Jump to content

Talk:IUCN Red List

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MilanCela (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 13 November 2019 (→‎External links modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clarification needed?

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the following statement, which appears in the article doesn't stand on its own and isn't clear without further elaboration: "It has been suggested that the IUCN Red List and similar works are prone to misuse by governments and other groups that draw possibly inappropriate conclusions on the state of the environment or to effect exploitation of natural resources".

It seems to be suggesting that the IUCN Red List is used to enable environmental exploitation, but it doesn't present any argument to justify this counterintuitive assertion. I don't know much about best practices for editing Wikipedia, which is why I'm noting this here rather than editing it myself. I'd guess the claim should either be clarified, removed, or tagged as 'clarification needed'.

207.161.214.143 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the Taxobox of IUCN Redlist

I notice that quite a lot species in wikipedia was "classified" as Least Concern in the Taxobox. But when you look it up to the IUCN website...large number of species are indeed NE (Not Evaluated). Classifying them as LC not only is wrong...but tragically misleading....a NE species may indeed threatened because no assessment has been done on it. Clearly NE does not mean LC. Someone should try to fix the problem of the taxobox...adding one more category NE. --Hkchan123 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applied for a speedy delete of Red Book of Endangered Species and a redirect to here. I copied its info here. How widespread is use of Red Book instead of Red List?

The Red Book of Endangered Species is a collection potentially endangered species published by the World Conservation Union. Initially started in 1998 this project focuses on two primary goals:

  • To identify and document those species most in need of conservation attention if global extinction rates are to be reduced
  • To provide a global index of the state of degeneration of biodiversity.

--Espoo 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a physical book, only the online version. But it is of historical importance. —Pengo 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN?

You use the abbreviation IUCN heavily throughout this article, but don't expand it in the lead-in... -- Horus Kol Talk 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the lead paragraph. Burlywood 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility?

IUCN's credibility critically endangered was published in a reliable source and is heavily referenced on the Internet. This controversy should be addressed in the article. jiHymas@himivest.com 216.191.217.90 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That report is 10 years old, and also said that the IUCN was highly respected. Has there been any more recent controversy, or was this a once-off? LachlanA 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the LacklanA -- checking the current redlist site for a specific animal (http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/1228/summ) shows they list the evaluator and the reasoning. And it also provides a reasonable bibliography. I would want an expert to weigh in on how consistently they are reporting this for all species listed, but this seems very reasonable and much better than how the Nature article describes them. R343L (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

There was a dead link (no page) in the see also section directing to "Crowned Solitary Eagle Conservancy". I wasn't able to find a page about conservation of that animal (and I don't see how it's relevant.) Previous to the bad link it went to African wild dogs, again, I don't see the relevance. I'm changing it to "List of Critically Endangered Species". Kea2 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 2008 release

The article is showing the most recent "release" as 2008, but website and research appear that this is ongoing concern. However I couldn't find any specific mention on their site of a 2009 or 2010 "release". Are there still annual "release" of this publication? Cander0000 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insects in bar chart

The "insects" part of the bar chart is unreadable - can we have a separate chart, with a more appropriate scale, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Red-listed here

It's been suggested that the article Red-listed should be merged/redirected to this one. I agree, but don't know how to do this. --benjamil (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never was any good at colours

Can you tell me what are the colours of the different categories. Names or RGB values.

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Sun 01:55, wikitime= 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of conservation statuses

Please see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Conservation status#Capitalisation of conservation statuses.
Coreyemotela (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Proposition new tittle

IUCN Red List --> IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Trackteur (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a related matter, the titles of the various IUCN "list" articles are not consistent in terms of wording and capitalization:
Should these be "harmonized" a bit more? - dcljr (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonizing capitalization: done. I've now lower-cased "Critically Endangered" in article titles. Discussions seem to favour the lower capitalization especially where it is not ambiguous (e.g. this talk). Also most were already lower case. —Pengo 08:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IUCN Red List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on IUCN Red List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The colour coded-pages of Red data book

I have come across the the following from Oxfordreference:

  1. Red for endangered species
  2. Amber for vulnerable
  3. White for rare
  4. Green for out of danger
  5. Grey for species that are indicated to be endangered, vulnerable, or rare but without any sufficient information to be properly classified.

which is certainly clashing with the criteria provided herewhich says there are 9 of them actually. Anybody, any opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjukta1995 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IUCN Red List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a version 4?

The article mentions a version 4 of the Categories and Criteria for the IUCN Red List. The two references only go up to version 3.1 and I can find nothing online. The IUCN switched to more frequent publication, starting around 2012, using a year-n notation (e.g. version 2015-4) but were the criteria updated? Does the year-n notation refer to an update of the criteria as well or just the publication of an updated list? Most of the taxoboxes use version 3.1 for the status, even when using more recent assessments.   Jts1882 | talk  09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IUCN Red List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation dependent

CD is missing (not explained) in Categories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IUCN_Red_List&oldid=926049886"