This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trap–neuter–return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@
Samantha Michaels: I noticed that here
[1], some text, TNR is often presented to policymakers as a viable alternative to lethal methods
, cited to Nature, was moved from one subsection ("Reduced population over time") to another subsection about animal shelter kill rates, which completely changes the meaning of the text. This is not at all neutral to the original source
[2], which is about feral cats being one of the worst invasive species in the world and which is overtly anti-TNR. Now it's being used in a pro-TNR context.
Geogene (
talk)
20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Samantha Michaels: Regarding this link that you added to the article body: [4]. This pro-fringe piece crosses the line into fairly serious science denialism, which includes denying that invasive species are a thing. I find that calling it "excellent" in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable. Geogene ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this method not also used on feral dogs? Why is everything about cats? Finnigami ( talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I’d just like to point out how this article’s (huge) lead section reads almost like a high school purposive essay against the subject. This is even stranger because looking back a couple years ago the article had the complete opposite POV issue. The last sentence of the lead is particularly bad.
The “advocacy and opposition” section is also weird, basically just a huge block of quotes. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Our research adds further evidence to the growing body of scientific literature indicating that TNR is ineffective in reducing cat populations.That is equivalent in meaning to the content cited to it,
Scientific research has not found TNR to be an effective means of controlling the feral cat population.If anything, the source is more negative in tone toward TNR than the article content cited to it. Geogene ( talk) 17:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The efforts of these two organizations may have contributed to the slight, but statistically non-significant, decline in cat abundance we observed. Statistically non-significant. Meaning that there was no statistically significant decrease in the cat population. Meaning that TNR did not work in this case, either. The statistical techniques used in this paper are fairly sophisticated:
We estimated cat abundance, accounting for detection probability, using program MARK (White and Burnham 1999). We used the Poisson log-normal mark–resight model....Using a standardized, replicated and randomized sampling approach....I'm not sure that Wikipedia editors ought to be attempting their own statistical analysis to challenge their results. Geogene ( talk) 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to be under attack from parties with an agenda to undermine and discredit trap-neuter-return. In almost every section there is outdated data, misinterpreted data, unrelated information designed to skew negative, or commentary added to data in order to steer towards an opposite conclusion or sow skepticism. According to the internet archive (looking at older versions of this page), 2021 seems to be the year when TNR Wikipedia went from a positive to negative slant. Extensive edits are needed to move this page away from overly positive or overly negative positioning to achieve a neutral educational post in keeping with Wikipedia's mission.
Starting with the first line - There is an unnecessary inclusion of the word "controversial" which has it's own footnote(?) and links to a journal that is overwhelmingly in favor of TNR, but acknowledges that some wildlife conservationists don't agree with the practice. Of the two methods used to control cat populations, TNR and Catch & Kill, the latter is undoubtedly more controversial than TNR, so describing TNR in the lede as controversial is deceptive and lacking context. The journal cited was published in 2015, two years before the first long-term studies of TNR were published on NIH in 2017, 2018 and 2020, so this is also suspiciously outdated. It's also 5 years before Los Angeles adopted TNR as the city-endorsed method of cat population control. In order to keep the information neutral, we should avoid language like "controversial" and also avoid overly positive language like "preferred". There is no need for any of these qualifiers in the opening definition of the term.
The objections to TNR from wildlife conservations belong in this entry, but take up undue presence in the first paragraph. Recommend creating an Opposition or Criticism section to explore these views.
I'm proposing to replace the opening line with: Trap–neuter–return (TNR), also known as trap–neuter–release, is a humane method of outdoor cat population control. Nylnoj ( talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
At the present time many TNR programs do not produce substantial and persistent reductions in cat populations, and those that do often fail to effectively document this achievement or to publicize their success....As a result, TNR has become increasingly controversial, with TNR advocates and wildlife conservationists often staking out fundamentally incompatible positions.and also,
The unfortunate reality is that many sterilizations currently being performed on outdoor cats have no significant impact on population size, and that consequently trap–neuter–return (TNR) cat management programs have come under increasing criticism and scrutiny.The wildlife conservationists mentioned there have published many papers of their own asserting that TNR does not reduce cat populations, and even have published papers arguing that TNR is not humane to feral cats, much less to the wildlife that the cats hunt. Let me also point my suspicion that "Catch and Kill" is a pejorative term used exclusively by people that have an ideological stake in advocating for TNR. It's not used, for example, in discussing the elimination of rats or cane toads or other invasive species.
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.Geogene ( talk) 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.( MOS:INTRO) ....
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.( MOS:LEAD) ....
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it( MOS:OPEN) (Note that "Neutral Point of View" used there is actually jargon that's defined at WP:NPOV.
