Talk:Northern white rhinoceros

message: The article states there are no existing in the wild, yet the status is still set to critically endangered, as opposed to EW.
:+1 to this. Would someone please correct this issue? The template used in the infobox is fairly complex. Chicken-7  talk 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The status depends on the issuing authority, and we follow the IUCN - it takes time for them to re-evaluate the status, but they always explain why do they keep it as stated, even if it appears unreasonable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Extinction status is always going to be slightly behind. I always understood the status on the right to be the IUCN status. Simply because the wild population has not been spotted for a few years does not mean they are indeed extinct. The status should be left to reflect the IUCN classification.
Phrases from news articles like "functionally extinct" and "zombie species" are not appropriate for the standard of Wikipedia. However, they could be incorporated in ways like: 'Despair over the poor captive breeding and population crash have led some to describe the Northern White Rhino as being a 'functionally extinct' 'zombie specie'." Of course the context of the article would have to be checked to make sure the inclusion was representative of both the article and representing a significant opinion (i.e. not just news spin).
Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/world/africa/kenya-northern-white-rhino/ "Countdown to extinction: Only 6 northern white rhinos left on Earth" (2014) CNN]
Page has been updated.128.170.224.13 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

text: If a species (any, including northern white rhinoceros) is evaluated by IUCN, we follow them. In other words, until IUCN changes their status here, it should not be changed in the article. There are numerous reasons for that. Materialscientist (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status 

message: While trying to follow a link to a Times article cited as a reference(cite note #2 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4152951.ece), I was unable to access the relevant page. The article title does actually appear on the Times website search facility, but every new page I attempted to access kept popping up a subscribe screen which was killing my browser - so eventually I gave up without having accessed the article. Can somebody attempt to verify whether the Times story satisfies the references on the article page. Thanks. Peter b (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken External Link 

message: I just read, on the IUCN page for northern white rhinos, that the animal is deemed unsustainable even with human intervention due to the incredibly small gene pool. The main prospect seems to be conserving the northern white genes within a mixed north-south group with prospects of naturalisation in the future.
The article seems to give only a timeline of events regarding the remaining specimens. The information regarding the prospects 'would' require a new heading for the  article but would make a step towards completeness. Will someone with a little more biological insight do this? 80.176.89.230 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  prospects for the subspecies/species. 

message: Why do the captions say "foto" rather than "photo" in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.218.26 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foto 

message: The current map offered in the right-hand column doesn't seem to be as clear as it could be.  What exactly are the orange and the green supposed to represent?  It might seem obvious to some, but not me.  Is the orange supposed to be its historical range and the green its present, conservationist range?  If so, why not just indicate as much?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.152.118 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When enlarged, the map includes a legend, which I now added to the caption. Please note that the range map dates 1908. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range Map 

message: A chart was needed but I suggest several improvements: 1) years with no change should be removed as they make the chart more complicated (2008-2010, 2013). 2) All changes in numbers should be sourced - 1989, 2004, and 2007/2008 onwards have no source, and for some years only some numbers are sourced, e.g. 1970. If one source provides data for the whole population, I would suggest placing the reference next to the year; if more sources are needed to back the data of a particular year, then next to the appropriate numbers. 3) Ol Pejeta Conservancy is listed as captivity population, which is not consistent with the article. I could do the changes myself but do not want to disrupt the chart for now. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Population chart

message: Shouldn't this be Extinct in the Wild, not Critically Endangered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.245.18 (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point this is going to need to be addressed on a case by case basis. The Version 3.1 IUCN dates back to 2000, this means that no update has been made for 15 years in regards to the status of animals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so it was 2011, still I am open for discussion as the article is saying two different things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which article? This one clearly categorized in as Critically Endangered with the proviso Possibly Extinct in the Wild acc. to a number of criteria in 2011. No doubt it will be reassessed at some point. But the general category is still CR. Attepts of editors to change it without a proper source or understanding, despite the metawarning, creates chaos in the article and wastes ther time of other editors. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im sorry if you feel this way, but the IUCN data is outdated. This should be done on a case by case basis unless you can offer up some evidence that there are more than just the 3 Northern white rhinos in captivity. If a majority of sources are saying one thing we cant just ignore it as going with the IUCN is not a WP:NPOV. That being said, I would support something along the lines of "Unknown" for status, or have the ICUN data, along with newer sources side by side. I will pull up what I found for sources later - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking forward to your sources but please bear in mind at least info contained in IUCN Red List - the whole classification is based on their expert assessment and even though there are other organisations conducting similar research in some areas, even single scientific articles on "extinction" are not comparable and thus useful sources. My feelings you mentioned stem from recurring attempts to deliberately change the status without understanding that the whole classification that is used in this and many other articles depends on IUCN reports. That is also why your proposal of "Unknown" etc. misses the point. --WikiHannibal (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong?

message: Hi, it seems many or all links to Ol Pejeta Conservancy are now dead or not linking to the same articles as before. And I think they are not archived. So it would be great if anyone had the time to check the links, recover what can be recovered, and find new sources to back up information formerly sourced by links to Ol Pejeta. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ol Pejeta Conservancy dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern white rhinoceros. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327101227/http://www.olpejetaconservancy.org/node/223 to http://www.olpejetaconservancy.org/node/223
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just read an article saying that Sudan, the last northern white rhino, died. Does this mean they're extinct or was Sudan the last one in conservation and some, but not much, are left alive?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge-sponge (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last male died, there are still 2 known animals alive, that makes it not completely extinct for a while. Daiyusha (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read an article stating that there are two Northern White Rhinos left in the world. The table at the bottom of the article reflects that fact, but the rest of the article is woefully outdated. I am going to add the source, and a statement to the article. and maybe a tag that the article needs updating. FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can read the same info in the article, it is in the lead as well for anybody to see. The current IUCN classification, which is used in such articles, is "Critically endangered, possibly extinct in the wild" and as such, there is no reliable info the article can be updated with. The structure of the article is perhaps confusing, but I do not think article is "woefully outdated". Removing the tag. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't they extinct now? 

message: As covered in The Sixth Rhino: A Taxonomic Re-Assessment of the Critically Endangered Northern White Rhinoceros published in 2010, The Northern white rhinoceros has numerous morphological differences from the southern variety, including cranial anatomy and average size, can this be added to the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, provided that it's properly sourced, and if the article also includes statements by other scientists who disagree with the conclusion that the northern white rhino is a separate species and not merely a subspecies.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morphological differences  

message: see . Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs update