Talk:Baiji/Archive2

Another Attempted Compromise

How about this in the taxobox: Functionally Extinct
Kghusker 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to invent new categories. Even while "functionally extinct" it is still Critically Endangered. See discussion below. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 10:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the commentary below. IMHO, it's flaky to say in the article, "functionally extinct" and then place in the infobox "critically endangered." It's not "inventing a new category" to display "extinct" in the graphic, and "functionally extinct" in the explanatory text. It tells the whole story in a nutshell, which is why it was offered as a compromise. --Kghusker 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Functionally exinct" is closer in meaning to "critically endangered" than to "extinct." I think it would be clearer without the graphic though. Would anyone object to removing the graphic and keeping the text? I like the graphic in most articles but here it's just confusing. Kla'quot 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also there are good sources saying the baiji is still worth trying to save. The "functionally extinct" designation is most frequently attributed to August Pfluger, who is not a professional biologist. Given the evidence, it is common sense to most people that the baiji is functionally extinct, but it is pretty clear that no scientific consensus exists. Kla'quot 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the graphic may have to go. CR doesn't allow for the possibility of the species being extinct according to the graphic, since it's firmly in the "threatened" camp. Xiner 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Graphic removed. I hope everyone's happy with this "dual" status of "Critically endangered (CR), functionally extinct" —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like the compromise as offered. The graphic with the text. --Kghusker 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've put it back to PE, and removed the graphic from the from all Possibly Extinct (PE) taxa via the {{Taxobox}} template. Thank you Kla'quot for this most sensible suggestion. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Should EX be reconsidered? A new article today quotes Dr Sam Turvey as confirming "extinct" - Yangtzse River dolphin 'now extinct' User:Ian T, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dam Projects

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)

Not true at all. The article needs to be fixed. See quotation + link below. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Chen and Hua (1987) predicted that the controversial Three Gorges Dam, completed in the early 2000s, would eliminate counter-current habitat for approximately 200 km downstream and degrade the existing counter-current systems for another 160 km downstream. Further, stratification in the reservoir will cause the water released below the dam to be cooler than previously, potentially affecting Baiji and their prey. The downstream effects of Gezhouba Dam were not as extreme as those predicted for Three Gorges Dam because the former is a low-head, run-of-the-river structure (Zhong and Power 1996), meaning that sediment is allowed to pass through (which allows the formation of the counter-currents where baiji are generally found – see above) and no reservoir forms. Another effect of Three Gorges Dam will be to facilitate large ship traffic in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and thereby increase the amount of underwater noise and the incidence of vessel collisions with Baiji (Chen and Hua 1989).

— IUCN red list entry on the dolphin

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)

Extinction status and the edit war over Taxobox

Chinese River Dolphin presumed extinct?

See [1]:

--GC 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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_huh^talk 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[2] Presumed extinct. --136.142.163.55 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This entry is next to useless. It provides no citations, and little information of any use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.130.212.100 (talk • contribs)

We should be cautious about declaring the animal "extinct", as it is by no means certain that that is the case. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

So long, and thanks for all the fish 24.25.131.211 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific conclusion was "functionally extinct." Species extinction occurs before the death of the last few individuals, once the species is no longer genetically viable. "Presumed extinct" doesn't cover what this means.

DNA?

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).

The DNA of more than one specimen would be required for future viability. Cloning is probably also impossible, given that there is no surviving close relative.

I dunno, I hope so though. It's pretty sad this thing is gone for good. =[ --B34nz 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unequivocally Recognized Extinct Species

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)

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)

No, they are stating that the species is "functionally extinct" - meaning, beyond the point of no return, even if one or two individuals were still managing to hang on, but absolute extinction is still a certainty.

taxobox

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)

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)

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)

A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. A taxon is presumed Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.

