Talk:Trap–neuter–return

Recent edits

@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)

I also see that that later disappeared completely, and that the article now contains an enormous number of broken references. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: Yeah, neither of those are good changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Can we revert this article back to this version [3]? The post-April version is just not an improvement. A lot of references are gone, and a huge chunk of text on wildlife impacts also disappeared. Geogene (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A revert certainly sounds reasonable to me. Removal of sourced information is clearly a WP:BRD matter. However, I would be cautious about intervening edits made by others; it's not fair to nuke everyone's input to fix one person's mistake or PoV. Integrating minor good-faith edits can be tedious but is necessary. I've not pored over the diffs, so I'm not sure there are any to account for in this case; just making a general statement about major/mass reverts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 2 May 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)

Dogs

Is this method not also used on feral dogs? Why is everything about cats? Finnigami (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Because nearly all the sources out there on TNR are specifically about TNR on cats. If it were humane, effective, and cheap, as its proponents claim, you'd think they'd be TNR'ing rats and a dozen other invasive mammals that aren't "charismatic" and aren't widely kept as pets, but they aren't. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange POV issues (still?)

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)

@Ironmatic1: I'd like to see a proposed re-write of that lead, with sourcing. And I agree the advocacy and opposition section should probably go. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This source [5] does not support the statement "Scientific research has not found TNR to be an effective means of controlling the feral cat population." It mostly supports the statement they make: "These results suggest that, in cities of similar size with comparable cat populations and TNR efforts, five years of trapping and sterilization is insufficient to reduce unowned cat populations." Summary is a non-profit started offering TNR in the area at low/no cost, and the trail cameras were stationed away from places they knew had colonies with TNR taking place. The general impact of the area in total is over 5 years, 27% of the cats on their trail cameras had their ears tipped, and they saw a 22% reduction in the population, from 62 to 48 cats without tipped ears or collars (so if that's not success, what is success to them? Preventing population growth was obviously successful in this stsudy) Other studies have found you need 75% compliance to reduce a population over 12 years,. The other problem is this study doesn't compare to anything else - usually TNR is compared to capture and kill. Denaar (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • To quote the source, 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)
  • Also, Denaar, the study points out that, 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)

Biased content with intent to undermine and discredit TNR has been added to this page since 2020

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)

Let me point out that your first two edits [6], [7] entirely whitewashed the negative effects of cats on the environment, as well as any criticism of TNR as a means of effective cat population control. The footnote you mentioned by the word "controversial", is a source that in fact acknowledges that TNR is controversial. You say that this source [8] is "overwhelmingly in favor of TNR", yet this pro-TNR source says, 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.

Asserting that TNR is "humane" in Wikivoice, when reliable sources dispute that fact, would not be neutral.

Creating an "Opposition and criticism" section and banishing all critical views there is not a recommended practice, see the essay at WP:CRITS which says, 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)

Regarding your first statement:

"Let me point out that your first two edits [6], [7] entirely whitewashed the negative effects of cats on the environment, as well as any criticism of TNR as a means of effective cat population control."

Please explain how negative effects of cats on the environment and criticism of TNR belong in the lede definition of the entry. I fully agree that this belongs in the body content, but for what purpose do you propose to focus on negative aspects with prominence in the lede? This is the kind of bias that does not belong on this page.

The article in question concludes with the following paragraph:

"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. If this is true, then encouraging the improvement of TNR practice, along with concomitant efforts to improve responsible pet stewardship, will ultimately be of more practical benefit to both cats and wildlife than the current polarized and protracted debate between pro-TNR and anti-TNR constituencies."

I'm comfortable with taking my argument off the table that the article is supportive of TNR and misused here. But I stand by my other points that this research is superceded by more recent findings, as well as evidenced by municipalities that endorse the practice of TNR. And also that in contrast to lethal methods, it is actually less controversial to the general public, even insofar as it is highly controversial to a vocal subset of wildlife and bird conservationists (which I have already mentioned needs to be addressed further into the body of this entry).

Point taken that "Catch & Kill" is objectionable. Please confirm if "lethal method" is the preferred and accurate term and I will keep in mind as I continue edits.

I'll explain further why "humane" belongs here as a key descriptor and does not function as a positive or negative qualifier. There are two main methods of cat population control. The lethal method is essentially a pest-control approach. It is a core differentiator from its predecessor in that not only the method, but also the motive for TNR operates converse to the lethal method. The motivation to harm cats vs the motivation to help them is an essential characteristic.

