Talk:Baiji

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

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

Who has the power to change these ratings?

EvAnn05 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do have to go by the sources. The one for this statement (you copied the reference into here) claims a number of 6,000 for the 1950s. It's quite possible that is an overestimate, but do you have published, reliable sources that say so? (BTW, a decline from 6k to 100 over a decade or two is by no means unlikely in slow-breeding, late-maturity predators - we've seen it in e.g. African penguin populations, and they weren't being actively killed, just starved by fishery.)--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

First I completely agree that we should edit any encyclopedia with definite and reliable references(including Wikipedia),and I think I should answer your questions above.
I don't have published, reliable sources that say so,and maybe that seems impossible.
Because maybe you had learned history about the Republic Of China(1912-1949) and the People's Republic Of China(1949-) and you might know that before the PRC was founded,the situation in China was completely in a mess...There wasn't such a convenient environment for those scientific researchers in China,and also,nobody cared about the number of Baiji.And after the PRC was founded,there were also factors that affected the research of Baiji.One of the most important factor was those political events(Just as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution),these political events interrupted,even spoiled those normal scientific researches until 1978.Another one is that at that period,people in China had a hard time,even if living(For example,many people were dead of hunger during 1958 to 1961),so obviously,at those periods,nobody seemed to care about those small amount of dolphins in the Yangtze,and as a conclude,nobody recorded the number of them.
So,the reference in the article(I copied the rreference above)is just a guess instead of a definite,serious conclusion.It should be considered.
And,for your second question,for Baiji,it was also like what you said-it was majorly affected by fishery,propellers of ships and boats on the Yangtze,some dams(like Three Gorges Dam and Gezhouba Dam),etc.
I have an advice about this:Why not asking those scientists in the Institute of Hydrobiology of CAS in Wuhan?They are professional in this field...Alneth (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that even if there are no definite contrasting (likely lower) estimates, it would probably be realistic to at least qualify the number now stated in the article - "this number may be an overestimate because ..." or something like that. However, even for that we need a reference. I.e., if there was a published study that contains the claim that this estimate may be too high, we can put in the qualifier and cite that. Can one of the porpoise community people you communicated with maybe point us to such a publication? I assume they must have gotten their information from somewhere as well.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we should discuss this topic on Twitter instead of this Wikipedia talk page,you can find my Twitter account in my user page...(DO NOT REPLY)Alneth (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm pretty sure we shouldn't :) For one thing I don't have a Twitter account, and for another, it is very much preferred to discuss content issues relating to WP articles on WP itself, to allow all interested parties to participate and to preserve a record of everything.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

• Baiji and Yangtze Finless Porpoise.jpg
• Qiqi and Zhenzhen, two Chinese River Dolphins.jpg
• Qiqi, a Chinese River Dolphin (Baiji) 13.jpg
• Qiqi, a Chinese River Dolphin (Baiji) 6.jpg

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

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

[1]https://m.thepaper.cn/wifiKey_detail.jsp?contid=1684992&from=wifiKey# The article is entirely in Mandarin, but it contains a video of two Baiji found in a protected area of the river. 45.67.99.40 (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add information regarding a 2024 sighting of two individuals found in a protected area of the Yangtze River with video proof to the "Sightings" sub-section along with a new photo of the animal. Source: https://m.thepaper.cn/wifiKey_detail.jsp?contid=1684992&from=wifiKey# The entire article is written in Mandarin, but it says that two Baiji were recorded and photographed in May of this year.

  Partly done: The article uses the word 疑似 (suspected), so I tweaked the wording a bit, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding this recent information regarding recent potential sightings in the wild. The only thing left now is to add a new picture of the species due to the old one being removed automatically by a bot. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the baijis pop culture presence in China deserve a section on this page? It was featured in a poll/guessing game on which Chinese national treasure animal would join Minecraft in Minecraft China Edition prior to Minecon Earth 2018 and is featured as the mascot for a kayaking event in China this year. There have also been children's books about the baijis plight and conservation efforts in China.

什么比赛有这么可爱的吉祥物？10月11日就要开赛了！-杭州新闻中心-杭州网 (hangzhou.com.cn) (Kayaking event)

国宝来啦！票选你最期待加入《我的世界》的国宝 (163.com) (Minecraft China Edition) Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since there are no confirmed sightings of it still being alive, what reason is there to consider it “possibly extinct” when it is almost certainly dead? TheLibyanGuy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's the IUCN's policy to wait about fifty years after the last confirmed sighting before officially declaring a species "extinct" Mr Fink (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has been seen and photographed by Chinese locals 4 times since that 2006 expedition failed to locate one and it is still given class one protection and acknowledgement by the Chinese government. Similar to what Mr Fink says, IUCN usually waits 50 years to officially declare a species extinct. I also assume that it is very difficult to be certain of its status due to its naturally elusive nature and large range similar to La Vega Racer (last seen in 1910), or Christmas Island shrew (Last seen in 1998). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply