Talk:Carnivore

Wiki Education assignment: BISC 2 Genetics, Ecology, and Evolution

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andyvrabel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pintobean9.

— Assignment last updated by IRiptide (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Carnivores on non-meat diets in domestic/captivity

My addition below has been removed before, so let's discuss why this should be included or not. What carnivores eat in practice is described very well in the page in general. What is otherwise missing is if carnivores have to eat meat. This is easy to misinterpret from this page, and the notable counter examples help avoiding that misinterpretation, by showing that being a member of a carnivorous species does not always require that individual to eat animal tissue.

The section in question:

In captivity or domestic settings, obligate carnivores like cats and crocodiles can in principle get all their required nutrients from processed food made from plant and synthetic sources.

As to the coment that the sources are not scientific, the Guardian article references the primary research directly.

Sklabb (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to put anything except an explanation of what a carnivore is.

If you feel you must discuss about feeding carnivores an artificial, processed, non-animal protein diet in captivity, that deserves another entry that should be linked to, not an alteration of the primary explanation of a basic scientific concept of biology/zoology.

Adding such discussion of artificial dietary alteration, especially with flimsy and unreliable media interpretations drawing from very limited academic sources that propound ideas that do not have any significant adoption or consensus among biologists much less veterinarians, is extraneous to the basic information intended for this page. 64.231.234.169 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the text you removed was "extraneous." It would definitely be of interest to Wikipedia readers to know that carnivorous animals can theoretically eat synthetically made foods. We should judge the WP:RELEVANCE of the text using Wikipedia policy. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It adds no additional understanding of what biology and zoology defines and understands what a carnivore is. Therefore it is certainly extraneous.

Furthermore, the added information is clearly derived from part of an ideological position based in "veganism" as applied to pets (for lack of a better and more complete description that would take too much space). An examination of the user's contributions shows that promotion/dissemination of such vegan ideology is the entirety of their edits to pages.

In any event the sources are unreliable, second hand media interpretations of a limited academic source and therefore is not a quality source to be used as an assertion, which is how they were posted.

Again, this information does not belong in a primary article. If the user believes this information has value to the public, they should create a separate article dedicated to the subject and discuss them there as the topic requires, providing a link from this page in an appropriate spot as an informational offering and not as an authoritative statement. 50.101.105.251 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Please try to assume good faith and be civil with your fellow editors

2. The Guardian is regarded as a reliable source, and the article itself links to the research.

3. You said that the text “adds no additional understanding of what biology and and zoology defines and understands what a carnivore is.” Please remember this article aims to teach people information about carnivores, it is not a dictionary.

Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

At no time did I not assume good faith, or was uncivil, so I am puzzled why you felt the need to state that, unless you wish to imply that I was either or both of those things, which, again, I was not. Are you not assuming my good faith yourself?

The Guardian, a public media company, is in no way considered to be reliable or authoritative scientific source on zoology or biology by the scientific community. The second-hand source is literally non-authoritative even in title: "Cats may get health benefits from vegan diet, study suggests" using "may" and "suggests".

This is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopedia intended for factual information. The information added is not considered primary or reliably factual by the scientific community.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

Do you wish to proceed to a formal dispute resolution? 50.101.105.251 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You said: "An examination of the user's contributions shows that vegan ideology is the entirety of their edits to pages." I decided to give you a reminder on Wikipedia policy. There is consensus on Wikipedia that The Guardian is generally reliable. I reminded you that Wikipedia was not a dictionary because you said the content "adds no additional understanding of what biology and zoology defines and understands what a carnivore is". Wikipedia is not strictly about defining and understanding what things are, there can be relevant information added to non-primary articles because it could of interest to the reader. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian's general reliability as to good faith on reported facts and editorial opinion is not germane as it is tentatively discussing ideas not in consensus, which it even admits, thus the title of the article with two words indicating uncertainty of the information contained in the article. However, the statements made based on this source do make authoritative statements that are, at best, disputed.

The original user's edit history is as germane as is any editor's that may be editing based upon similar principles, because many ideologically driven users do not make good faith or credible edits. This may or may not be the case with this user, but it is clear the information added is outside of the scientific consensus and the intent of the article.

You are not constructively engaging with my discussion points but dismissing them with little to no good arguments in a very authoritarian manner.

Again, do you wish to proceed with formal dispute resolution? 50.101.105.251 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"You are not constructively engaging with my discussion points but dismissing them with little to no good arguments in a very authoritarian manner." Which point have I not engaged with? Professor Penguino (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Which point have you not engaged with?

That the original editor likely made the edits due to ideological bias, and therefore the information is not as neutral as should be expected in a scientific article.

That the source itself indicates that it is uncertain on the subject while the statements made here using the article as a source are most certainly not indicating any sort of uncertainty. They are presented as fact, while still in general professional dispute.

That the intent of the article is to provide good scientific information supported by the scientific disciplines of biology and zoology and the contentious edits are an issue as a result of their not being scientifically validated.

That an appropriate resolution should be that the information be removed and placed in another dedicated article, as with the one on "Vegetarian and vegan dog diet".

Whether you wish to proceed with formal dispute resolution. 50.101.105.251 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We can open a request for comment or get a third opinion if that's what you want. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me, the original editor, reply here, rather than this comment getting lost replying to an IP. I agree with Professor Penguino.

Perhaps it helps if I explain why I chose to write the sentence this way, and we can talk about improvements to this. First of all, I don't think the statement so strong there is no consensus on this.

1. "like cats and crocodiles" limits the scope of the comment to only those that are directly backed by a source
2. "in principle" further reduces the strength of the claim
3. "get all their required nutrients" rather than actual health outcomes

There are many sources that advise against feeding a cat a plant-based diet, but still technically support this phrasing simply by acknowledging it is possible (in principle). E.g. https://www.bluecross.org.uk/advice/cat/food-and-weight/can-cats-be-vegan

For the supporting article on cats, I chose the Guardian article over the primary research here. This is to avoid using primary research, which can be easy to accidentally misuse (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Perhaps an alternative, like this somewhat older review, would have been better. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57

As to any bias on my side, of course that is possible, as it is for everyone. I know a lot about plant-based diets and vegansim, that is why I contribute to those topics. "captivity or domestic" is not a vegan view btw, a vegan view would have simply said "captivity" as domesticated animals are seen as captives too there.

Lastly, I'll add that personally, it is a bit annoying to be accused of bias based on previous edits by someone who doesn't have an account... None of that matters for the discussion on a specific edit though, please attack the argument, not the person. Sklabb (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)