Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewilding (Carnivores)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Reintroduction. While there is certainly no consensus for deletion below, neither are there any rationales presented that the topic of "rewilding" is at all different from that described at Reintroduction or elsewhere. Because of this, Rewilding (Carnivores) likely should not have its own page, but can be covered with a few additions at Reintroduction. A merger should be discussed at Talk:Reintroduction, but is not required. lifebaka++ 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewilding (Carnivores)[edit]

Rewilding (Carnivores) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not by itself appear to be a notable topic. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it contains mergeable content, which might go to several other articles: Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). Reviewing the Rewilding (conservation biology) article and its citations and searching for the term "rewilding" on Google Books, it is apparent that by far the most widespread use of the term "rewilding" is with the meaning indicated in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article, applying to the managed alteration of an entire ecosystem. The meaning promoted by the creator of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article, User:China's Tiger, referring to animals bred in captivity being released into the wild, appears to be primarily used by one organization, the Save China's Tigers project. Any prominence of this use of the term in general Google searches or elsewhere on Wikipedia seem to result from vigorous promotional efforts on the part of that project, which have included User:China's Tiger introducing substantial mention of the project and many links to the organization's web site in many Wikipedia articles such as the main Tiger article. See also the talk page statement by another user who has contributed to several related conservation topics, Caroline Fraser, Ph.D.. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One thing I should point out is that this article has been rewritten considerably in the course of editing disputes since its creation, so what you may be seeing in looking at it now may be quite dissimilar to the original article introduced by its creator. I actually think that content from various historical versions is worth saving and merging, it just doesn't appear to me (in a cursory review of the Google Books instances of the term "rewilding" and its use within a few other scoped searches, made as a non-expert in conservation) that this sense of the term "rewilding" is used outside of the Save China's Tigers project and its affiliates (and perhaps in some news outlets reporting on the organization or its press releases.) That assessment is entirely in English; perhaps if the original Chinese term that this meaning is derived from is widely used it would be appropriate to have an article on that term, I'm not sure. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that it would make sense to delete the topic Rewilding (Carnivores). In attempting to edit the topic to bring it in line with accepted definitions of the term "rewilding," I realized that much of the material--which covers the rehabilitation and reintroduction efforts which can accompany major rewilding projects or can be undertaken on their own, as a means of preventing extinction --was covered already in Rehabilitation, Reintroduction, and various topics describing individual species (Gray wolf, black-footed ferret, etc.) Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. comment added 19:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it would be best to keep this article and peacefully discuss merging at article talk pages.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say that reintroduction of carnivores (e.g. wolfs) is indeed different from reintroduction of other species in certain aspects, although I am not an expert. There is definitely a content overlap and promotion problems, but I do not see this article as a terrible POV fork that deserves an outright deletion. There are also some behavior issues around, but I am not at liberty to discuss them.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this AfD nomination has nothing to do with WP:POV (if only because POV would not be a reason to delete an article, it would be a reason to change the article's contents.) The reason that I have nominated this article for deletion is that it does not appear to fulfill WP:Notability, and hence shouldn't be its own article, but should at most be a sub-section of Rewilding (conservation biology). Any discussion of the article creator's motives is only mentioned here to recommend to Wikipedians examination of whether or not the reason to create this article was to document a real topic in conservation biology that is independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could be written as a good separate sub-article if it was focused on the role of carnivores in ecosystems and on the history of exterminating carnivores, which ultimately led to the importance of their re-introduction. It is not properly written right now, but this is not a reason for deletion. Biophys (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that the article "could be written..." in a certain way, do you mean that you think that the subject fulfills WP:Notability and is a genuine, real, discrete topic outside of the confines of Wikipedia, in conservation biology in general as opposed to just within the community of people working with the Save China's Tiger's project? If that is not what you mean - if you think that Rewilding (Carnivores) does not fulfill WP:Notability but you are making a separate argument unrelated to Wikipedia policy in opposition to deleting it, you need to clearly say so. Anything at all could be massaged and sculpted into a passable-looking article but that is a completely separate issue from whether or not a particular topic meets the standards that the Wikipedia community has set out for whether or not a topic is deserving of its own article - what we have chosen to call "notability".
Did you notice that one of the other accounts participating in this AfD, User:LeoGard which was also coordinating with User:China's Tiger to insert text and links about the Save China's Tigers project into various articles around Wikipedia, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Keep Rewilding of Tigers is not an isolated example of restoring carnivores to ecosystems. Rewilding of "animals bred in captivity being released into the wild..." is a means used by many rewilding projects other than the Save China's Tigers project, as the article's edit history shows. The content of the article should be a merge between the original version of the article by China's Tigers and the edits since then
A prevalence of material by the original author of the article is to be expected; the edit history reflects a continuing whittling away of CT's material, not systematic inclusion of CT's material by CT. There is insufficient evidence here to prove 'promotion of material' (let alone "vigorous promotional efforts...which have included China's Tiger..."). There is, however, considerable evidence of 'deletion of material'. WP:AGF should prevent speculation on motivation or vested interests behind either the singular restoration or the continued deletions.
(I note that AGF and 'special interest' rules such as WP:COI are utterly incompatible; WP is here engaged in habitual cherrypicking of rationales to suit editors. It is the content that editors add that should be critiqued, revised or deleted; their motivations can never be the subject of anything other than speculation, as AGF quite rightly points out. I would also accept a version of WP:AGF that allowed for reasoned arguments with evidence being presented in support of assertions about editors, as COI actually does (if one reads between the lines sufficiently); sadly, the norm for the use of COI is to quote it, with subsequent voters dittoing hard, every time there is a similarity between usernames and article title, without any evidence from the article of an actual problem.)
Having said that, CT's version was so gutted that I can sympathize with his restoration. What he failed to notice is that good material had also been added.
China's Tigers' original version and the one instance in which he restored his version may rightly be criticized as not containing sufficient evidence of the rewilding of carnivores as a notable procedure, via examples, but many examples were added in the intervening two weeks.
The added material shows examples of rewilding by restoring carnivores: the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores. A few non-carnivores are also listed; these may be appropriate to include, given an appropriate reason, such as having been bred in captivity and then released or as successful examples of restoration projects, etc.
Anarchangel (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that the deletions you are talking about were done by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D., someone who appears to be a relatively new member of the Wikipedia community attracted here by User:China's Tiger's activities, who is probably unfamiliar with many WP policies. Unless, that is, you are referring to the occasion when I deleted (or corrected, rather) the claim that User:China's Tiger inserted into the Tiger article stating that one of the founders of the Save China's Tigers coined the phrase "rewilding" in 2003.
(A claim which, though that user accepted the corrected version in Tiger, he or she then repeated upon creation of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article. So note that this claim was first inserted into Rewilding (conservation biology) and corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserted into Tiger and corrected by me with those same citations, and then an entirely new article was created to make that claim in.)
As far as your characterization that this is Wikipedia carrying out some sort of cherrypicking, I would note that this is the first or perhaps second time I have ever made an AfD nomination, so at the very least this is unrelated to any ongoing Wikipedia activity or project. I simply happened across some of the other stuff that User:China's Tiger had been doing and started watching related pages. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assertion that the recovery by wilding of the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores, and the citations of these restoration projects, show that there is ample proof of notability for this subject. I stand by my characterization of the nomination as dwelling unnecessarily on China Tiger's mistakes, rather than the article and its potential, and all the more so now, I'm afraid.
However, when I spoke of 'cherrypicking', I was not speaking of you. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was referring to the way that WP:COI and WP:AGF are diametrically opposed in their perception of Ad hominem criticism, and for anyone to have created COI while AGF existed must have required at the very least a negligent attitude to consistency. I can't think of a single good reason for invoking COI; all the possible scenarios argue against it. For example, C's T bad edits, not the old ones that I knew and spoke of, but the new ones as you have described them, are so obviously bad edits that anyone trying to correct them can easily justify doing so, without requiring recourse to COI, let alone unproven COI. In the event of a 'tie' between material being acceptable or not, COI simply clouds the issue with Ad Hominem. And putting these two scenarios aside, there still is the certainty that accusing someone of COI automatically 'outs' them, invading their privacy. There are stupid things about some WP rules, and many many bad applications of WP rules, but that rule is not only unnecessary but harmful. And so to cherrypicking: AGF understands that ad hominem is an argument that is beside the point. COI, on the other hand, charges boldly into the fray to do battle with the evil propagandists, based solely on the assumption that they are acting on a vested interest, and the additional assumption that this will automatically make them write a bad article, whether either of those things are actually true or not. Anarchangel (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly agree that there are many stupid things about some WP rules. I personally understand the spirit behind AGF but I think it's so hard to articulate well that it should basically never be mentioned outside of the project page about it.
The reason why I spoke specifically about User:China's Tiger's general behavior was in hopes that people looking at this issue would very closely examine that user's previous behavior and activities, but you're probably correct that I presented it poorly. I think that WP:COI is poorly worded in some ways to the point that it doesn't actually match up very well with the standard English meaning of the phrase "conflict of interest" very well, which is why I did not refer to it. (I also don't object to people with a standard-English "conflict of interest" editing Wikipedia as long as they play by the rules, which User:China's Tiger does not seem to be doing.)
(But I'll also note that while I agree that it's not kosher to engage in ad hominem rhetorical logical fallacy, I don't really have much problem in general with criticizing users themselves or their behavior, which is not the same thing. I recognize that I'm at odds with much of the Wikipedia community on this, though.)
Also - in case you haven't looked at the article recently, note that during this AfD User:China's Tiger has gone in, removed all the cited material about Blackfooted ferrets, etc., and restored the claim that someone from the Save China's Tigers project coined the term "rewilding". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CT's later edit I know of. In fact, I mentioned it myself, in this discussion, although I took care to phrase it differently. He restored his version. He did not merge subsequent material. I have seen far worse, often. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite noble of you to be so reserved in your criticism, but now that it's certain that CT is either a sockmaster or engaging in meatpuppetry I don't think that we need to tip-toe around any of these issues any longer.
Just, for future reference, sometimes at least when someone is harsher in their criticism than you would be it's because there is evidence that your own investigation of a matter has not uncovered yet. Please be more reserved in making recommendations in AfDs or elsewhere when you haven't looked into an issue thoroughly. If you wanted to make a statement concerning Wikipedia policies that weren't even mentioned in the AfD nomination a comment would have been more appropriate than your "keep" recommendation here.
(Unless, that is, you are still of the opinion that this topic fulfills WP:Notability or is otherwise a genuine topic in conservation biology independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). If you're going to make such an argument please include evidence about secondary or tertiary sources similar to my comments about Google Books above - ideally, sources that actually contain the word "rewild" and use it in this sense, independent of the Save China's Tigers project, and in a manner indicating why this unusual terminology usage should be more than a footnote in Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, or Translocation (wildlife conservation). Also, if you disagree with WP:Notability itself, it's really more appropriate to go discuss that on its project page rather than make a WP:POINT about it here in this AfD.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not required[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators:

It is unfortunate indeed that an individual has successfully orchestrated a lengthy campaign to repeatedly alter Wikipedia’s page on ‘Rewilding’ and that it is now being considered for deletion.

It does not take a doctorate in literature to do a search on ‘Rewilding’ and realize that the word has 3 significant past and current usages, that are well expressed on the Wikipedia’s existing Rewilding disambiguation page:

Rewilding may refer to:

· Rewilding (species), the rehabilitation process of animals, especially predators into the wild

· Rewilding (conservation biology), the return of habitats to a natural state

· Rewilding (anarchism), the reversal of human "domestication"

These three usages have major and obvious distinctions evidenced by rewilding’s usage in conservation biology (or ecology). For instance, the controversial ‘Pleistocene Rewilding’ proposal where large areas of North American wilderness would see the introduction of elephants, camels, zebras, lions and cheetahs as a part of large-scale (regional) act of ecological ‘restoration’. This is substantively different from its meaning in reference to the rewilding of endangered species.

I would like to recapitulate the history of our attempt to introduce the rewilding (species) concept to Wikipedia readers substantiated by the Discussion and History pages. We initiated the Rewilding page because many people were interested in the concept of rewilding captive carnivores. Ms. Fraser, who has repeatedly deleted and altered our entries in a diligent attempt to expunge any usage other than its conservation biology usage, has also deleted links to pages on Save China’s Tigers website which elaborated on the rewilding process of tigers as ”properly belong under rubric of wildlife rehabilitation and reintroduction”. In recognition of this usurpation of the page’s original intent, we created a new page: Rewilding - species, (later changed to Rewilding - carnivore), to reflect a distinct and prevalent contemporary usage of the word. Again, this new page was repeatedly altered by Ms. Fraser, contesting the word’s usage in anything other than her narrow (conservation biology) definition and inviting us to get our own page!

I believe that Wikipedia prides itself in expressing all aspects of a subject or word, including its vernacular, alternative and contemporary usage and is not confined to a word’s sometimes esoteric or elitist academic expression. I am not an etymologist, but I would venture to guess that ‘rewilded’ is a composite of the prefix ‘re’ (again), and ‘wild’ - clearly an obvious modern colloquial usage to express the concept “made wild again”. Further, the process of rewilding species has been going on for some time such as Billy Arjan Singh’s reintroducing of captive-bred tigers and leopards in India in 1978 for which he was recognized by the conservation community.

Besides the rewilding of South China tigers by Save China’s Tigers, the process, and the term ‘rewilding’, is being used for a number of species conservation projects including: cheetahs (Cheetah Conservation Fund, Madhya Pradesh State, India, Sir Baniyas Island Carnivore Project), leopards (De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Trust, WVI's Amur Leopard Project, giant pandas (China Panda Breeding Technology Committee), cougars (Cougar Rewilding Foundation), hyenas and other species. Rewilding is increasingly being accepted in the conservation community as a potential tool in endangered species recovery.

In citing a first use in the press, Ms. Fraser credits Jennifer Footes article in Newsweek in 1990, but chose to omit the actual quote which I include here: “Militants vow not just to end pollution but to take back and "rewild" one third of the United States.” - Jennifer Foote, "Trying to Take Back the Planet," Newsweek, February 5, 1990 – a usage clearly having a social/political context. Wikipedia also suggests a different first use: “The word ReWilding was first coined by Animá teacher and author Jesse Wolf Hardin under the pen name Lone Wolf Circles in 1986, and was meant to refer to personal rewilding (primal awareness, meeting one's needs, acting not out of obedience but personal responsibility) as well as wilderness restoration”. Neither of these uses reflect a usage associated with a process of species recovery.

We do not dispute the position on use of the word by Michael Soule to describe landscape-scale ecological restoration and we support its inclusion in that context. On her website, under the title “What is Rewilding” Ms. Fraser says: “Rewilding aims to save species by restoring habitats, reviving migration corridors, and brokering peace between people and predators.” However, the reality of the contemporary use of ‘rewilding’ has seen a change to reflect real-world conservation efforts to save specific endangered species (usually carnivores) that DOES NOT necessarily include corridors, or large-scale ecological restoration characteristics described by Soule, nor the social, anarchistic meaning.

Does this make the ‘species’ usage of the word less significant, credible or relevant to Wikipedia? Like the statistician who drowned in the lake that averaged 4” deep, Ms. Fraser needs to take a broader, more encompassing view of meanings than those used in her subjective world.

In her presumptively entitled “Reason for creating this page” comment on the Rewilding (species) discussion page, Ms. Fraser says: “…as far as rewilding goes, this one group cannot define the term for the rest of the world, merely as a means of advertising their own interests.” We agree, nor should an individual who is actively promoting her book “Rewilding the World” or her website by the same name.

We encourage the administrators of Wikipedia to set aside this subjective squabbling and retain three distinct usages of the word ‘rewilding’ and discourage attempts at ownership for any individual’s vested interests.

