 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Extinct
editThis bird cannot be extinct since 2000 when surveys in 2003 and 2005 had shown that this bird is still alive. So the classification as extinct is erroneous --Melly42 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where are the 2003 and 2005 surveys published, they are not mentioned in the 2006 birdlife international factsheet? --Peta 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
--There is a press release from 2005 where they have written that this bird was spotted in 2003
see here. http://www.etravelblackboard.com/index.asp?id=41392&nav=21. The sighting in 2005 is based on an email which i have received by Mr. Stuart Butchart from Birdlife in the past year. I haven't found a publishing in the web yet, but i think they surely will publish the results of the 2005 survey in the next IUCN/Birdlife-Assessment (2007 or 2008). --Melly42 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be putting original, unpublished information in wikipedia articles. --Peta 11:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
EFBC-Material
editFrom the EFBC-Website:
This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.
Sorry, but i cannot use data from a website when they state that their material is incomplete and it even seems that this material is outdated in the case of the White-chested White-eye. So i think it would be the best to see this material as irrelevant, when you have other material which is in contrast to the EFBC-Material --Melly42
The species is listed as extinct under the Act. It is entirely relevant, and important, to mention that in the article, since Australia governs Norfolk Island. Much like the ivory-billed woodpecker; despite claimed recent sitings (although I can't find any reference online to sitings in 2005 as is claimed in our article) no one knows for sure; and no official surveys for over 20 years prior to the 2000 listing as extinct found any birds [1] thus the article should mention both the IUCN and Aus classification. --Peta 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also the EPBC is not some backyard operation, it is a Act of the federal government of Australia, and for a species to be listed at any level takes a good deal of research. --Peta 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)