I understand and defer to your last point about best practices on wikipedia that discourage "opposition" and "criticism" sections. Perhaps we have a section on wildlife conservation and PETA (a separate section dedicated to each) that can share their views on TNR. Nylnoj (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Leads should include prominent controversies and necessary context (but not get bogged down in them): 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.

Whether TNR is humane or not is an opinion, and opinions differ. For example, this opinion piece by Lepczyk et al., (the authors are academics involved in wildlife conservation), equate TNR to animal hoarding. 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 facts and 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.

I believe that it's fair to say that TNR is controversial, though. Yes as you mentioned, many municipalities are practicing it, and the public appears to believe it's the most humane option for controlling feral cat populations. And some reliable sources like this one we were just discussing [10] seem to present TNR as something that wildlife proponents will just have to accept for political reasons, regardless of whether or not it actually works or not, or is harmful to the environment or not: 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)

Addressing your first paragraph: The controversy created by bird & wildlife conservationists is not prominent. It exists in a specific niche of their interests. Trap-neuter-return is the less controversial of the two existing methods of cat population control. To open with "controversial" is disengenuous and assumes that a less controversial method exists, which is not true. (Or is this a point you dispute? Please clarify if your intention is to imply that TNR is the more controversial of the two methods.)

Addressing your second paragraph: The practice of TNR is described as "humane" by several government entities and municipalities:

https://www.houstontx.gov/barc/trap_neuter_return.html "A Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program is a program approved by the Director of BARC Animal Shelter & Adoptions in which community cats are humanely trapped, evaluated, vaccinated, sterilized, and marked by an identifying notch in the left ear, all administered by a veterinarian, and returned to the trap location. TNR is a proven method that is both humane and effective."

https://www.cityofbowie.org/1047/Trap-Neuter-Return "TNR is a caretaker program by which community cats are humanely trapped, spayed or neutered, vaccinated, ear-tipped and returned back to their outdoor homes where they were trapped.TNR is the only method proven to humanely reduce community cat populations."

https://www.laanimalservices.com/citywide-cat-program "The program includes education and outreach efforts, and trap-neuter-return (TNR), which humanely traps community cats, spays or neuters and vaccinates them, and returns the sterilized, now healthier, cat back to their natural outdoor home. "

I have purposely avoided any sources that are soley focused on cat rescue work or could spin overly positive to TNR. These are just a sampling.

I don't see the relevance of including the research you linked which is dated from 2009 and seems to have no purpose except to continue stuffing this talk and the TNR page generally with anti-TNR talking points.

Addressing your third paragraph: 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?

Adding this paper from 2023 that acknowledges the position of the veterinary community in support of TNR:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10215830/#:~:text=The%20veterinary%20community%20recognizes%20TNR,the%20free%2Droaming%20cat%20population. "The veterinary community recognizes TNR as the most humane and effective method of controlling the free-roaming cat population."

I recommend using my previous edit in the lede: a humane method of outdoor cat population control. And sourcing to ASPCA https://www.aspca.org/helping-people-pets/shelter-intake-and-surrender/closer-look-community-cats

If you continue to object to the word 'humane', I can remove it if you agree to remove 'controversial'. Let me know if this compromise is acceptable.

Can you please confirm if "lethal method" is the preferred and accurate term for cat culling, catch & kill, etc. Contrast between the two existing methods needs to be added to this page for context and I want to use the correct language. Nylnoj (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RE: 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)

I'll try to keep my input short and simple. In the interest of transparency, this was brought to my attention via the Wikimedia Discord. As someone who used to participate in TNR many years ago and is thus familiar with both opposition and the intentions behind TNR, I felt I should weigh in.

In my opinion, as it stands, the article simply does not satisfy neutrality and provide a balanced, nuanced view of the subject. What bothers me most is this article has an almost combative tone, a call-and-response debate voice, and there is far too much emphasis on the pros-vs-cons. There is a good amount of text in the Advantages and disadvantages section (namely Risks to human and animal health and 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.

The use of "controversial" is fine (and I agree belongs in the lead although probably not in the very first sentence). The use of "humane" (as stated by primary sources) is fine. These are both cite-able statements. Even in the event that the majority of usable, reliable sources—specifically scientific publications—determine that TNR is inhumane or ineffective, the organizations and municipalities implementing these policies should not be overlooked and this is in keeping with Geogene's earlier statement about academic bias on Wikipedia. – TCMemoire 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all fair points. Extensive changes are needed to the entire page to remove the anti-TNR bias that has been introduced since 2021 so that the content can be neutral and informative instead of persuading a reader that TNR is bad. I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but I'm a subject matter expert in TNR, so I hope there is room for me in this process to move this page to a better footing. In transparency, I went to the Discord because I was unfamiliar with the editing process (I didn't know about the Talk, for example) and the changes needed on this page seemed extensive and frankly overwhelming. I'll also note that @Geogene's edits to the TNR subsection of the Feral Cats page have also been flagged by another editor for negative bias in the Talk section.

