Talk:Baiji/Archive2

message: I changed the section title of "Three Gorge Dam" to "Influence of Dam Projects". Before the Three Gorge Dam was built, there was already a smaller dam called Gezhou Dam built in 1970s on the Yangtze River. Since Three Gorge Dam is on the upstream of Gezhou Dam, Three Gorge dam will have little influence on the dolphin because Gezhou Dam already block the dolphin to reach upstream.Sinolonghai 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all. The article needs to be fixed. See quotation + link below. —Pengo  talk · contribs 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Three Gorges seems to occupy an important segment of the Yangtze River. Rudimentary investigation finds it practically right upstream of the Gezhouba Dam (see the maps at Chongqing, and Yichang in Hubei. Xiner 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dam Projects 

message: See :
--GC 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey was taken under bad conditions, and didn't last for very long. Its not looking good for the baiji but where has it been announced that it is extinct? Chris_huhtalk 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumed extinct. --136.142.163.55 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A team of international experts spent six weeks on the Yangtze, on two ships that didn't let each other know of each's scanning so as not to prejudice the results. Previous expeditions turned up dozens of dolphins. If we can't find any now with all the high-tech equipment, how'll they find each other to mate? Xiner 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese River Dolphin presumed extinct? 

message: Anyone know if scientists have a DNA sample of the speicies.. maybe someday it won't be really extinct after all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.232 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA? 

message: That's an awkward term to put in the sentence that it was put in, because the sentence suggests that "scientists suspect a species to be extinct and therefore they unequivocally recognize the species to be extinct". In other words, you're equating someone saying "X is probably dead" with someone saying "X is certainly dead", which doesn't cover the slim possibility of nondeath of X. 204.52.215.107 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what the sentence is saying is that it is suspected to be extinct, and if it is then it would be the first species with (definition of unequivocally) which there is no doubt that its extinction was caused by human action.Mac OS X 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unequivocally Recognized Extinct Species 

message: I updated the taxobox to "extinct" but am not sure that was correct.  "Extinct in the wild" (the previous taxobox contents) is certainly not appropriate since there are no living specimens in captivity.  Any remaining (if there are some) are necessarily in the wild.  Maybe the taxobox template should get a new code for "probably extinct". 67.117.130.181 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone commented in editsummary: "CITES won't declare extinction until 50 years have passed." I wish we could skip that part. Xiner 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUCN will declare a species extinct before 50 years, and its their criteria we generally use. However, looking at it closely, I don't think it would be fair to say that "there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died": —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Conservation_status, which is what we should abide by, Extinct means "extensive and appropriate surveys have failed to record any living members". I'm not sure if one survey is enough, but it also doesn't say we need to wait 50 years. Xiner 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should" doesn't mean "have to". It is a a normative opinion on the part of people who worked on a project, and there is room for dissension if need be. The use of "functionally extinct" or "critical (possibly extinct)" best fits the situation of the baiji.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to the 50-year requirement there. Anyway I agree with you on the present situation. Xiner (talk, email) 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why I left the page be, whatever it said, b/c I don't think it matters anymore. :( Xiner 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxobox 

message: There must be a pair of these dolphins in the Lab, since they have been decleared endangered since 1978. Can somebody confirm this? Jidan 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, read the article. Chinese river dolphins don't survive long in captivity. —Lowellian (reply) 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Shame on you. WP:NOT a soapbox. Aran|heru|nar 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's theoretically possible to revive a species even if it's down to a mating pair. The problem here is that not only will the dolphins' habitats not improve, they'll crash to further depths unknown when the Three Gorges comes online. As for the shame on China, part of the blame has to rest with the consumers of their products and the corporations that oversee their production. Also, imagine that this were the 1880's and you've got a dolphin on the Mississippi. I think China should be ashamed, just that there are a few more pieces of blame to hand around. Xiner 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct in Labors too? 

message: Could we move it to the next-to-lowest on the Extinction chart and note that a recent survy has concludede that it's "functionally extinct"? Just a thought... --ASDFGHJKL 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afriad not. EW sounds like EX to those who want to keep it at CR, for there are no more captive baijis, and it will encourage those who support EX to go all the way. Xiner 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EW is definitely wrong for this.  There are no living specimens in captivity, so if there are also none in the wild, then there are none anywhere, which means the species is extinct.  EX and CR both make more sense than EW.  EX and CR are both ok to me given an explanatory note saying there is some uncertainty.  I set it to EX yesterday (from EW) not realizing there was an edit war (or maybe I started it, sigh).  The current setting of CR with the note "possibly extinct" is ok except I would make the note a little stronger, e.g. add "2006 survey found no surviving specimens" to the note.  67.117.130.181 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Compromise?

message: How about Data Deficient (DD)? From the definition:
Data Deficient (DD), inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction.
Seeing as there is only one recent survey I think it would be closer to the mark than CR or EW|X. 
-- Empaler 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DD could mean nothing wrong with the population though. Xiner 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DD is inappropriate.  There is more than enough data to assess the risk of extinction.  The only thing that's slightly uncertain is whether the extinction is merely inevitable (functional extinction), or has in fact already occurred.  What's up with this edit warring and when can the article be unprotected?  I propose putting either "CR" annotated "declared probably extinct", or "EX" annotated "probably extinct per 2006 survey".  It's unfortunate there's no code for "functionally extinct". 67.117.130.181 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was protected due to anonymous IP vandalism, which hasn't completely stopped. Xiner 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Deficient 

message: This dolphin wouldn't be 'extinct' if it weren't for being so tasty, its really its own fault... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.15.150 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably aren't aware that dolphins have been eaten in China since the dawn of mankind and history. It's also a popular food in Korea and to a lesser extent, in Japan (for some reason, popular only in Shizuoka region). Chinese characters for dolphin are "sea-pig" and this indicates that it can be eaten and taste well just as a pig would. Having wrote this, however, I don't thing hunting was the biggest cause for its extinction as if that was the case, it should have been extinct far earlier. --Revth 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, pig isn't the correct translation of the second character there. Xiner 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's the third character. So what is the literal translation of the Chinese name? 白 = white, 鱀 = ???. Another source names the dolphin "白暨豚". What's the difference between these names? Translations should at least be added to the characters to the Wiktionary entries (linked to from each individual above character). —Pengo  talk · contribs 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like your Wikipedia skills are better than mine, and Revth knew more about the Chinese than me. I stand corrected. I've been unable to find a translation of the second character, but I've put the correct translation in the article. 暨 isn't correct, that I know for sure. Xiner 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Chinese entry, the second character is sometimes 鰭, which means fin.. Not that the two characters are the same. Xiner 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 豚 is used as part of coupound words in Chinese for non-whale Cetaceans. At least that's been my experience with it. It's tricky to draw a conclusion that it means it's as tasty as suckling pigs; it's like Victor as a name instead of the common word. I could be wrong, but all sorts of dolphins and porpoises carry the character. It's hard to imagine people having tasted every species of them. Xiner 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another possible reason for the 豚 in the Chinese name may be due to the Chinese used to believing it was most closely related to swine, or at least looked like them. Xiner 16:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the Whiteflag Dolphin translation from the article. A common complaint among Chinese linguists is the numerous incorrect substitutions of one Chinese character for another, often due to phonetic similarities, a lack of grasp of the correct word, etc. I don't doubt that the name may be used even in newspapers, but they are frowned upon in higher circles and a direct translations of these non-official variants might give the wrong picture to the uninitated. I wouldn't object to a note stating the above and giving it as an example, however. Xiner 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The second character is 鱀 but I can't type the simplified version (it is 既 on top + 鱼 on bottom), 暨 is an incorrect typo. 旗 is a misnomer from Hoy. 鳍 is a possible substitute, both 鱀 and 鳍 are used scientifically but 鱀(既 on top + 鱼 on bottom) is the official one. It is correct that 豚 means pig meat, and 白鱀豚 is sometimes called "pig of the river". But they are held in high esteem as "goddess of the Changjiang" so they are not eaten as food by the local people! Lipotes" is "left behind", "vexillifer" is "flag bearer". I wrote a little about it>>>zh:白鱀豚. --Shibo77 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I thought I could get away from this page. Anyway, some of you may find Chinese_White_Dolphin#Origin_of_a_Cantonese_slang this passage very interesting. Of course we'd like the source for that, but the info there looks broadly accurate. Xiner (talk, email) 14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taste and translation

message: * I'll nominate the following OT content for deletion if possible, and take responsibility for it. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haizum, you're right, but a word of advice. Please convey your opinions nicely. It'll not only prevent WikiWars, but you'll actually get your comments into articles faster. Xiner 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the insinuation that I was making an unsupportable claim more offensive than any of my wording, but I will be sure to try and word my opinions nicely; however, I can't control the degree in which facts make those who challenge them look foolish. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts will speak for themselves. Your case would've been strengthened had you replied with nothing but the facts. Xiner 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if you think I was insinuating your claims were unsupported. I was simply asking for references. It is wikipedia policy that any claims in articles must be supported by references and you seem to have been here for long enough that I assume you would know that. If you wish to include your claim in the article, it is your responsibility to come up with a reference, not my responsibility to decide whether your claim has merit. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. So far, all you have done is come up with a bunch of other claims which IMHO are OT for this article and are still not supported by references. Perhaps they are supported by references in the other article. I personally couldn't give a damn. We don't cite other articles. If you want to claim China's enviromental policies have failed completely in this article, you need to provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source which makes this claim. Coming up with a bunch of facts which may or may not be supported by references is not enough to allow you to make the subsequent claim. That's Wikipedia:Original research. Remember it's not truth but Wikipedia:Verifiability that we strive for. I personally couldn't give a rats arse whether you think I'm a fool. I just want to build a better article. That's what this talk page is for, not for discussing our opinions. I have gone OT before, I admit, but it doesn't mean I don't agree with the philosphy. Frankly speaking, adding a claim made by Haizum which is so far not supported by any references, is not making a better article so I asked for a reference which has still not been provided. If you wish to debate the failings or whatever of China's environmental policies, feel free to do so, but elsewhere. N.B. Not that this matters but I personally think that Chinese environmental policies have in fact failed in many ways. But this is irrelevant since my personal beliefs don't belong in this article. Nil Einne 11:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely OT, feel free to remove this. But since Haizum claims to be a romantacist (per his/her user page), someone who thinks things were always better in the past, he/she might want to take a look at what the environmental policies and environment of US and Western European cities were like 50-100 years ago when they were modernising countries (as China is now)... Nil Einne 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haizum, whether you're right or wrong is one thing, personal attacks is another thing. Don't put these two together. Aran|heru|nar 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone that continues to challenge an obvious fact is a fool by definition, I can't help that, but I should be allowed to bring it up. Furthermore, I chose to redact my statement on my own as a show of good faith. So what is your problem again? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, I even created a link that showed my redaction titled, "redaction." It's staring at you. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While voluntarily removing a personal attack is good behaviour, this doesn't excuse the original personal attack. And you continue to call me a fool even though I never challenged the facts, simply asked for a reference. Nil Einne 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. But there is one issue which IMHO needs to be clarified here since Haizum appears to have misunderstood the issue. Haizum suggested we make a change to the article to mention Chin'a failed environmental policies. I asked for a reference since we need a reference if we want to make a claim in an article. If Haizum didn't have a reference, he was welcome to mention this. However instead, he got all defensive and made a bunch of subsequent claims without coming up with a reference. I don't really get why he got so angry. There was no need. I was simply asking for a reference. While I was probably a little less civil then I should have been, given the way Haizum made his suggestion, I felt this acceptable. I myself have occasionally suggested something on a talkpage without a reference. When I do so, I usually make it clear I believe it's true but don't have a reference. Also, I emphasise again that I agree with the facts, I simply think we need a reference if we want to mention themn on the article Nil Einne 09:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for a reference as if it didn't exist. The easiest response was, Environment_of_China which contains information wich has been referenced. I thefore provided you with references via an article that focuses on the environmental failures of China. It's really not complicated. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple fact is that you have failed to provided references as requested for your claim that this is linked to China's failed environmental polices. Instead you have gone completely OT and have started soapboxing. If you don't have any references, just say so. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OT

message: I see that someone removed the picture of the cute animal. :) Seriously though, a note on here would've been nice. I'm guessing it was copyvio? Xiner 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed. 

message: Is it premature to change all present tense statements to past tense? If the scientists are correct, "extinct" is the only thing that it currently "is". :(
JCub 01:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the article is in past tense now. I feel that since it can't really be classified (technically) until 50 years from now, the article (in general) should be in present tense, but of course the 'functionally extinct'ness of it should be mentioned. Having everything in past tense will make it seem that it has been extinct for ages. In the taxobox it is CR: possibly extinct (which is probably the best option) so talking about it as if it is certainly not around anymore is a bit premature. 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the past tense has made it seem like "it has been extinct for ages." I have noticed, however, that some places still use the present tense. Just one pitfall in trying to change a whole article like this. Xiner 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice these have been changed to present tense.  Unless at least some, even indirect, evidence of the continued existence of the Baiji is found, this is misleading. Ian T 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense? 