Although proponents of TNR assert that they are providing services that allow cats to live full and healthy lives, freeroaming and feral cats are often in very poor condition (Jessup 2004). The animal welfare community opposes “cat hoarding,” whereby people care for more pets than they can adequately support, because it is considered inhumane. Trap-neuter-return is essentially cat hoarding without walls.[9]. What are the Wikipedia policies on opinions? Not to state them as facts. To quote WP:WIKIVOICE,
Avoid stating opinions as factsand
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
This may ultimately prove to be an unproductive debate, since public opinion in developed countries is unlikely to support a total abandonment of TNR in favor of widespread cat management using lethal methods....This article is based on the premise that a transition to more effective TNR is possible, and on the expectation that broadly applied (as opposed to specifically targeted) lethal removal methods for managing free-roaming cats will not gain wide public acceptance, regardless of potential wildlife benefits.But this is not how Wikipedia's neutrality policy works:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.( WP:DUE). There is also an essay, Wikipedia:Academic_bias, that strongly argues that WP is biased towards academic sources, which would mean that the number of grassroots TNR practitioners out there or the number of municipalities practicing it is largely irrelevant in determining which POVs should have the most representation in articles. Geogene ( talk) 05:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you are saying Wikipedia could favor the views of a small handful of anti-TNR academics over major national animal welfare organizations like ASPCA and the Humane Society (not including PETA) which also include legal experts and academics associated with them?Yes, you understand. The views of the scientific community on scientific issues (how to manage animal populations is biology) take precedence over local governments and NGOs like the Humane Society. As for this paper you cited, [11], it's my understanding that Animals is an MDPI journal. MDPI journals are listed at WP:RSP as questionable sources. I was puzzled earlier when you mentioned "NIH studies". This is not an NIH study, see the disclaimer on the top of the page that says,
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.. Geogene ( talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Advantages and disadvantagessection (namely
Risks to human and animal healthand
Effects on wildlife from hunting) that does not relate explicitly to TNR nor its effects, but instead generally to feral cats, and we should not be equating a square to a rectangle. Either the connection needs to be sourced or it should be moved to the feral cat article. The TNR process, the single most important thing about this subject, isn't even detailed anywhere in the article body, only in the lead.
A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a junk science device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.Polygraphs are like TNR in that they're popular out there the world, with many US government agencies routinely using them, but viewed as junk science in the journals. Two other examples of articles about popular but ineffective things are Laundry ball
A laundry ball or washing ball is a product made of solid, insoluble material promoted as a substitute for laundry detergent. Producers of laundry balls often make pseudoscientific claims about their mechanisms of action and exaggerate the extent of their benefits.[1][2]and Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific[1][2] self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing personality types.Geogene ( talk) 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
TNR as a method of managing free-roaming cat populations is controversial. Global attitudes towards these cats vary from those who see them as pets to those who see them as infestations which need to be eliminated.But there's that word you don't like again. Geogene ( talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trap–neuter–return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@
Samantha Michaels: I noticed that here
[1], some text, TNR is often presented to policymakers as a viable alternative to lethal methods
, cited to Nature, was moved from one subsection ("Reduced population over time") to another subsection about animal shelter kill rates, which completely changes the meaning of the text. This is not at all neutral to the original source
[2], which is about feral cats being one of the worst invasive species in the world and which is overtly anti-TNR. Now it's being used in a pro-TNR context.
Geogene (
talk)
20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Samantha Michaels: Regarding this link that you added to the article body: [4]. This pro-fringe piece crosses the line into fairly serious science denialism, which includes denying that invasive species are a thing. I find that calling it "excellent" in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable. Geogene ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this method not also used on feral dogs? Why is everything about cats? Finnigami ( talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I’d just like to point out how this article’s (huge) lead section reads almost like a high school purposive essay against the subject. This is even stranger because looking back a couple years ago the article had the complete opposite POV issue. The last sentence of the lead is particularly bad.
The “advocacy and opposition” section is also weird, basically just a huge block of quotes. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Our research adds further evidence to the growing body of scientific literature indicating that TNR is ineffective in reducing cat populations.That is equivalent in meaning to the content cited to it,
Scientific research has not found TNR to be an effective means of controlling the feral cat population.If anything, the source is more negative in tone toward TNR than the article content cited to it. Geogene ( talk) 17:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The efforts of these two organizations may have contributed to the slight, but statistically non-significant, decline in cat abundance we observed. Statistically non-significant. Meaning that there was no statistically significant decrease in the cat population. Meaning that TNR did not work in this case, either. The statistical techniques used in this paper are fairly sophisticated:
We estimated cat abundance, accounting for detection probability, using program MARK (White and Burnham 1999). We used the Poisson log-normal mark–resight model....Using a standardized, replicated and randomized sampling approach....I'm not sure that Wikipedia editors ought to be attempting their own statistical analysis to challenge their results. Geogene ( talk) 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to be under attack from parties with an agenda to undermine and discredit trap-neuter-return. In almost every section there is outdated data, misinterpreted data, unrelated information designed to skew negative, or commentary added to data in order to steer towards an opposite conclusion or sow skepticism. According to the internet archive (looking at older versions of this page), 2021 seems to be the year when TNR Wikipedia went from a positive to negative slant. Extensive edits are needed to move this page away from overly positive or overly negative positioning to achieve a neutral educational post in keeping with Wikipedia's mission.