— IUCN Red List 2001 Categories & Criteria (version 3.1)

I think it should be called extinct not critical, because that was the scientific estimate. Extinct always includes a proviso that some new animals can be found (in other words, if certainty is required, extinct can never be used, which is silly). It would be silly for wikipedia to wait fifty years to call this animal extinct. Besides, if new animals are found it can be changed back to critical - this has happened in the past, even one hundred years after an animal was called extinct. Sad mouse 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

"It's possible that we missed one or two animals [during the search], but we can say the baiji is functionally extinct," August Pfluger, a Swiss economist-turned-naturalist who financed the expedition, said in a telephone interview from Wuhan, China.

— [3]

I don't want to start a revert war, but the species has been declared functionally extinct, not "extinct". That is, there is zero chance of the population recovering, even if there are any individuals left. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pengo is exactly correct.

I think PE is exactly the appropriate category here. This is the first mammal species for which this (hitherto birds-only) category would apply. It cannot be said to be functionally extinct (which is not a conservation status category in any case), strictly speaking, because this requires knowledge we simply haven't got, though I completely agree with the assessment that it is beyond hope for recovery (due to inbreeding depression, which might have pushed it over the brink as early as the 1980s: species with such life-history and demecological characteristics usually start to suffer severly from inbreeding depression at effective population sizes of a few 100 mature individuals, because their gene pool gets "mixed" very slowly in historical times, but very rapidly more recently. Same problem as with tigers really.)
DD according to the precautionary principle should not be applied to species which would certainly fall into higher threat categories than (methinks) VU. It denotes uncertainty about whether a long- or medium-term threat of extinction exists or not, but obviously more threatened taxa get classified in the highest reasonably appropriate category (save EX which would bring conservation action to a halt. It is really an issue of both science and politics, as shown by the question of declaring the thylacine extinct... the last major area of essentially natural woodland/grassland habitat on Tasmania had been set aside as a thylacine reserve early in the 20th century, and ppl were queuing up already to apply for construction, mining, logging etc permits as soon as the political debate of the status change became known - because no matter that loads of rare endemics were to be found only there in numbers, the reserve's existence was tied to the thylacine not being classified as extinct.)
See this paper which introduces and discusses the PE category. The salient point is basically,

A precautionary approach by IUCN to classifying extinctions is appropriate in order to encourage continuing conservation efforts until there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual of a species has died. It also minimises the danger of ‘crying wolf’ and reducing confidence in the accuracy of the label Extinct. However, this approach biases analyses of recent extinctions based only on those species officially classified Extinct or Extinct in the Wild. For example, the number of recent extinctions documented on the IUCN Red List is likely to be a significant underestimate, even for well-known taxa such as birds. In recognition of this, we develop a framework to examine relevant evidence and judge as objectively as possible which Critically Endangered species are likely to be already extinct.

Dysmorodrepanis 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Extinct in Labors too?

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)

Uh, read the article. Chinese river dolphins don't survive long in captivity. —Lowellian (reply) 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. While there may (or may not) be a small number of the dolphins still alive, the species is *functionally* extinct. There are not sufficient numbers--in the wild or in captivity--to maintain the gene diversity to ensure the survivability of the species. That's right, you can't make an entire *diverse* population from one Adam and one Eve. BTW: SHAME on China. 193.255.108.20 12:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

Definition of Extinction

As is the case with some species that have been declared extinct with in the last hundred years, there is much contention. If you check the extinct mammals catagory, many of them have "reported sightings". See Caribbean Monk Seal for an example. According to some wildlife biologists, the definition of extinction is an organism that is no longer part of an ecosystem. Some would argue that one or two sole surviviors of a species could no longer be considered "part of an ecosystem". Either way you look at it, it's just as depressing. –Alex LaPointetalk 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Xiner 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the CR camp this question: Do you think there's any chance the mammal can survive? The baiji is a special case, a new phenomenon that will become more common as we destroy ecosystems around the world. It is my opinion that the box should read Functionally extinct. CR imparts too much optimism, while EX is jumping the gun a little. Xiner 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In response, in my opinion, there is no chance they will survive. It is likely there are none alive alive today. However the status is still CR (or PE). This poor dolphin is not unique in this respect. There are many other CR species that are also likely extinct. Critically Endangered is not a hopeful category, it's a very grim one. The requirement of being "part of an ecosystem" is, I believe, only to exclude species which are extinct in the wild, and have only captive specimens left. If there is a single lone Baiji left, then it is still part of the river's ecosystem and it is "critically endangered", even if the poor individual does not constitute a viable population by itself.