message: I'm wondering where the timeline came from. Some dates correspond to what's in Last Chance to See, some don't. I'm not sure Douglas Adams always had the most accurate info, but I'm still curious. Xiner 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the timeline? 

message: This should really be the baiji not the Chinese River Dolphin as that is the accepted english name for it. Since loads of people are beginning to edit this, shouldnt the page be moved now. Chris_huhtalk 09:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The english language term is baiji. If you look into the dolphin in any depth the term Chinese River dolphin is rarely used. The conservation organisation dealing with the baiji (was dealing) is/was baiji.org, and all scientific papers/reports/workshops etc use baiji. Since we usually use the IUCN for reference look at Lipotes vexillifer, the top one (the major accepted one) is baiji, Chinese River Dolphin isn't even on there. Chris_huhtalk 11:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You can either go to Afr or if you're a brave soul, get some more opinions here then move it. Xiner 14:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. Baiji has 249,000 Google hits, Chinese River Dolphin 53,100. I'd do it myself but I'm too worried about temporarily breaking links. Kla'quot 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, although currently Baiji is a disambiguation page linking to this page, Baiji, Iraq, a city of northern Iraq, and to a martial art of Chinese Muslims. Peter Maas\talk 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term I saw in the news was "Baiji dolphin" which now redirects here.  Does that work for you? 67.117.130.181 01:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything that should make this a straight forward move into Baiji. Xiner 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting moving the article to Baiji dolphin, replacing the redirect that's there now.  Moving it to Baiji doesn't seem like such a big deal either.  You'd move Baiji to Baiji (disambiguation) then move this article to Baiji and put a note at the top pointing to the disambiguation page. 67.117.130.181 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one should be surprised to find this article at Baiji, so "Baiji dolphin" would be redundant. But yeah, you're right, neither should be difficult. Just takes someone with the will to do it. It's in WP:RM though so I'm reluctant to do it now. Xiner 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you'd need Administrator privileges to move this page to Baiji, because the Baiji page already exists. It's what's called an "obstructed" move and those require admin help. Kla'quot 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are allowed to manually merge pages when changing redirects, fixing disambigs, etc. Or at least that's what I thought. Xiner 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually this is true, but not when an article already exists with the name that you want. If you're brave, try moving this page to Baiji and see if it works. There are probably a few admins watching this discussion and any of them could do the move at any time. A reason to not wait for the usual five days would be that moving the page might cut down on some of the racist vandalism. Kla'quot 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved Baiji to Baiji (disambiguation) but cannot move this page to Baiji so have requested admin help for it. Should be done soon hopefully. Chris_huhtalk 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Should the little meter in the speciesbox be moved over to extinct? jengod 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussions above and contribute your comments there. Thanks. Xiner 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people seem to think that if a species is not found despite extensive searches, this doesn't mean it is extinct. They seem to think that possibility of 'miracule rediscoveries' should be eliminated. EX.84.230.179.223 08:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speciesbox?

message: Can anyone add the following interwiki:<Br>
he:דולפין הנהרות הסיני<Br>
Thank you in advance, Yaron.
:Done. What a strange page. Thanks for letting us know! Xiner 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: This article been semi-protected for the past 18 hours, which seems like  a very long time for an article linked off the Main Page. Can we get it lifted please? There are many IP users making excellent comments on Talk and the article needs expansion. Kla'quot 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just done. Ian¹³/t 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, hasn't everyone enjoyed the last couple of days under protection? The page has been removed from the main page, but I've had lots of fun. Thanks to everyone who's contributed so much to the article. I'll keep the page in my watchlist in case the vandals should return, but for now, so long and thanks for all the fish. Xiner 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: "Wang Ding, head of a team of scientists that concluded their fruitless search for the baiji last week, said the efforts to search for and protect the dolphin should continue as there might be some of the mammals left in the wild." - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK67054.htm.
An awfully faint hope, but given who the source is it's a good argument for "critically endangered" status. Kla'quot 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should say Functionally Extinct, but I don't understand why people feel the need to change the text from CR: possibly extinct either. Xiner 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This just in: "China to keep looking for likely extinct dolphin" 

message: This very minor but I question the use of "persecuted" in the sentence "The animal was persecuted for its flesh and skin, and it quickly became scarce." under Causes of decline.  The word does not make much sense in this context. ImbolcNight 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a typical use of the word in discussions about endangered species. It is a dramatic demonstration of the definition "To do a wrong to; treat unjustly". Xiner 01:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the wording sounds at least awkward, and the definition you gave means it's a POV. How about "hunted" (as suggested) or "harvested" (my preference) or "fished" (can you fish for mammals?) ? —Pengo  talk · contribs 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but with all the wars going on, this is the one I can do without. Xiner 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go for "hunted".  Certainly not "fished" since it's a mammal.  "Hunted" sounds right for the same reason.  Moby Dick is a famous novel about a whale hunt. 67.117.130.181 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Using 'persecuted' in this context IMHO would be a weasel word since it has a clear POV. Hunted is probably best IMHO. Definitely not fished Nil Einne 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Choice 

message: I removed this: "The World Conservation Union notes that China's Great Leap Forward greatly reduced the number of baijis." What the IUCN actually said is, "Deliberate killing was most intense 40–50 years ago during China's "great leap forward", when the baiji's traditionally venerated status as "goddess of the river" was denounced and dolphins were hunted for their flesh and skin." 
Scientific institutions such as the IUCN attribute species decline to specific human activities, not to broad political movements. If you don't see the difference, please let's discuss that, as it's important. Kla'quot 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. The full paragraph reads, "Deliberate killing was most intense 40–50 years ago during China's "great leap forward", when the baiji's traditionally venerated status as "goddess of the river" was denounced and dolphins were hunted for their flesh and skin. A factory producing handbags and gloves from Baiji skin opened but the operation was short-lived because the animals quickly became scarce (Zhou and Zhang 1991)." Since 6k dolphins existed in the 1950's, but they became scarce, I don't think it's my opinion what/who's to blame here. Xiner 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was in no way surprised when I read the passage, as it's so typical of the political movements then to attack anything and anyone in authority and to back up the denouncing with action. Xiner 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the current wording though. "During the Great Leap Forward, when traditional veneration of the Baiji was denounced, it was hunted for its flesh and skin, and it quickly became scarce." Xiner 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Leap Forward 

message: the Main page has a small feature frm this article that is way untrue... it appears malicious to me.  the snippet says that this dolphin is the only large mammal to become extinct in a decade.  african black rhino anyone? Antip8ri8 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's malicious, but it's below our standards for precision and verifiability. This is the first extinction of a large mammal species in recent decades, but we've recently wiped out several subspecies such as the Western Black Rhino. I guess the rationale is that subspecies extinctions are less noteworthy. The Main Page should perhaps be reworded though. Kla'quot 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Kla'quot 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk Baiji - When was the last extinction?. Peter Maas\talk 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The extinct Western Black Rhinoceros is considered a subspecies, rather than a species. The last rhino species to go extinct was the Woolly Rhinoceros, which we probably wiped out around 8,000 B.C.. (See the list of Rhino species and ssp at "Rhinoceros"). So baiji are the only large mammal species, but not the only large mammal ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit), to be included in the current wave of mass extinction in recent years. (Assuming there aren't any others we've missed) —Pengo  talk · contribs 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only extinct large mammal?