It may be productive to look at the first paragraph rather than the first line as a starting point. Here's one option:

Trap–neuter–return (TNR), also known as trap–neuter–release, is a humane method of outdoor cat population control. (footnote to Alley Cat Allies) The process involves live-trapping the cats, having them spayed or neutered, ear-tipped for identification, and, if possible, vaccinated, then releasing them back to their original location (keep existing footnote). If the location is deemed unsafe or otherwise inappropriate, the cats may be relocated to other appropriate areas (barn/farmyard homes are often considered best). (keep existing footnote) Ideally, friendly adults and kittens young enough to be easily socialized are retained and placed for adoption. Feral adult cats cannot easily be socialized, shun most human interaction and do not fare well in confinement, so returning them to their original location, where they have identified food sources, water and shelter, and possibly a caretaker, is considered the most humane option. Cats suffering from severe medical problems such as terminal, contagious, or untreatable illnesses or injuries are often euthanized. (keep existing footnote) TNR is considered controversial by some bird and wildlife conservationists who favor cat culling as a more immediate population control method, in their view. (Am open to edits from @Geogene on this last line, including source)

Notes

I'm open to a different source for the first line. I proposed Allie Cat Allies because they were one of the first organizations in the US to introduce TNR.

In the second sentence I changed 'released to outdoors' to 'released to their original location'. I think this is an important clarification. It would be inhumane to release the cats to any outdoor location they're unfamiliar with, so return to where they were trapped is important (For example, it was recently reported that in Saudi Arabia, cats were being released to the desert where they would surely die).

Clarification also added to the 5th sentence from 'Feral cats cannot be socialized' to 'Feral adult cats cannot easily be socialized' there are methods of socializing feral adult cats (which are not easy) and feral kittens can often be quite easily socialized. Also added clarification on why returning ferals to the outdoor location where they were found is important - explaining the R of Return.

Open to other edits on content incorporating 'controversial' into the first paragraph. Nylnoj (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think 'humane' and 'controversial' should be left out of the first sentence entirely. The first lead paragraph should focus on, in a couple of sentences, defining TNR. @Nylnoj: as yours is written, there is a lot of detail that would be better suited to a breakout section (perhaps titled "Methods").

Typically, when there is controversy about a subject, this is described further down in the lead and is limited (from what I have seen on longer articles), unless it's something egregiously controversial like a conspiracy theory (see: Flat earth). The point of the lead is to summarize points made in the main body of text, and it should not be a repository of exclusive information.

Let's take Animal testing and Destruction of ivory, both Good Articles on controversial subjects within WikiProject Animal rights. These articles have much more limited scopes surrounding controversy and advocacy, and they do it in a way that is balanced; the voice of the article does not introduce a pro/con and then refute it. Not even Dog fighting and Badger culling in the United Kingdom have the majorities of their articles centered around controversy; they provide the history, the methodology, social implications, relevant legislation and communities, etc. as all Wikipedia articles should, first and foremost, focus on a comprehensive scope of the article subject.

I have also bumped up an image to the top of the article and added one of an ear tipped cat. There are plenty of those to choose from, I just chose one where the ear tip is prominent (this needs to be elaborated upon in the article anyway). I hope this is a non-controversial edit. – TCMemoire 21:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Enough scientific sources are critical of TNR that I view the subject area as a WP:FRINGE domain. Articles about Fringe subjects usually don't waste much time identifying the lack of scientific support for the subject. A comparable article is Polygraph, whose first sentence is, 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)

I believe outright calling it a fringe theory is a bit extreme. There are still multiple academic sources that defend its usage, and a large swatch of policy relies on it. Please see the paragraph at questionable science. This determination should not be left up to one, or a small pocket, of editors to decide; and in cases like this where the fringe status is not immediately obvious, should be referred to the fringe theories noticeboard (FTN). This will allow us to officially make that determination and will affect the article's voice going forward.