Starting with the first line - There is an unnecessary inclusion of the word "controversial" which has it's own footnote(?) and links to a journal that is overwhelmingly in favor of TNR, but acknowledges that some wildlife conservationists don't agree with the practice. Of the two methods used to control cat populations, TNR and Catch & Kill, the latter is undoubtedly more controversial than TNR, so describing TNR in the lede as controversial is deceptive and lacking context. The journal cited was published in 2015, two years before the first long-term studies of TNR were published on NIH in 2017, 2018 and 2020, so this is also suspiciously outdated. It's also 5 years before Los Angeles adopted TNR as the city-endorsed method of cat population control. In order to keep the information neutral, we should avoid language like "controversial" and also avoid overly positive language like "preferred". There is no need for any of these qualifiers in the opening definition of the term.
The objections to TNR from wildlife conservations belong in this entry, but take up undue presence in the first paragraph. Recommend creating an Opposition or Criticism section to explore these views.
I'm proposing to replace the opening line with: Trap–neuter–return (TNR), also known as trap–neuter–release, is a humane method of outdoor cat population control. Nylnoj ( talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
At the present time many TNR programs do not produce substantial and persistent reductions in cat populations, and those that do often fail to effectively document this achievement or to publicize their success....As a result, TNR has become increasingly controversial, with TNR advocates and wildlife conservationists often staking out fundamentally incompatible positions.and also,
The unfortunate reality is that many sterilizations currently being performed on outdoor cats have no significant impact on population size, and that consequently trap–neuter–return (TNR) cat management programs have come under increasing criticism and scrutiny.The wildlife conservationists mentioned there have published many papers of their own asserting that TNR does not reduce cat populations, and even have published papers arguing that TNR is not humane to feral cats, much less to the wildlife that the cats hunt. Let me also point my suspicion that "Catch and Kill" is a pejorative term used exclusively by people that have an ideological stake in advocating for TNR. It's not used, for example, in discussing the elimination of rats or cane toads or other invasive species.
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.Geogene ( talk) 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.( MOS:INTRO) ....
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.( MOS:LEAD) ....
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it( MOS:OPEN) (Note that "Neutral Point of View" used there is actually jargon that's defined at WP:NPOV.
Although proponents of TNR assert that they are providing services that allow cats to live full and healthy lives, freeroaming and feral cats are often in very poor condition (Jessup 2004). The animal welfare community opposes “cat hoarding,” whereby people care for more pets than they can adequately support, because it is considered inhumane. Trap-neuter-return is essentially cat hoarding without walls.[9]. What are the Wikipedia policies on opinions? Not to state them as facts. To quote WP:WIKIVOICE,
Avoid stating opinions as factsand
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
This may ultimately prove to be an unproductive debate, since public opinion in developed countries is unlikely to support a total abandonment of TNR in favor of widespread cat management using lethal methods....This article is based on the premise that a transition to more effective TNR is possible, and on the expectation that broadly applied (as opposed to specifically targeted) lethal removal methods for managing free-roaming cats will not gain wide public acceptance, regardless of potential wildlife benefits.But this is not how Wikipedia's neutrality policy works:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.( WP:DUE). There is also an essay, Wikipedia:Academic_bias, that strongly argues that WP is biased towards academic sources, which would mean that the number of grassroots TNR practitioners out there or the number of municipalities practicing it is largely irrelevant in determining which POVs should have the most representation in articles. Geogene ( talk) 05:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you are saying Wikipedia could favor the views of a small handful of anti-TNR academics over major national animal welfare organizations like ASPCA and the Humane Society (not including PETA) which also include legal experts and academics associated with them?Yes, you understand. The views of the scientific community on scientific issues (how to manage animal populations is biology) take precedence over local governments and NGOs like the Humane Society. As for this paper you cited, [11], it's my understanding that Animals is an MDPI journal. MDPI journals are listed at WP:RSP as questionable sources. I was puzzled earlier when you mentioned "NIH studies". This is not an NIH study, see the disclaimer on the top of the page that says,
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.. Geogene ( talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Advantages and disadvantagessection (namely
Risks to human and animal healthand
Effects on wildlife from hunting) that does not relate explicitly to TNR nor its effects, but instead generally to feral cats, and we should not be equating a square to a rectangle. Either the connection needs to be sourced or it should be moved to the feral cat article. The TNR process, the single most important thing about this subject, isn't even detailed anywhere in the article body, only in the lead.
A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a junk science device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.Polygraphs are like TNR in that they're popular out there the world, with many US government agencies routinely using them, but viewed as junk science in the journals. Two other examples of articles about popular but ineffective things are Laundry ball
A laundry ball or washing ball is a product made of solid, insoluble material promoted as a substitute for laundry detergent. Producers of laundry balls often make pseudoscientific claims about their mechanisms of action and exaggerate the extent of their benefits.[1][2]and Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific[1][2] self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing personality types.Geogene ( talk) 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
TNR as a method of managing free-roaming cat populations is controversial. Global attitudes towards these cats vary from those who see them as pets to those who see them as infestations which need to be eliminated.But there's that word you don't like again. Geogene ( talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)