message: "A female, found in Chongming Island near Shanghai in 1998, did not eat any of the provided food and starved to death within a month." I've read a page that alludes to a drowning death during the 1998 flooding of the Shishou Sanctuary (during a huge Yangtze flood I think). Xiner 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After googling that sentence, I think the information came from , although that page did not cite that information either. So no help yet. Peter Maas\talk 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well many more pages use that sentence, and I think they all used this page as source. The sentence itself is posted by Menchi (Revision as of 23:04, 16 July 2003). Maybe he has a source. The only reference I could find related to this is on a muscle tissue sample taken in 1998 from Chongming Island, Shanghai, presented by the Shanghai Natural History Museum. The article: G. Yang , J. Yan , K. Zhou , and F. Wei. 2005. Sequence Variation and Gene Duplication at MHC DQB Loci of Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer), a Chinese River Dolphin. Journal of Heredity Advance Access, published on July 1, 2005, DOI 10.1093/jhered/esi055. J Hered 96: 310-317. . Peter Maas\talk 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Menchi got some of his information from baijitun.com (which is now some sort of weird hybrid between porn and fluid dynamics... don't ask, we can't figure it out), and the orginal Baiji-related information (Chinese only, sorry) is reachable through the Wayback Machine here --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll take a little while to dig through that archive, but thanks and apologies again, Dante. I found a timeline there  that only goes up to 1997, but a magazine article mentions two captives in 1986 -- a father and daughter, how they knew that wasn't explained -- and the father starved to death within a few days. The timeline for the daughter is a bit murky, but it seems that she met Qi-Qi but was sexually immature so they couldn't mate, she also starved herself, at least at first, and she died of a disease. I don't know if Chinese sources are allowed here so I'm just putting this on the talk page right now. Xiner (talk, email) 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wuhan Conservation Foundation also offers a history of Qi-Qi, in which they also mention that female (Zhen-zhen), which lived for 2.5 years with Qi-Qi, but when she was about to become sexually mature, she died of pneumonia in 1998-09. They found another female in late 1995, but she died when she "touched the net" (got caught in the fence?) half a year later. No mention of 1998. Xiner (talk, email) 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another page was created in 2000 at the earliest. It says only three baijis were ever captured -- the two in 1986 and one in 1995, while died in the net (again, fence?) when the reserve was flooded. This is wrong according to the chart, but again, no mention of anything in 1998. I'll thus be bold and remove the sentence "A female, found in Chongming Island near Shanghai in 1998, did not eat any of the provided food and starved to death within a month" until there's a citation for it. I'll also edit the dates for the Shishou captive. Xiner (talk, email) 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The source up there says "5 in 2004, and only 2 in 2005", which doesn't correlate with the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a female stranded and died on Chongming Island in 1999.  --Shibo77 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the source for that? It'd clear up the mystery once and for all. Anyway, I'd say it's not as notable b/c the article already mentions a stranded dead in 2004. Xiner (talk, email) 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for captive specimens 

message: I'm new, but I speak near-native Chinese and I'm able to say Baiji correctly.  I noticed the to-do List lists an audio file of the proper pronunciation of Baiji as something well, 'To-Do.'  I'd like to do this, but I'm unsure as to how I would do so.  Does anyone know how to do this?  I have a microphone and whatnot on my computer.  Corvus coronoides 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have to record it and then upload it to the appropriate Wikiproject (you may be even to do it here at Wikipedia).
Please see Wikipedia:Media help. The preferred file is an Ogg media recording but a wav or midi might do. If you still have questions after reading the help file, you could go the Help Desk and ask your question there. Ronbo76 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio File 

message: What does it do for the taxobox? Thanks. 151.202.74.135 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. I had Beastie Bot include the population trend (up, down, unknown..) this when it went through fixing conservation statuses, with the plan to include this information on the taxobox, but currently it's not used. I'm not sure why someonoe added it back to Baiji. —Pengo 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend=down? 

message: Why does the picutre of the baiji next to the diver have fingers? Real Baiji flippers don't look like that. Maybe it is a picure of a Ganges River Dolphin? Afuhz 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison Picture 

message: "Organizers declared the Baiji "functionally extinct",[1] which arguably makes it the first aquatic mammal species to become extinct since the Japanese Sea Lion, which became extinct in the 1950s."
"The Caribbean Monk Seal disappeared in the 1950s, the last aquatic mammal to become extinct."
These phrases both appear in the article, contradicting each other. Which is correct? Is either correct? I am confused. -Not Diablo 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, well spotted. The articles for Japanese Sea Lion and Caribbean Monk Seal don't make it clear which became extinct last (they both disappeared in the 1950s), so I'll edit this article so it references both of them rather than one or the other. Terraxos 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article - last extinct aquatic mammal 