China's Tiger (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:China's Tiger has recently reverted the article to an earlier version closer to the original by that user. I have just searched through the references and it appears that the only sources used for the article that contain the word "rewilded" at all are the sources related to the Save China's Tigers project, five of which are links to web pages hosted at the project's web site; i.e. all of the sources mentioning other instances of reintroduction, relocation, or translocation of captive carnivores to natural habitats use those words and not the word "rewilding".
Another note is that according to some of the source links an individual affiliated with the project is currently marketing a book entitled Rewilded that was released several months ago. Currently the book's Amazon page, Amazon author's page, and an image of the book's back cover do not mention the proceeds of the book being donated to the project or any philanthropic organization. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

To: Struthious_Bandersnatch Please note that this version of the article is just a start, it is still far from the final product. Other signifcant projects such as a recent orphaned lions rewilding project in South Africa, and Billy Arjan Singh's Tigress rewilding project will also be included. Sections such as "controversies" and "expert support" will also be added as the article continue to be improved on and edited upon. China's Tiger (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 3:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge

An examination of the page leads me to believe that the article is a thinly-disguised advertisement for Save China's Tigers. The term "rewilding" as used in this particular article is fairly synonymous with "reintroduction" or "rehabilitating" when it comes to preparing and placing non-wild carnivores back into the wild. The information found within the article when it comes to "rewilding" is found in various other articles on the synonymous subject. There is no need to duplicate it here, and in fact can be confusing with different bits of relevant information spread across different articles instead of concentrated into a single page. Efforts by Save China's Tiger, while extremely worthwhile, can be relocated (or perhaps "rewilded") back to Save China's Tigers own wiki page. Lighthope (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • doubtful about deletion Dear All,
In my opinion, there is no need to delete the particular article in discussion here. Rewilding is a term with many different definition, and "branches". Within Conservation Biology itself, rewilding has many meanings. In recent years, there have been an uprising of "rewilding" projects, in which captive carnivores is presented with natural environment and game items for them to regain their hunting and survival instincts because research has shown that if no such rewilding process is implemented, chances of death of the particular carnivore will be much higher.
So yes, the more modern definition of rewilding is the rehabilitation of captive carnivores, to allow them to regain their survival potential before being released in the wild. And with that said, they must be "Captive-bred" or "hand-reared". There are so many examples and instances of this happening, such as John Varty's Tiger Canyons project whereby two captive bred tigers from bowmanville zoo are rewilded, Billy Arjan Singh's project etc.
A recent lion rewilding project also clearly indicats that there is a Difference between rewilding of carnivores/species and that of landscape(conservation biology). Read this article about Re-wilding of captive bred lions:http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lion-reintroduction.html#cr
Examples of this type of new "re-wilding" method is pretty ample out there, and Save China's Tigers may be right in that they are the first official rewilding programme. I believe as more people contribute to the article, including myself, it would be more detailed and less bias than it is right now.
Deletion should be the last resort taken, Wikipedia should be more open about its article policies and allow time for these new stud articles to be given a chance to expand before suggestions about deletion come into play.
Just my 2 cents worth, Cheers.
LeoGard (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, to your knowledge is the usage described in Rewilding (Carnivores) part of conservation biology? Because if it is, it belongs in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article. I personally am totally in favor of a small section about it in that article (Small because really, it does not by any means appear to be a very common usage of the term and text about it containing tons of links to the Save China's Tigers web site, as appears in so many articles around Wikipedia, should not dominate that article. By the way, do you know what search engine optimization is?) if community consensus supports it, because it does get some hits in Google Books, it just doesn't appear to be an independent topic.
What I am not so hot about is User:China's Tiger first inserting into Rewilding (conservation biology) the claim that someone from his or her organization coined the term "rewilding" and getting corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserting the same claim into Tiger and getting corrected by me with those same citations, and then creating an entirely new article to make that claim in. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, LeoGard, it's really interesting that User:China's Tiger and you have both edited the completely non-tiger-related page How to Train Your Dragon (film). In fact, China's Tiger added the two sections Dragon Species and then Trivia and then when another user deleted them it seems that you added them back twice. You guys must be really good friends. Too bad you didn't mention that.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/China's Tiger
I don't know whether you're really a "volunteer" for the Save China's Tigers project or not but you've probably done a good job potentially damaging their reputation. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The account LeoGard, which was participating in this AfD above and which coordinated with the User:China's Tiger account in inserting text about the Save China's Tigers project and links to the project's web site into several Wikipedia articles, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rewilding_(Carnivores)&oldid=1068844351"