Template:Did you know nominations/Bouvier's red colobus


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bouvier's red colobus

 * ... that Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought to be extinct, was rediscovered in the Republic of the Congo in 2015?
 * ALT1: ... that Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought possibly to be extinct, was rediscovered in the Republic of the Congo in 2015?


 * Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Nominated by EoRdE6 (talk) at 18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC).


 * boldly removed the word "possibly" as "thought" includes the idea of possibly. Victuallers (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All DYKs require a QPQ now, not just self-noms (unless you have less than 5 credits to date). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have one DYK credit to date, so I don't need one correct? QPQ check. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is correct. You are too fast - I was just about to strike my comment :). No QPQ is required here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg It was never thought to be extinct. From the Indiegogo page that was used to finance the trip: The species has not been seen by scientists since the 1970s ... They are reported to live in an area where scientists rarely go. ... They might be extinct, but we just don’t know. They were never listed as extinct, and as soon as someone went searching for them he quickly found them. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Thought to be extinct" and "classified as extinct" are not the same thing, and many reliable sources use the term "though to be extinct". . Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not personal opinions of editors.  Also, disagreeing with a blurb's wording is also not a valid reason to mark a DYK as rejected.  Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  Can we get a real review from someone actually familiar with the DYK criteria please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which RS from the biology field claimed it was thought to be extinct? As I gave a source for, even the person who made the photos did not claim that anyone thought they were extinct when collecting money for his trip. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First and most importantly, there is absolutely nothing is Wikipedia policy saying a biology source is required for this fact. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of reliable news sources have reported it.  That is more than sufficient by policy.
 * Second, despite your implication to the contrary, someone wishing to raise funds to go look for the monkey is likely to inflate the chance of success (i.e. that it is not extinct) than the chance of failure. I do find it ironic that you want to use a primary and unreliable source to contradict secondary and reliable ones though.
 * Third, numerous biology sources that existed before this week also state the possibility of extinction: Arkive: "it may be extinct, as there have been no reported sightings since the 1970s". IUCN "Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)". A scholarly book: "not very well known... possibly extinct". Primate SG: "may already be extinct".  And so on. The hook originally read "thought to be possibly extinct" (IUCN's exact wording) but as Victuallers points out, there is not really any difference in meaning as thought implies doubt already. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the RS from the field you cite stated that it was ever assumed to be extinct. This is the same huge difference as between "the person is assumed to be dead" (there is a death certificate) and "we do not know what happened to him (he might even be dead)" - in the first case it is a fact that the person is dead, in the second case it is not known whether he is dead and someone has to check what happened with the person if he wants to know whether the person is dead. The first case matches the claim in the DYK, but the second case matches what the RS from the field were actually stating. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "thought be be (possibly) extinct" does not mean "presumed extinct". --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, before this becomes more of a storm in a teacup, how about putting the "possibly" back in? "Thought to be extinct" does indeed contain the supposition that it IS extinct; "thought to possibly be extinct" just admits the possibility. The latter is what is supported by e.g. the IUCN reference. And it doesn't exactly break the hook.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I do not object to that since that was the original hook anyway... The sources allow for either phrasing quite clearly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. Accepting ALT1 as the better of the two hooks. (An animal is not seen by observers for many decades so it may possibly be extinct. If researchers had asked the locals they might have learnt earlier that it wasn't.) The article is neutral and I did not detect any close paraphrasing or other policy issues, so good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)