces but are wild nevertheless. So maybe the no wild dromedary sentence should be adapted... JidGom 13:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any camels in Australia are considered feral, not wild. Tomer^talk 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wikipedia article on ferals, a feral animal is one that has reverted to a wild state. Also, the article on wildlife states that wild is a very general term. Therefore I think it can be accepted that a wild population of dromedaries exists in Australia and should be added to the article.

• See Australian feral camel. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the camel's humps? Is it true that they are used to store water? No, they are a fatty tissue and go down if the animal is starving. --1000Faces 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are used to transport goods

Store fat when food is scare. --HoopoeBaijiKite 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the biome in which the Bactrian Camel resides in? From the habitat map, it seems that the habitat is not limited to only deserts. -Dubtiger 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Bactrian camel was Camelus ferus?? -- Mukk 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the current IUCN entry, Camelus ferus is the wild Bactrian camel. Camelus bactrianus is the domesticated Bactrian camel. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article, including the pictures, seem to have been copy-and-pasted from Nation Master.

Link: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bactrian-camelPisharov (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong dude i got em meself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.72.180 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes reference (by comparison) to the assumed dates of domestication for the Dromedary Camel. Unfortunately the dates listed conflict with that article.

The information needs to be either conformed through a common third-party source or removed as being irrelevant to the article. Donperk (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Camel" capitalized in this article? I understand Bactria is a place so we should capitalize "Bactrian", but "camel" is a common noun. This does not seem consistent with other species names. Brussels sprout, Chinese plum, Bengal tiger do not use capitals. Kodiak bear has a capital in the article title, but it's lower case throughout the article. If no one gives a justification I will fix the case.  Randall Bart   Talk  03:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was never done, but Randall is correct: "camel" is a common noun, and common nouns are not capitalised. The proposal is also consistent with Wikipedia's convention for common names of fauna. Since the proposal was not opposed (waiting eleven months for feedback is being very polite!), I will now change all occurrences of "Bactrian Camel" to "Bactrian camel". RedGreenInBlue (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does "Eye shared with fly" mean? Do the camel and the fly time share the eye, with the fly being allowed to use it odd numbered weeks? /[[Special:Contri

I see nothing in this entry about the basic facts of this animal's height, length, and weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.33.164 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so ya'll know, I put the speed of the Bactrian camel in miles as well as km for those of us in the US. The numbers may not be right, it's what I got off the convertor on my phone, feel free to change it if it's incorrect or notify me on my talk page. Thanks. Arkansawyer96 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC) User:Arkansawyer96 11:20, 12 September 2013[reply]

The article says small populations exist in China and Mongolia but it also says it might be extinct in the wild. Which is it? 2605:A000:D141:3800:64EF:B80E:C05D:25A0 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The mating season occurs in the fall... Gestation lasts around 13 months, with most young being born from March through April."

I can't make the math on this work out, unless they're in the southern hemisphere, which it sounds like they're not. Shouldn't fall plus 13 months be October or November? Am I missing something dumb, or is it a bad source or typo somewhere?

2601:647:4A01:D684:E8D9:C177:F2C:970E (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this animal is a domesticated species (as the article itself points out is the case and as the IUCN accepts), how come it is still listed as Critically endangered and not domesticated? This shouldn't really be treated as a true endangered wild species if it's a domestic; the focus on conservation and all that should be put into the Wild Bactrian camel article. BronxZooFan (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows the distribution of the Bactrian camel including Anatolia (Turkey), which is consistent with the map shown at the entry for dromedary, where Turkey is excluded. However, I believe this is a mistake - the camel bred in Turkey is the dromedary, not the Bactrian camel. The confusion might have arrived because the camels seen in the Camel wrestling event in Western Turkey look very much like Bactrian camels, but in fact they are Tülü hybrids, which are not even bred in Turkey (save some small farm) but imported from Iran and Afghanistan. The only population which does traditionally breed camels in Turkey, as far as I know, are the Yörük nomads north of Antalya and south of Kayseri, and although I haven't been there personally, every single photograph I can find in internet which shows Yörüks with their camels shows only dromedaries, never Bactrian camels. So unless somebody has a good source to explain where Bactrian camels are bred in Turkey, I think we should change the map. I expect opinions or debate here in the next few days, if nobody disagrees I'd proceed to do the change. (I'll post this same message at the dromedary page, hope this is okay, as both maps must be corrected) Ilyacadiz (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we are on it, I've eliminated the sentence "A small number of feral Bactrian camels still roam the Mangystau Province of southwest Kazakhstan and the Nubra Valley in India.^{[citation needed]}", tagged with Citation needed. After doing a little reasearch, I find sources about around 150 camels in Nubra Valley, but very clearly identifying them as owned by farmers; it's unlikely to postulate feral camels besides them. See here. About Kazakhstan I'm not so sure, but I've been unable to locate any serious source for feral camels in Mangystau, save for a news piece by IRNA which looks as if it could be copied very well from Wikipedia itself. If anybody finds a source, feel free to put the sentence back. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fine u can change it, Bactrian camels aren’t in turkey and those are domedaries.99.247.39.72 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this subpopulation from the article based on the above discussion. Neither are they Bactrian camels nor feral populations. Mapist (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the feral population in Azerbaijan and Iran? Does anyone has a good source stating there are feral camels in those two countries? Mapist (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added this nice photo to our article TOD (at right.) Another editor promptly reverted it, commenting "Unnecessary as there are already good photos of the camel" Actually, we could swap this one for one of the less-nice ones if that's the consensus. But I don't feel it's an over-photoed article. Other opinions? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

       In the month of March, male Bactrian camels explode after mating with a female, which will grow to the size of a double-decker bus. When the baby is born, it will kill its mother and eat her to grow big enough to destroy a city.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.154.193.102 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, that particular source seems to have been referenced by at least half a dozen peer-reviewed articles, which I guess confers some post-hoc credibility. But I agree that the antecedents are a little concerning and we are better off avoiding such sources if alternatives exist. Second, this Silk Road connection, while not contentious, should not be mentioned only in the lede; the lede is for summarizing material in the body (and as such does not usually have references at all). Based on the above, I have inserted a short sentence into the "Relationship to humans" paragraph and referenced it to a better source. Probably something more in-depth can be found, but that should do in the meantime. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good day everyone. I've looked on other sources some say the Bactrian camel's population is 1.4M instead if 2M and one other source claims the population is 35Million camelshttps://www.zsl.org/support-us/back-from-the-brink/last-straw-worlds-last-wild-camels

thus I'm very confused please clarify this thanks for reading. 192.82.70.90 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not leaving an edit summary - I pressed preview prior to publish & the editor skipped ahead of me - mistake happne! However in this edit I added an image of a model of a camel that was owned by Agatha Christie. This is part of a project by the National Trust, you can read more about the work here & there are further images here Lajmmoore (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]