I'd also like to be the first to say that there are problems with the conservation status graphic device. And I think this is really where the problem being discussed stems from. I created this graphic and added it to the taxobox so people could have a high affordance indicator. The main problem, I see manifest in how people have tried to compromise between CR and EX by choosing "EW". EW stands for "extinct in the wild", a step the Chinese River Dolphin will skip, as there are none in captivity. For the rest of the categories, a taxon slides smoothly between them (apart from the old LR/cd category). EW also places a wedge between "EX" and "CR" making the perceptual gap between critical endangerment and extinction greater than it is. Perhaps "EW" needs to be grayed out or have some other visual indication that it may be skipped. Or perhaps some other visual indication to show how CR can blend into EX/EW. It can also be confusing that an animal as common as a hamster can be at risk of becoming extinct in the wild. I should probably be writing this somewhere else. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Well you'll get a bigger amateur crowd here than elsewhere I think, a test audience if you will. You could do an EX/EW but separate slot for each dot? Xiner 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A Compromise?

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)

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)

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)

Data Deficient

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)

DD could mean nothing wrong with the population though. Xiner 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

The article was protected due to anonymous IP vandalism, which hasn't completely stopped. Xiner 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Taste and translation

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).

And this has to do with it's extinction how...??? dogs are tasty.....are they extinct..?? chikens are tasty are they extinct..???Necropolis123 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Actually, pig isn't the correct translation of the second character there. Xiner 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's the third character. So what is the literal translation of the Chinese name? 白 = white, 鱀 = ???. Another source[4] 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)

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)

According to the Chinese entry, the second character is sometimes 鰭, which means fin.[5]. Not that the two characters are the same. Xiner 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

China

China's failed and otherwise useless attempts at self-restraint with regards to the environment should be noted. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And your references for this would be? Nil Einne 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

redaction Here they are fellow Wikipedian: Environment_of_China --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• China has developed a Biodiversity Action Plan to address protection of vulnerable species and productive habitats. = Failed.
• A 1998 World Health Organization report on air quality in 272 cities worldwide concluded that seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities were in China. = Failed.
• Various studies estimate pollution costs the Chinese economy about 7-10% of GDP each year. = Failed.
• The Xinhua News Agency has quoted an environmental official, Wang Jinnan, as saying that more than 410,000 Chinese die as a result of pollution each year. = Failed.
• Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China. = Failed.
• Acid rain falls on 30% of the country. = Failed.
• China is about 20 years behind the U.S. schedule of environmental regulation and 20 to 30 years behind Europe. = Failed.
• half of the population lacks access to clean water. = Failed.
• Beijing Smog Comparison = Failed --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OT

• 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)
  • I respectfully disagree. Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. In any case, at this rate the page will be archived soon. Xiner 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• If you want to make the claim that the environment was worse off 100 years ago, feel free. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• I didn't make an unsupported claim in an article, I made it on a talk page. Get a grip.
• Aranherunar, a false claim of personal attacks is a personal attack. Drop it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "facts make those who challenge them look foolish" is a personal attack because you're not saying someone's words look foolish, but that the person looks stupid. Someone's also removed your words about the writer embarrassing themself.[6] Let's all drop it before this gets REALLY ugly, please. Everyone's had their say. Xiner 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I hope that we can move all future conversations on this topic to our user talk pages. It's getting off-topic and not the concerns of our fellow editors anymore. Xiner 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Image removed.

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)

clarification request

Can someone explain what the threat to the dolphins was? Illegal hunting? pollution? habitat encroachment? I think it would be extremely helpful. thanks! Avraham 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"The baiji's demise is attributed to overfishing, dam-building, environmental degradation, and ship collisions." [7]

The IUCN Entry for Lipotes vexillifer has a more detailed summary. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking the baiji comment to the article. Please add the other link if it's important. Xiner 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The long-term cause is overfishing and pollution, but they have been lessening recently. The dam dealed the fatal blow - as predicted, of course. More electricity power for the East. Aran|heru|nar 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Past tense?

