Talk:Baiji

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

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion[edit]

Conservation status[edit]

If it is functionally extinct shouldn't it's status be EW or EX? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) No, have a look at the species' IUCN [List page] to see why. It probably [extinct] though... 93.19.150.5 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN Red List lists it as Critically Endangered, but goes on to say that it is Possibly Extinct. Should the infobox then read PE instead of CR? FUNgus guy (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who has the power to change these ratings? 

EvAnn05 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUPC species page shows baiji is extinct http://iucn-csg.org/index.php/baiji/ Please fix this, already, and stop saying no.

References[edit]

A large majority of the links are defunct on this page. 129.31.240.226 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015[edit]

Change critically endangered to extinct, as confirmed by scientist quite recently. 108.56.131.169 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The IUCN Red List currently has this species listed as "critically endangered". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baiji. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 08:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Baiji Extinct or not why does wiki say critically endangered if they are functionally extinct as of 2006?[edit]

why does wiki say critically endangered if they are functionally EvAnn05 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The river dolphin is extinct. Check the page at IUPC http://iucn-csg.org/index.php/baiji/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.140.95 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the very detailed section on current conservation status for information. In brief, a species can't be classified as extinct if there are still living specimens; and that is currently still a possibility. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baiji. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Problem About The Number of Baiji Dolphin[edit]

In the section of "Conservation",there's such a sentence: "In the 1950s, the population was estimated at 6,000 animals,"[1] So there's a question about it:How many baiji dolphin were in the Yangtze River at most? As far as I'm concerned,the number of Baiji should be around 1000 to 3000 in the 1950s at most.It's not possible that there were around 6000 Baiji in the Yangtze River.Also,it seems truly incredible that Baiji had declined rapidly from 6000 animals to only a few hundred during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. I'm really puzzled about it so I just asked this question in the community of the Yangtze Finless Porpoise on Baidu Tieba(In Simplified Chinese):A Question About The Baiji Dolphin I just translate some of the answers in English: One user said maybe it's possible that there were about 6000 animals in the Yangtze before the period of Spring and Autumn,and he thought maybe in the 1950s,the number of the Baiji was hard to reach 1000. Another user said he supports this opinion and he thought it was possible to reach 6000(That's about 3 animals per kilometer),including Dongting Lake and Poyang Lake. Also,I found there's a mistake: In the section of "Evolutionary history",it said "there were 5,000 baiji when they were described in the ancient dictionary Erya circa 3rd century BC." But in the section of "Consevation",it said "In the 1950s, the population was estimated at 6,000 animals." The number of Baiji had increased during 17 centuries?It's impossible,maybe. Hope to find more references to prove the number. Thank you.Alneth (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have to go by the sources. The one for this statement (you copied the reference into here) claims a number of 6,000 for the 1950s. It's quite possible that is an overestimate, but do you have published, reliable sources that say so? (BTW, a decline from 6k to 100 over a decade or two is by no means unlikely in slow-breeding, late-maturity predators - we've seen it in e.g. African penguin populations, and they weren't being actively killed, just starved by fishery.)--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First I completely agree that we should edit any encyclopedia with definite and reliable references(including Wikipedia),and I think I should answer your questions above.
I don't have published, reliable sources that say so,and maybe that seems impossible.
Because maybe you had learned history about the Republic Of China(1912-1949) and the People's Republic Of China(1949-) and you might know that before the PRC was founded,the situation in China was completely in a mess...There wasn't such a convenient environment for those scientific researchers in China,and also,nobody cared about the number of Baiji.And after the PRC was founded,there were also factors that affected the research of Baiji.One of the most important factor was those political events(Just as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution),these political events interrupted,even spoiled those normal scientific researches until 1978.Another one is that at that period,people in China had a hard time,even if living(For example,many people were dead of hunger during 1958 to 1961),so obviously,at those periods,nobody seemed to care about those small amount of dolphins in the Yangtze,and as a conclude,nobody recorded the number of them.
So,the reference in the article(I copied the rreference above)is just a guess instead of a definite,serious conclusion.It should be considered.
And,for your second question,for Baiji,it was also like what you said-it was majorly affected by fishery,propellers of ships and boats on the Yangtze,some dams(like Three Gorges Dam and Gezhouba Dam),etc.
I have an advice about this:Why not asking those scientists in the Institute of Hydrobiology of CAS in Wuhan?They are professional in this field...Alneth (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that even if there are no definite contrasting (likely lower) estimates, it would probably be realistic to at least qualify the number now stated in the article - "this number may be an overestimate because ..." or something like that. However, even for that we need a reference. I.e., if there was a published study that contains the claim that this estimate may be too high, we can put in the qualifier and cite that. Can one of the porpoise community people you communicated with maybe point us to such a publication? I assume they must have gotten their information from somewhere as well.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should discuss this topic on Twitter instead of this Wikipedia talk page,you can find my Twitter account in my user page...(DO NOT REPLY)Alneth (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure we shouldn't :) For one thing I don't have a Twitter account, and for another, it is very much preferred to discuss content issues relating to WP articles on WP itself, to allow all interested parties to participate and to preserve a record of everything.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/36657.htm Rescue Plan Prepared for Yangtze River Dolphins},China Daily.,July 11,2002.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baiji. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018[edit]

Just above the contents box is a sentence that says "Another related species from the Neogene is Parapontoporia." Parapontoporia is a genus, not a species, so I'd recommend rewording that to something such as "Another related creature from the Neogene is Parapontoporia. 2600:8803:5B00:33A:D9E4:656F:253C:690C (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovery[edit]

https://twitter.com/CBCGDF_China/status/991650849733558273

Should the article now be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:742D:F800:C4CB:363F:7C39:2D3A (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary History Section[edit]

This section does a good job of describing the different taxonomic lineages of different groups of river dolphins, but it repeats verbatim a lot of text from two technical papers. For non-specialist readers there needs to be a little more summary and either linking some of the technical terms or glossing them in the text... There are also charts at the boto and River Dolphin article that make the genetic relationship more clear that could be linked or reproduced here to illustrate what the papers are describing. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science[edit]

what is the other trivia for baiji dolphins? 180.191.194.79 (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baiji&oldid=1195062327"