message: I don't see any source for this.  Exactly who has declared it "officially" extinct?  The People's Republic of China?   The IUCN Red List?  All I see is that a research group has concluded this (which they publicized last year in fact), and what has happened recently is that the group has published a report in the Royal Society Biology Letters.  I do not see any sign of a relevant statement from any "official" authority.--Pharos 03:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in New Scientist one can read that the current proposal before the IUCN is to change the status from "critically endangered" to "critically endangered (possibly extinct)", and this is likely to be issued in the next Red List on September 12.  It seems someone jumped the gun on our article and already made such a change in December.  But anyway, a change to the category of actually "extinct" has not apparently even been proposed to the IUCN.--Pharos 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "This result means the baiji is likely extinct"; "Wang, from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, emphasised that not all hope was lost for the dolphin, which had made its home along the lower reaches of China's now heavily polluted Yangtze River for more than 20 million years.  'We are not saying the baiji is already gone,' he said."  This is the same study who results were made public in December.  The only thing that has changed is that the full report is now published.  They made an extensive survey and found no Baiji, therefore they concluded it was likely either already extinct OR existed is such small numbers as to be doomed to extinction.  It hasn't been declared "officially" extinct or anything like that.  Dragons flight 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is again the very same item referred to in the start of this section.  Yes, this is a very credible report published in a scientific journal, but it is not an "official" finding of extinction by the IUCN or any other relevant organization or government.--Pharos 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, "was found in" is fine.--Pharos 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the taxobox does actually say "(IUCN)" quite explicitly after the conservation status, so it would be a bit misleading to put a non-IUCN assessment there.  Changing it to "critically endangered (possibly extinct)" doesn't bother me as much as changing it to "extinct", but we should recognize that IUCN is the "official" authority here, not one group of researchers.  And the new Red List is only being issued next month anyway—and if by some chance it doesn't include a change for the baiji we'll just have to backtrack.  By the way, the "critically endangered (possibly extinct)" category doesn't even exist yet at IUCN (so far it's been used only by BirdLife International), so if they're to introduce this for any species, that will be an interesting change in their system.--Pharos 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again. It says (See text), with a link to relevant section, and not (IUCN). I designed the taxobox to be able to accommodate such a situation. To give you some background... This article has had it say "Possibly extinct" fairly steadily since the announcement of the species being "functionally extinct" (with a few revert wars and whatnot with people changing it to extinct).. And these arguments have been going on in bursts since then. The "Possibly extinct" (EX ? CR) graphic was actually designed for the Baiji, as the old graphic simply highlighted "critically endangered" so people kept trying to slide it over a little more. For a while there was no graphic there, and people didn't like that either. Anyway it doesn't sound like there's any hope for the Baiji so it all seems like squabbling over what to call a book with no pages. —Pengo 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that status text parameter is a good idea. We didn't have something like that before, just "(IUCN)" which wasn't quite satisfactory.--Pharos 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Officially" extinct? 

message: If this species is indeed extinct, this also terminates the genus and family. Though this may sound technical to some, it is actually very significant, as a cetacean specialist puts it:
:"The critical conservation status and impending demise of the baiji has been trumpeted by cetologists for the last 30 years, but to no avail. This makes the extinction of this species, genus and family all the more tragic: the scientific community, Chinese government and public had the hard facts, but dithered instead of taking decisive action. When conservation steps were taken, it was as per usual, too little too late. Now, a highly disparate branch of the mammalian evolutionary tree, which diverged from all other cetaceans at least 18 million years ago, is gone. The fossil record shows that the baiji lineage was formerly more diverse and widespread, and just 3-5 million years ago occurred in the shallow seas off western North America, Japan, and, as recent fossil discoveries show, in what are now Victorian waters. This long evolutionary heritage is now irreversibly truncated.
:"It is true that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other species are critically endangered, and dwindling to extinction. Why should we be so concerned at the loss of the baiji from the multitude of life? Just because it represents one of the ever-popular 'charismatic megafauna'? Well, the extinction of the baiji, in the face of dire warnings of approaching doom, shows that even organisms which command the popular imagination can be forever lost through complacency and inaction. No species is by default exempt from extinction, no matter how high-profile it may be. So now the biodiversity of cetaceans, mammals, and all life on Earth is diminished further. We are left with very few photographs of the baiji, limited tissue samples, and no more than 5-10 museum specimens worldwide.
:"Mammalia: Cetacea: Odontoceti: Lipotidae: Lipotes vexillifer--R.I.P."
:(Erich Fitzgerald, pers comm. 2007)
(Rolf Schmidt 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than just a species gone 

message: Was any effort made to preserve genetic material from the captive specimens?  You know, in case anyone might ever attempt a gaur-like cloning a hundred years from now.--Pharos 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation of genetic material? 

message: :Image:Two expedition boats cruise along the Yangtze ..jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Two expedition boats cruise along the Yangtze ..jpg