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)

It's tempting, isn't it? :( I'd say that if you do it, you'll have to insert more disclaimers that a few may still be living. Also, the intro already makes it clear that none was found on a recent expedition. Xiner 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Source for the timeline?

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)

Name change

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_huh^talk 09:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the english version, what is wrong with the english-language term?EstherRice 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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_huh^talk 11:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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) BTW Xiner, I think you meant WP:RM, which we need because Baiji already exists. Kla'quot 17:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've kicked off the Requested Moves process. Kla'quot 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't see anything that should make this a straight forward move into Baiji. Xiner 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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_huh^talk 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciesbox?

Should the little meter in the speciesbox be moved over to extinct? jengod 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above and contribute your comments there. Thanks. Xiner 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Interwiki

Can anyone add the following interwiki:
[[he:דולפין הנהרות הסיני]]
Thank you in advance, Yaron.

Done. What a strange page. Thanks for letting us know! Xiner 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When was the last extinction?

The Main Page says this is the first extinction of a large mammal in recent decades, so the article should discuss that fact that a little bit. What large mammal species last died out? Kla'quot 06:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. List of extinct animals points off to a bunch of sub-lists so it's not so easy to see everything at once, but Caspian Tiger, Javan Tiger, and Thylacine look like the best candidates. There were also some more recent extinctions of some smaller species like the Lesser horseshoe bat. 67.117.130.181 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say Pyrenean Ibex or Western_Black_Rhinoceros, but turns out they were subspecies, not species. Arabian Gazelle was one. 84.230.179.223 09:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The species I've seen cited most often in the news is Caribbean Monk Seal, last seen in 1952 (Wikipedia's dates on this are wrong, as far as I can tell). Is there anything more recent than that? The Arabian Gazelle was known from a single specimen found in 1825. The tigers were subspecies and the Thylacine was last seen in 1930. Kla'quot 09:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Caribbean Monk Seal was indeed last seen in small colony at Seranilla Bank (Jamaica) in 1952. Wikipedia stated 1932, but that is the last sighting in the United States, not the whole world. I've added it just now. Peter Maas\^talk 13:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Define what is large...the Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby (Onychogalea lunata) can be seen as a large mammal that became exinct as recently as the early 1960s (Source IUCN Red List). In 1961 Finlayson wrote that this species was still extant in some areas and that one had been killed between the Tarlton and Jervois ranges, Northern Territory, Australia, as late as 1956. One report in Ride's 'A Guide to the Native Mammals of Australia' of a 1964 specimen from near the Warburton Range, WA, cannot now be substantiated [8]. And indeed some bat species became extinct even later, like the Guam flying fox (Pteropus tokudae). The last specimen was a female found roosting at Tarague cliff in March 1967. A young bat escaped capture. A bat may have been seen in June 1974, although there is no certainty about that. Sure is that is was gone during a research in 1987. More recent mammal extinctions are indeed subspecies, like the Caspian Tiger, the Pyrenean Ibex and the Western Black Rhinoceros, or possible hybrids like the Kouprey. Peter Maas\^talk 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The most recent reports for Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby have been discussed as possible misidentification. Similarly, Thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) eyewitness testimony, particularly in recent years, is very unreliable. User:Ian T (in Australia)

Zoos

Are there any sources on why the dolphin isn't in any Chinese zoos? Or if it is in zoos, then its only extinct in the wild.