It seems to me we are no closer to reaching a solution that satisfies all parties, as we are still focusing in on the reliability of coverage on the article's subject rather than its content. As such, I believe it is in our best interest to open a request for comment and flag this discussion at the FTN (rather than at the NPOV noticeboard). As dispute resolution is untrodden territory for me (I usually stay in my historic article creation, maintenance, and antivandal boxes), I will await further input regarding whether or not that course of action should be taken at this time. – TCMemoire – TCMemoire 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good, I'm in favor of a formal RfC here, to be publicized at the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Careful thought needs to go into the wording, so it'll be clear to participants that it's about (I presume) whether pro-TNR science is FRINGE in some capacity or not and not about animal ethics. (Separate RfCs about ethics/humane-ness and opinion, attribution, and Wikivoice around it can always be done later). Geogene (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@TCMemoire and @Geogene, how does this proceed? Who opens the RfC and who will add the page to the fringe theories notice board? And what is the process of the fringe theories noticeboard? Will users there independently research the topic or do I start pulling together sources, municipal ordinances and policies, national organization's position statements, recent news articles on the topic? Nylnoj (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Posting at the Fringe Theories noticeboard is no big deal, and it can be found at WP:FTN. You could simply ask there today. An RFC is something that can drag on for months, instructions for that are at WP:RFC. Geogene (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

TNR is not a fringe theory, so it won't be me posting there. If it does get posted there, I'd like to be alerted and if allowed, add a comprehensive and thorough body of research, municipal ordinances, and news sources to make sure anyone adjudicating this on that page understands that this is one person's ax-grinding, and nothing close to a fringe theory. NPOV noticeboard makes more sense since this is clearly a page that has strong negative bias against TNR injected into it since 2021.

Whether it goes to fringe noticeboard or NPOV noticeboard, it looks like it can still proceed to RfC. Most of the active items on that page are specific questions about lines from a page. I don't see much about opening up an entire page to extensive overhaul. Do I begin with the first paragraph and then work my way down? If it's a slow process and each edit will end up in RfC, this could take years. I'm guessing that this is possibly @Geogene's intent. Anyway to find out how the extensive edits in 2021 were allowed? I have a hunch that @Geogene knows. Nylnoj (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history on the page, it looks like @Geogene began introducing anti-TNR talking points into this page in 2021 and has had a gradual run-up over the last three years in increasing to inject content that discredits TNR so that the page essentially functions now as a vehicle for anti-TNR propaganda. There is so much that needs to be done to the page to bring it back to neutrality and @Geogene has a history of aggressively fighting edits. I think the best course of action is to propose reversion of the page back to its content from April 15, 2021 and then work on further improvemments to the page from there. Nylnoj (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no April 15 2021 version. Maybe you mean this February 1 2021 version [12] that says, 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)

@Nylnoj: @Geogene: After spending some time weighing the options for dispute resolution, and talk page discussions are now going in circles, I have decided that the best way to resolve this is to go with the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is simply too much complexity for RfC or third opinion, which are best equipped to deal with specific questions; if the only issue was whether and how "controversial" should appear in the lead, either of those would be ideal, but there is much more to this discussion. And because there are WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV concerns, posting on any of those noticeboards would likely render an incomplete verdict and omit crucial context.

One of you—and probably best if Nylnoj does it, as they are the one who began this discussion—must file the DRN. As my involvement in this is limited and my intent here has been to act as a casual mediator, I do not plan on participating in the DRN unless requested. I recommend reading up on the process at the linked noticeboard, as well as the FAQ. I know this is very new for Nylnoj, and Geogene, I don't know if the same applies to you, but if either of you need assistance, there are DRN volunteers who will be more than happy to help you file and guide you through the process.

In the meantime, and for the time that it takes to resolve this dispute, I highly discourage anything more than minor edits to the article, except where directed by a dispute moderator. Anything more than grammar/MOS fixes, in the best case, may confuse third parties by changing the article's content so that it no longer reflects mentioned issues; at worst, it may be seen as edit warring. – TCMemoire 21:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nylnoj must. I'm still not sure what the issues are. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A dispute resolution ticket has been opened. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#trap-neuter-return Nylnoj (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding an update here for transparency and reporting purposes: I approached the active editor on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard to confirm whether the best course of action is to pursue a ticket there. I opened the ticket and @Geogene left a message on my Talk page that he might not participate in the Dispute Resolution due to personal attacks against him made by me. However, he did engage in the Dispute Resolution ticket and objected to the moderator because I had approached him separately about opening a ticket and also because he had made a joke which was not received well by @Geogene. His recommendation was to find an additional moderator at the Teahouse of Pumphouse. I have proceeded with a request at the Teahouse to find an additional moderator. Nylnoj (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)