There were some in captivity but they died. They apparently don't take well to it. 67.117.130.181 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

last one died in 2002[9].Geni 13:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was also the first to have been caught. They tried to catch more, I think, but it's not that easy, and even harder after their numbers started plunging. Qi-Qi, for example, was there only b/c it had been severely injured in a fish net. Xiner 15:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but given how badly they survived in captivity, I presume it may have been considered a bad idea to catch one of the few surviving members Nil Einne 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have any of you ever seen a Chinese zoo? they are a long long way from American zoos in terms of quality and habitat. I've seen animals that have literally gone crazy, and fish in tanks where the can barely turn around. Not a nice experience.

perfectblue 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Turvey's book, it's more that the people who tried to keep them were incompetent. He lists attempts to feed Qi Qi fruit, bread and pork before it occurred to someone that a dolphin might eat fish. (Generally speaking, this article is a lot more positive than Turvey's book.)193.60.133.202 (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Page name

I've had a look at the the page name issue, after it was requested on WP:AN. There's actually a stronger case to move it to Yangtze River Dolphin. which has more hits than either "Baiji + dolphin" or "Chinese River Dolphin", and is the name used by WWF China for the creature ([10]), who would know about this sort of thing. Proto::► 13:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Baiji gets far more results on JSTOR and Google Scholar, which are mostly scientific journals. Like I said on AN though there's no really clear choice as far as I can tell so it should be discussed before anyone does a move. --W.marsh 15:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved your comment to the RM page, where all of this belongs. Please delete if you object. Xiner 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that's the common usage in China though. Baiji is far more common (e.g. Douglas Adams related how the conservation efforts licensed the name to businesses for a fee). Does that count for anything? Xiner 15:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In practically every publication about the dolphin (scientific papers in journals, official documents from governments, conservation issues, etc.) it is Baiji. On Google "Yangtze River dolphin" only gets 87000 or something while baiji gets 307000. The baiji is the dolphin so it is not called the baiji dolphin it is called the baiji, like the boto, or orca. All the organizations dealing with it use Baiji, use Yangtze river dolphin as the secondary term. It seems quite clear cut really, obviously it should mention the other names in the article but the page name should definitely be Baiji. Again see the IUCN page. Since the IUCN is the main conservation status organization surely they would get it right. Chris_huh^talk 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Exept our policy is to use common names rather than scientific names.Geni 20:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, baiji is the common name as explained above. The scientific name is Latin. Xiner 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be the most common amoung the scientific community not amoung other groups.Geni 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji isn't a scientific name. It's been the Chinese name for the animal for thousands of years. Xiner 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

this isn't zh.wikipedia.Geni 22:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let me put it this way. Even if the name is common only in the scientific community, that doesn't make it anymore of a scientific name than the word "is". Xiner 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the naming guide. Xiner 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, it seems pretty clear cut that it should be Baiji. The only reason that anything but Baiji is used (ie Chinese River Dolphin or Yangtze River Dolphin) is so that the public would know that it is a dolphin when they read the name. In a news headline the majority of people wouldn't know was a baiji is but a Chinese River Dolphin is obviously a dolphin that lives in a river in China. Since wikipedia is not a news agency and people who want to find out about the Baiji go to Baiji. The Scientific name is Lipotes vexillifer while the english name is Baiji. It is the most common among scientific and everything else, just look at the search results on Google. Chris_huh^talk 11:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji only has 307,000 hits if you just search for "Baiji", which is very misleading. Baiji is also a city in Iraq, and a martial art. Searching for Baiji + dolphin yields just over 80,000 hits. Proto::► 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well baiji+dolphin still comes up with more than "Chinese River Dolphin". Anyway i don't think how many articles google comes up with, particularly when it is so close, is a very good way to measure it. There are billions of sites out there, many of them with wrong information. We should really be looking at what most of the articles about species and animals from wikipedia look at - IUCN and other taxonomic/conservation organisations. Everything i have seen about the baiji has referred to it as the baiji apart from a few news sites and a couple of private sites owned by someone who thinks to animal is cute and wants to talk about it. Chris_huh^talk 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at the main sites used for references and information on cetaceans :

• WDCS (Favours Baiji)
• ARKive (Favours Baiji)
• ADW (Favours Baiji)
• IUCN (no preference: BAIJI; YANGTZE RIVER DOLPHIN)
• CMS (no preference: (Yangtse river-dolphin; baiji)

(bracketed notes added by pengo)

They all use baiji as the official english name. As well as the organization set up to help the Baiji - Baiji.org is based in Switzerland but has an international group of people helping out and only ever refers to it as Baiji. Chris_huh^talk 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving this page simply requires editing the baiji redirection to this page,[11] then moving this page to baiji. Xiner 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Chris_huh has convinced me Baiji is the correct name. Article is being moved. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

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)

Just done. Ian¹³/t 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

This just in: "China to keep looking for likely extinct dolphin"

"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)

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)

Pronoun usage.

Let us discuss the pronoun usage for the captive specimens, specifically Qui Qui. Qui Qui was male; not female, not hermaphroditic, and not a member of a species that reproduced by asexual means. Thus, I believe he should be described with a male pronoun. The neuter pronoun 'it' is useful for specimens of unknown (or both or neither) sexes, but where any animal's sex is known, I don't think it's inappropriate to use the appropriate gendered pronoun. --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Qi-Qi is an animal, therefore it's an it. Please furnish authoritative references to the contrary if you want to pursue the point. Xiner 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Xiner, Jimbo Wales, and Sparky Lurkdragon are animals, therefore they are its. Okay. --Sparky Lurkdragon 08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd violate the no personal attacks rule, though. Xiner 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How? I do not know your sex or gender, and I'm assuming you are a member of the Kingdom Animalia. Apologies if you are a sapient plant or machine. :)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia's own article on "it" currently has this to say:

It is a third-person neuter pronoun in the English language.

In addition to being used for inanimate objects and abstractions, "it" is sometimes used to refer to people.

In English, pronouns such as it and its have been used to refer to babies and pets, although with the passing of the Victorian era this usage has come to be considered too impersonal, with many usage critics arguing that it demeans a conscious being to the status of a mere thing. This use of 'it' also got bad press when various regimes used it as a rhetorical device to dehumanise their enemies, implying that they were little better than animals. Conversely, few people object to the use of the impersonal pronouns for animals other than pets.

I will say I'm one of those "few people"; non-pets are just as conscious as pets, and I would no sooner call a male robin an 'it' than I would my cat. I admit my bias may be showing - as far as I'm concerned, the possession of or desire to posses male reproductive organs is plenty to be addressed with a male pronoun, and since we couldn't ask Qui Qui if Chinese River Dolphins had any concept of transsexuality, I would call Qui Qui a 'he'.

At any rate, it's probably best to wait for some other editors to offer their opinions. :) --Sparky Lurkdragon 08:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through, can't ressist commenting on this issue. I must agree that I would never use 'it' here either, unless gender is unknown, and in this case the gender is known, so that's not an issue. Blood red sandman 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go to any REAL dictionary, you'll find that it is used to refer to non-human entities. The IUCN page reads, "...a male (Qi Qi) that had been rescued from fishing gear and rehabilitated in 1980. This animal remained in its dolphinarium tank..." All I ask is some authorative reference that backs up your position, which I feel is applicable only animal lovers when referring to their pets. Xiner 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster Online's definition of "it":

"1 : that one -- used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing <took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old>, a plant <there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming>, a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know who it is>, a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity <beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy> -- compare HE, ITS, SHE, THEY" (Emphasis mine)

And we're disregarding his sex because...? --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[Previous post seems to have been lost during the page move] First, may I remind you to moderate your tone? It seems unnecessarily combative. Second, my definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionaries, so there seems a disagreement there. Third, can you tell me why we should disagree with the source from which the passage came by, for example, providing an example of your usage of the words?

I'd also like to refer you to page 141 of Last Chance to See, where Douglas Adams relates finding a Kakapo. After checking the tag it was realized that "its name was Ralph. It had been transferred..." On the pictures page of Qi-Qi, DNA wrote, "It was found..."

But this is another battle I can do without, if you aren't convinced by all this. Xiner 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't feel strongly either way, I would probably use he in a situation like this especially given the baiji even had a name. I don't deny that others may use it, but people also use he or she and IMHO, there is no clear cut evidence which one is preferred. I guess in a more formal situation, e.g. if I were writing a journal article, I would probably use it but in an encylopaedia, he's fine IMHO. For a similar case, take a look at Razza the rat. In the Nature article it (or the rat etc) is used [12]. In this New Scientist news brief [13] he is used. BBC and MSNBC use it. From memory, and this was a fairly long time ago, I think the researcher involved used he in his second year Ph.D talk. Nil Einne 10:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right to me, the word's usage. I'd rather Wikipedia read more like Nature than a news article, whose objective must be to make subjects sound lively. I don't see why it's such a big deal to go against IUCN and Last Chance to See on Qi-Qi, but like I said, there are enough battles here already. Xiner 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Word Choice

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)

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)

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)

I disagree, but with all the wars going on, this is the one I can do without. Xiner 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Great Leap Forward

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)

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)

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)

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)

Only extinct large mammal?

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)

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)

I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Kla'quot 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk Baiji - When was the last extinction?. Peter Maas\^talk 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have added a few details to the page. "Large" is wishy-washy so I referred to "aquatic"Kla'quot 02:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference for captive specimens

"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)

After googling that sentence, I think the information came from [14], although that page did not cite that information either. So no help yet. Peter Maas\^talk 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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. [15]. Peter Maas\^talk 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

It'll take a little while to dig through that archive, but thanks and apologies again, Dante. I found a timeline there [16] 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)

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)

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)

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).

There was a female stranded and died on Chongming Island in 1999. --Shibo77 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Audio File

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)

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)

Trend=down?

What does it do for the taxobox? Thanks. 151.202.74.135 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comparison Picture

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)

Contradiction in article - last extinct aquatic mammal

"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)

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)

"Officially" extinct?

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)

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)

Here's a source. [17] Shrumster 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source (a pretty reputable UK organisation): ITV News Lethe 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Also Dr Sam Survey Yangtzse River dolphin 'now extinct' User: Ian T 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

It's probably not enough for the taxobox to be updated to EX, but certainly enough for the past tense in general discussion (even in the unlikely event of a few individuals being still alive, "was" makes more sense in reference to the species as a whole). The IUCN can take time to catch up, ie: Leadbeater's possum, which is down again from VU to EN, but should be CR, given the most recent findings. --User: Ian T 9 August 2007

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

New Scientist is reporting that the IUCN will likely update the status to "Critically endangered (possibly extinct)". [18] We don't have to wait for that to happen really. We're not tied to using the IUCN system in the taxobox when their information is outdated, if there is another authority. —Pengo 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

More than just a species gone

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))

Am I correct in thinking that the Franciscana is the Baiji's closest, if very distant, relative? User: Ian T 9 August 2007

Preservation of genetic material?

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)

Baiji sighted!

BBC has reported a Baiji sighting. Not sure where to insert this information, but it's probably worth inserting. Editors more familiar with this article please see if we can incorporate it.

• Rare dolphin 'sighted' in China

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the wording in the lead is very confusing as it goes back and forth between past and present tense, and whether or not it is extinct or not. Murderbike 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's probably some disagreements on the status of the species. The article needs to stick with a few selective sources that can be considered authoritative and just stick with the conservation status that those sources give the baiji. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"We cannot confirm it 100 percent but it looks pretty much like a baiji," Wang, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told AFP.

It doesn't help that they've included an accompanying picture on this site of the wrong species (white dolphin from Hong Kong) http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/08/29/whitedolphin_ani.html 31 August 2007 User:Ian T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian T (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "white dolphin from Hong Kong." The creature pictured is a baiji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.77.205 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a white dolphin from Hong Kong (see [[19]] - it's more often called "pink dolphin" and is a type of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, also apparently rare. They've removed that picture (of a Chinese white dolphin jumping) and replaced it with one of QiQi(?) since I wrote the above comment. I am 100% certain of my correct identification of the original pic. User:Ian T (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 September 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Two expedition boats cruise along the Yangtze ..jpg

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)